IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v47y2015i9p1944-1962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Cotton

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Cotton, 2015. "Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1944-1962, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:47:y:2015:i:9:p:1944-1962
    DOI: 10.1177/0308518X15597134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X15597134
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0308518X15597134?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    2. Truelove, Heather Barnes, 2012. "Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 478-489.
    3. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    4. Charles Davis & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2014. "Energy Abundance or Environmental Worries? Analyzing Public Support for Fracking in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Charles Davis & Katherine Hoffer, 2012. "Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(3), pages 221-241, September.
    6. Stephenson, Eleanor & Doukas, Alexander & Shaw, Karena, 2012. "“Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 452-459.
    7. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    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. Bob Castelein & Ron van Duin & Harry Geerlings, 2019. "Identifying Dominant Stakeholder Perspectives on Sustainability Issues in Reefer Transportation. A Q-Method Study in the Port of Rotterdam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, June.
    2. 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. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2017. "Exploring the intersections between local knowledge and environmental regulation: A study of shale gas extraction in Texas and Lancashire," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(3), pages 417-433, May.
    3. Zhou, Zhongbing & Qin, Quande, 2020. "Epistemological dominance and ignorance of the comparative advantages of China's shale gas: Evidence from international scientific journals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    5. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    6. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2020. "Perceptions of deforestation in the Argentinean Chaco: Combining Q-method and environmental justice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    7. Robin Hickman & Neil Lopez & Mengqiu Cao & Beatriz Mella Lira & Jose Bienvenido Manuel Biona, 2018. "“I Drive outside of Peak Time to Avoid Traffic Jams—Public Transport Is Not Attractive Here.” Challenging Discourses on Travel to the University Campus in Manila," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    8. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    9. T E van der Lei & W A H Thissen, 2009. "Quantitative problem structuring methods for multi-actor problems: an analysis of reported applications," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1198-1206, September.
    10. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    11. Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Rajé, Fiona, 2007. "Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 467-477, November.
    13. Holahan, Robert & Arnold, Gwen, 2013. "An institutional theory of hydraulic fracturing policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 127-134.
    14. Isyaku, Usman, 2021. "What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    15. Cotton, Matthew & Barkemeyer, Ralf & Renzi, Barbara Gabriella & Napolitano, Giulio, 2019. "Fracking and metaphor: Analysing newspaper discourse in the USA, Australia and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.
    17. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    19. Loring, Philip A. & Hinzman, Megan S., 2018. "“They're All Really Important, But…”: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 367-377.
    20. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.

    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:sae:envira:v:47:y:2015:i:9:p:1944-1962. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.