EIA. Drilling productivity report for key tight oil and shale gas regions. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr‐full.pdf. (Accessed November 12, 2015).
EIA. North America leads the world in production of shale gas. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13491. (Accessed February 10, 2016).
McGlade, C, Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 2015, 517:187–190.
McGarr, A, Bekins, B, Burkardt, N, Dewey, J, Earle, P, Ellsworth, W, Ge, S, Hickman, S, Holland, A, Majer, E. Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection. Science 2015, 347:830–831.
The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing. Project Report, June 29, 2012. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/topics‐policy/projects/shale‐gas‐extraction/report/. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
Ferrar, KJ, Kriesky, J, Christen, CL, Marshall, LP, Malone, SL, Sharma, RK, Michanowicz, DR, Goldstein, BD. Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale region. Int J Occup Environ Health 2013, 19:104–112.
Jacquet, JB, Stedman, RC. The risk of social‐psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change. J Environ Plan Manage 2014, 57:1285–1304.
HEI. Strategic research agenda on the potential impacts of 21st Century oil and gas development in the Appalachian region and beyond. Health Effects Institute Special Scientific Committee on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in the Appalachian Basin. Available at: http://www.healtheffects.org/UOGD/UOGDWorkshopJul2015.html. (Accessed November 16, 2015).
Freudenburg, WR, Rosa, EA. Public Reaction to Nuclear Power: Are there Critical Masses? vol. 93. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1984.
Keeney, RL, Von Winterfeldt, D, Eppel, T. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Manage Sci 1990, 36:1011–1030.
Wynne, B. Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain. Chalfont St. Giles: British Society for the History of Science; 1982.
Mastop, J, Rietkerk, M. Review of lessons learned on public perceptions and engagement from other large‐scale energy technologies. M4ShaleGas—measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of shale gas. TNO‐Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research: The European Union`s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme; 2015.
Pidgeon, N, Hood, C, Jones, D, Turner, B, Gibson, R. %22Risk perception%22. In: Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. London: The Royal Society; 1992, 89–134.
Slovic, P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 1993, 13:675–682.
Devine‐Wright, P, Howes, Y. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study. J Environ Psychol 2010, 30:271–280.
Pidgeon, NF, Demski, C. From nuclear to renewable: energy system transformation and public attitudes. Bull At Sci 2012, 68:41–51.
Henwood, KL, Pidgeon, NF. Risk and identity futures. London: Future Identities Programme; 2014.
Pidgeon, N, Kasperson, RE, Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
Stirling, A. %22Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology%22. In: Leach, M, Scoones, I, Wynne, B, eds. Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books; 2005, 218–231.
Bellamy, R, Lezaun, J. Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Underst Sci 2015. doi:10.1177/0963662515600965.
Renn, O, Webler, T, Wiedemann, P. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1995.
Stern, PC, Fineberg, HC. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: US National Research Council; 1996.
Renn, O. Risk Governance: Towards an Integrated Approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council; 2006.
Lis, A, Braendle, C, Fleischer, T, Thomas, M, Evensen, D, Mastop, J. Existing European data on public perceptions of shale gas. M4ShaleGas—measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of shale gas. TNO‐Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research: The European Union`s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme; 2015. Available at: http://www.m4shalegas.eu/downloads/M4ShaleGas%20‐%20D17.1%20‐%20Existing%20European%20data%20on%20public%20perceptions%20of%20shale%20gas%20‐%20Nov.%202015.pdf. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
Bradshaw, MJ. Integrated review of public perceptions of shale gas impacts. M4ShaleGas—measuring, monitoring, mitigating and managing the environmental impact of shale gas). TNO‐Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research: The European Union`s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme; 2016. Available at: http://www.m4shalegas.eu/reportsp4.html. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
Bradshaw, MJ. %22Unconventional gas in the United Kingdom%22. In: Grafton, Q, Cronshaw, I, Moore, M, eds. Risks, Rewards and Regulation on Unconventional Gas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016.
Jaspal, R, Turner, A, Nerlich, B. Fracking on YouTube: exploring risks, benefits and human values. Environ Values 2014, 23:501–527.
