IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v5y2015i4p497-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Edwina Barvosa

Abstract

Scholars of science governance continue to grapple with the question: by what means can public perspectives—including dissenting public voices and local forms of knowledge—be effectively sought out and influentially integrated into the governance of new or evolving science and technology? A particular challenge exists regarding how to interpret and incorporate the public ambivalence toward specific technologies often found in public deliberation research. This paper explores the possibility that the measurement and mapping of diverse forms of public ambivalence can serve as a tool for identifying public concerns and conditions of acceptance for new technologies. Potential applications to democratize the governance of fracking technologies in the USA are discussed. Copyright AESS 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Edwina Barvosa, 2015. "Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 497-507, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:5:y:2015:i:4:p:497-507
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-015-0340-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13412-015-0340-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-015-0340-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dorothy M. Daley, 2007. "Citizen groups and scientific decisionmaking: Does public participation influence environmental outcomes?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 349-368.
    2. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    3. Gail Davies, 2006. "The Sacred and the Profane: Biotechnology, Rationality, and Public Debate," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(3), pages 423-443, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Colville, Shannon & Steen, John & Gosine, Raymond, 2021. "Do public review processes reflect public input? A study of hydraulic fracturing reviews in Australia and Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    2. Wang, Jing & Li, Yazhou & Wu, Jianlin & Gu, Jibao & Xu, Shuo, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Frances Drake, 2018. "Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. & Ortega-Cerda, Miquel, 2011. "Assessment of the Agri-food System for Sustainability: Recognizing Ignorance," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115965, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    3. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    4. Jonathan Breckon, 2022. "Communicating and using systematic reviews—Learning from other disciplines," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    5. J. J. Warmink & M. Brugnach & J. Vinke-de Kruijf & R. M. J. Schielen & D. C. M. Augustijn, 2017. "Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4587-4600, November.
    6. Alireza Taghdisian & Sandra G. F. Bukkens & Mario Giampietro, 2022. "A Societal Metabolism Approach to Effectively Analyze the Water–Energy–Food Nexus in an Agricultural Transboundary River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-25, July.
    7. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    8. Durrant, Rachael & Ely, Adrian, 2022. "Deliberative-analytic approaches to Ecosystem Services as a way forward for the land sparing/sharing debate," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Namrata Chindarkar & R. Quentin Grafton, 2019. "India's depleting groundwater: When science meets policy," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 108-124, January.
    10. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    11. José Manuel Palma‐Oliveira & Benjamin D. Trump & Matthew D. Wood & Igor Linkov, 2018. "Community‐Driven Hypothesis Testing: A Solution for the Tragedy of the Anticommons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 620-634, March.
    12. Weber, Heloise & Weber, Martin, 2020. "When means of implementation meet Ecological Modernization Theory: A critical frame for thinking about the Sustainable Development Goals initiative," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    13. Nolting, Lars & Praktiknjo, Aaron, 2022. "The complexity dilemma – Insights from security of electricity supply assessments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    14. Emery Roe, 2016. "Policy messes and their management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 351-372, December.
    15. Coburn, Josie & Bone, Frederique & Hopkins, Michael M. & Stirling, Andy & Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jorge & Arapostathis, Stathis & Llewelyn, Martin J., 2021. "Appraising research policy instrument mixes: a multicriteria mapping study in six European countries of diagnostic innovation to manage antimicrobial resistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    16. Edwards, Eric C. & Cristi, Oscar & Edwards, Gonzalo & Libecap, Gary D., 2018. "An illiquid market in the desert: estimating the cost of water trade restrictions in northern Chile," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(6), pages 615-634, December.
    17. Annalisa Ferrari & Piergiuseppe Morone & Valentina E. Tartiu, 2016. "Tackling Uncertainty through Business Plan Analysis—A Case Study on Citrus Waste Valorisation in the South of Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, January.
    18. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. Speirs, Jamie & McGlade, Christophe & Slade, Raphael, 2015. "Uncertainty in the availability of natural resources: Fossil fuels, critical metals and biomass," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 654-664.
    20. Mazzucato, Mariana & Semieniuk, Gregor, 2018. "Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 8-22.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:5:y:2015:i:4:p:497-507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.