Fischhoff, B, Slovic, P, Lichtenstein, S. %22Knowing what you want: measuring labile values%22. In: Wallsten, T, ed. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum; 1980, 117–141.
Pidgeon, NF, Harthorn, B, Satterfield, T, Demski, CC. %22Cross‐national comparative commmunication and deliberation about the risks of nanotechnologies%22. In: Schefele, D, Kahan, D, Hall‐Jameson, K, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
Demski, CC. Public perceptions of renewable energy technologies: challenging the notion of widespread support. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, 2011.
Evensen, DT, Clarke, CE, Stedman, RC. A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale. J Environ Stud Sci 2014, 4:65–77.
Jacquet, J, Stedman, RC. Natural gas landowner coalitions in New York State: emerging benefits of collective natural resource management. J Rural Soc Sci 2011, 26:62–91.
Brasier, KJ, Filteau, MR, McLaughlin, DK, Jacquet, J, Stedman, RC, Kelsey, TW, Goetz, SJ. Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale: a comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. J Rural Soc Sci 2011, 26:32–61.
Israel, AL, Wong‐Parodi, G, Webler, T, Stern, PC. Eliciting public concerns about an emerging energy technology: the case of unconventional shale gas development in the United States. Energy Res SocSci 2015, 8:139–150.
Ladd, AE. Stakeholder perceptions of socioenvironmental impacts from unconventional natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the Haynesville Shale. J Rural Soc Sci 2013, 28:56–89.
Hudgins, A. Fracking`s future in a coal mining past: subjectivity undermined. Cult Agric Food Environ 2013, 35:54–59.
Anderson, BJ, Theodori, GL. Local leaders’ perceptions of energy development in the Barnett shale. South Rural Sociol 2009, 24:113–129.
Schafft, K, Biddle, C. Opportunity, ambivalence, and youth perspectives on community change in Pennsylvania`s Marcellus Shale Region. Hum Organ 2015, 74:74–85.
Schafft, KA, Biddle, C. School and community impacts of hydraulic fracturing within Pennsylvania`s Marcellus Shale Region, and the dilemmas of educational leadership in Gasfield Boomtowns. Peabody J Educ 2014, 89:670–682.
Wynveen, BJ. A thematic analysis of local respondents’ perceptions of Barnett Shale energy development. J Rural Soc Sci 2011, 26:8–31.
Perry, SL. Development, land use, and collective trauma: the Marcellus Shale gas boom in rural Pennsylvania. Cult Agric Food Environ 2012, 34:81–92.
Evensen, DT. Policy decisions on shale gas development (‘Fracking’): the insufficiency of science and necessity of moral thought. Environ Values 2015, 24:511–534.
Willow, AJ. The new politics of environmental degradation: un/expected landscapes of disempowerment and vulnerability. J Polit Ecol 2014, 21:237–257.
Malin, S. There`s no real choice but to sign: neoliberalization and normalization of hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland. J Environ Stud Sci 2014, 4:17–27.
Simonelli, J. Home rule and natural gas development in New York: civil fracking rights. J Polit Ecol 2014, 21:258–278.
Perry, SL. Using ethnography to monitor the community health implications of onshore unconventional oil and gas developments: examples from Pennsylvania`s Marcellus Shale. New Solut 2013, 23:33–53.
Brasier, K, Davis, L, Glenna, L, Kelsey, T, McLaughlin, D, Schafft, K, Babbie, K, Biddle, C, Delessio‐Parson, A, Rhubart, D. The Marcellus Shale Impacts Study: Chronicling Social and Economic Change in North Central and Southwest Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: The Center for Rural Pennsylvania; 2014, 1–65.
Willow, AJ, Zak, R, Vilaplana, D, Sheeley, D. The contested landscape of unconventional energy development: a report from Ohio`s shale gas country. J Environ Stud Sci 2014, 4:56–64.
Theodori, GL, Willits, FK, Luloff, A. Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region public perceptions survey: a summary report. Huntsville, TX: Center for Rural Studies; 2012.
Theodori, GL, Luloff, A, Willits, FK, Burnett, DB. Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: views from the public in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014, 2:66–74.
Kriesky, J, Goldstein, B, Zell, K, Beach, S. Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity. Energy Policy 2013, 58:228–236.
Evensen, D, Jacquet, JB, Clarke, CE, Stedman, RC. What`s the ‘fracking`problem? One word can`t say it all. Extract Ind Soc 2014, 1:130–136.
Crowe, J, Ceresola, R, Silva, T. The influence of value orientations, personal beliefs, and knowledge about resource extraction on local leaders` positions on shale development. Rural Sociol 2015, 80:397–430.
Boudet, H, Clarke, C, Bugden, D, Maibach, E, Roser‐Renouf, C, Leiserowitz, A. “Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 2014, 65:57–67.
Stedman, RC, Jacquet, JB, Filteau, MR, Willits, FK, Brasier, KJ, McLaughlin, DK. Marcellus shale gas development and new boomtown research: views of New York and Pennsylvania residents. Environ Pract 2012, 14:382–393.
Theodori, GL, Wynveen, BJ, Fox, WE, Burnett, DB. Public perception of desalinated water from oil and gas field operations: data from Texas. Soc Nat Resour 2009, 22:674–685.
Pew Research Center. What Energy Boom? Half Unaware of Rise in U.S. Production: Continued Support for Keystone XL Pipeline. Washington, D.C.:Pew Research Center; 2013.
Borick, CP, Rabe, BG, Lachapelle, E. Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), University of Michigan; 2014.
Brown, E, Hartman, K, Borick, CP, Rabe, BG, Ivacko, TM. The national surveys on energy and environment public opinion on fracking: perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania. Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) Survey Report, Climate Policy Options; 2013.
Rabe, BG, Borick, CP. Fracking for natural gas: public opinion on state policy options. Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), Survey Report: Fracking; 2011.
Clarke, C, Boudet, H, Bugden, D. Fracking in the American mind: Americans’ views on hydraulic fracturing in September, 2012. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University; 2012.
Davis, C, Fisk, JM. Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States. Rev Policy Res 2014, 31:1–16.
Ivacko, TM, Horner, D. Fracking as a Community Issue in Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan; 2014.
Brooks, S. UT energy poll shows divide on fracking. Available at: http://news.utexas.edu/2013/04/09/ut‐energy‐poll‐shows‐divide‐on‐fracking. (Accessed November 24, 2015).
Jacquet, JB. Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy 2012, 50:677–688.
Lachapelle, E, Montpetit, É. %22Public opinion on hydraulic fracturing in the province of Quebec: a comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania%22. In: Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan; 2014.
Theodori, GL. Perception of the natural gas industry and engagement in individual civic actions. J Rural Soc Sci 2013, 28:122–134.
Jacquet, JB, Stedman, RC. Perceived impacts from wind farm and natural gas development in Northern Pennsylvania. Rural Sociol 2013, 78:450–472.
Theodori, GL. Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development. South Rural Sociol 2009, 24:97–117.
Kromer, M. Public Perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in three Marcellus Shale States. Issues Energy Environ Policy 2015, 20:1–12.
Clarke, CE, Hart, PS, Schuldt, JP, Evensen, DT, Boudet, HS, Jacquet, JB, Stedman, RC. Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top‐of‐mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 2015, 81:131–140.
Theodori, GL. Public perception of the natural gas industry: data from the Barnett Shale. Energy Sources Part B Econ Plann Policy 2012, 7:275–281.
Council of Canadians. Fracking poll results. Available at: http://canadians.org/media/water/2012/06‐Feb‐12‐backgrounder.html. (Accessed September 1, 2015).
Lachapelle, E, Montpetit, É, Gauvin, JP. Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: the role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Stud J 2014, 42:674–697.
Baldassare, M, Bonner, D, Petek, S, Shrestha, J. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. San Francisco, CA:Public Policy Institute of California; 2014.
Corporate Research Associates. Slight majority of nova scotians opposed to hydrofracking in the province; 2013 Available at: http://cra.ca/slight‐majority‐of‐nova‐scotians‐opposed‐to‐hydrofracking‐in‐the‐province/. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
Schafft, KA, Borlu, Y, Glenna, L. The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociol 2013, 78:143–166.
Mallinson, DJ. Upstream influence: the positive impact of PAC contributions on Marcellus Shale roll call votes in Pennsylvania. Interest Groups Advoc 2014, 3:293–314.
Mazur, A. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012? Public Underst Sci 2016, 25:207–222.
Schafft, KA, Glenna, LL, Green, B, Borlu, Y. Local impacts of unconventional gas development within Pennsylvania`s Marcellus Shale Region: gauging boomtown development through the perspectives of educational administrators. Soc Nat Resour 2014, 27:389–404.
Brasier, KJ, Davis, L, Glenna, L, Kelsey, TW, McLaughlin, DK, Schafft, K, Babbie, K, Biddle, C, DeLessio‐Parson, A, Rhubart, D, et al. %22Communities experiencing shale gas development%22. In: Hefley, WE, Wang, Y, eds. Economics of Unconventional Shale Gas Development. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015, 149–178.
Kasperson, RE, Ram, BJ. The public acceptance of new energy technologies. Daedalus 2013, 142:90–96.
Jacquet, JB. Review of risks to communities from shale energy development. Environ Sci Technol 2014, 48:8321–8333.
Sovacool, BK. Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014, 37:249–264.
Lerner, M. Opportunity, risk, and public acceptability: the question of shale gas exploitation in Québec. Issues Energy Environ Policy 2015, 16:1–29.
McCright, AM. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Popul Environ 2010, 32:66–87.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and Society, 3rd Report. London:House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee; 2000.
Harthorn, B, Shearer, C, Rogers, J. %22Risk perception, public participation, and sustainable global development of nanotechnologies%22. In: Parker, RA, Appelbaum, RP, eds. Can Emerging Technologies Make a Difference in Development? New York: Routledge; 2012.
Graham, JD, Rupp, JA, Schenk, O. Unconventional gas development in the USA: exploring the risk perception issues. Risk Anal 2015, 35:1770–1788.
Christopherson, S. %22Risks beyond the well pad: the economic footprint of shale gas development in the US%22. In: Finkel, ML, ed. The Human and Environmental Impact of Fracking: How Fracturing Shale for Gas Affects Us and Our World. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger; 2015.
Cortese, CF, Jones, B. The sociological analysis of boom towns. Western Sociol Rev 1977, 8:76–90.
Devine‐Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125–139.
Boholm, Å, Löfstedt, R. Facility Siting: Risk Power and Identity in Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan; 1994.
Bell, D, Gray, T, Haggett, C. The ‘Social Gap’ in wind farm policy siting decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ Polit 2005, 14:460–477.
Petrova, MA. NIMBYism revisited: public acceptance of wind energy in the United States. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:575–601.
Dietz, T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013, 110(suppl 3):14081–14087.
Wynne, B. %22Ghosts of the machine: publics, meanings and science in a time of expert dogma and denial%22. In: Chilvers, J, Kearns, M, eds. Remaking Participation. London: Routledge; 2016, 99–120.
Broderick, J, Anderson, K, Wood, R, Gilbert, P, Sharmina, M, Footitt, A, Glynn, S, Nicholls, F. Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts. A report commissioned by the co‐operative and undertaken by researchers at the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester; 2011.
Lorenzoni, I, Pidgeon, NF. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 2006, 77:73–95.
Leiserowitz, AA. American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal 2005, 25:1433–1442.
Spence, A, Poortinga, W, Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 2012, 32:957–972.
Brügger, A, Dessai, S, Devine‐Wright, P, Morton, TA, Pidgeon, NF. Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat Clim Change 2015, 5:1031–1037.
Pidgeon, NF, Demski, CC, Butler, C, Parkhill, KA, Spence, A. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014, 111:13606–13613.
Evensen, D. Ethics and ‘fracking’: a review of (the limited) moral thought on shale gas development. WIREs Water 2016, 3:575–586.
Pidgeon, NF, Poortinga, W, Rowe, G, Horlick‐Jones, T, Walls, J, O`Riordan, T. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Anal 2005, 25: 467‐479.
Fischhoff, B, Lichtenstein, S, Slovic, P, Derby, SL, Keeney, RL. Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1981.
Breakwell, G. The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
Poortinga, W, Pidgeon, NF. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 2003, 23:961–972.
Hargreaves, I, Lewis, J, Speers, T. Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council; 2003.
Mobbs, P. “Frackademics”—a study of the relationships between academia, the fossil fuels industry and public agencies. A report commissioned by Talk Fracking and produced by Paul Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations. Available at: http://www.talkfracking.org/frackademics/frackademics‐report/#introduction. (Accessed November 20, 2015).
Kahan, DM, Jenkins‐Smith, H, Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 2011, 14:147–174.
Demski, C, Butler, C, Parkhill, KA, Spence, A, Pidgeon, NF. Public values for energy system change. Glob Environ Change 2015, 34:59–69.
Greenberg, M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site‐specific data. Energy Policy 2009, 37:3242–3249.
McGowan, F, Sauter, R. Public Opinion on Energy Research: A Desk Study for the Research Councils. Brighton, UK: Sussex Energy Group, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex; 2005.
Vidic, R, Brantley, S, Vandenbossche, J, Yoxtheimer, D, Abad, J. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 2013, 340:1235009.
Douglas, M, Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1982.
Kahan, D. %22Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk%22. In: Hillerbrand, R, Sandin, P, Roeser, S, Peterson, M, eds. Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk. London: Springer; 2012, 725–760.
O`Hara, S, Humphrey, M, Andersson‐Hudson, J, Knight, W. Public perception of shale gas extraction in the UK: From positive to negative; 2016. Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131787519/public‐perceptions‐of‐shale‐gas‐in‐the‐UK‐September‐2015‐pdf. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
Davidson, DJ, Freudenburg, WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 1996, 28:302–339.
Henwood, KL, Pidgeon, NF. %22Gender, ethical voices and UK nuclear energy policy in the post‐Fukushima era%22. In: Taebi, B, Roeser, S, eds. The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the Post‐Fukushima Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
Satterfield, TA, Mertz, C, Slovic, P. Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal 2004, 24:115–129.
Finucane, ML, Slovic, P, Mertz, CK, Flynn, J, Satterfield, TA. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the `white male` effect. Health Risk Soc 2000, 2:159–172.
Cotton, M, Rattle, I, Van Alstine, J. Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy 2014, 73:427–438.
Bomberg, E. Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. J Environ Policy Plann 2015, 1‐17. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053111.
TNS‐BMRB. Public engagement with shale gas and oil: a report on findings from public dialogue workshops; 2014. Available at: http://www.sciencewise‐erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Publicengagementwithshalegasandoil.pdf. (Accessed December 11, 2016).
Williams, L, Macnaghten, P, Davies, R, Curtis, S. Framing ‘fracking’: exploring public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Underst Sci 2015, pii:0963662515595159.
DECC. DECC Public Attitudes Tracker—Wave 16: Summary of Key Findings. London, UK: Department of Energy and Climate Change; 2016.
Whitmarsh, L, Nash, N, Upham, P, Lloyd, A, Verdon, JP, Kendall, J‐M. UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: the role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support. Appl Energy 2015, 160:419–430.
Tobler, C, Visschers, VHM, Siegrist, M. Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Clim Change 2012, 114:189–209.
Wiersma, B, Devine‐Wright, P. Public engagement with offshore renewable energy: a critical review. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:493–507.
IEA. Oil market report. International Energy Agency; 2015. Available at: https://www.iea.org/media/omrreports/fullissues/2015‐09‐11.pdf. (Accessed November 12, 2015).
Warner, NR, Christie, CA, Jackson, RB, Vengosh, A. Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 2013, 47:11849–11857.
Frohlich, C. Two‐year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection‐well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109:13934–13938.
Ellsworth, WL. Injection‐induced earthquakes. Science 2013, 341:1225942.
Pidgeon, NF, Butler, C. Risk analysis and climate change. Environ Polit 2009, 18:670–688.
Batel, S, Devine‐Wright, P. Energy colonialism and the role of the global in local responses to new energy infrastructures in the UK: a critical and exploratory empirical analysis. Antipode 2017, 49:3–22. doi:10.1111/anti.12261.