Who is the ‘public’ when it comes to public opinion on energy? A mixed-methods study of revealed and elicited public attitudes to shale gas extraction

IF 6.9 2区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Energy Research & Social Science Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1016/j.erss.2024.103840
Lorraine Whitmarsh , Yu Shuang Gan , Patrick Devine-Wright , Darrick Evensen , Jen Dickie , Irena Connon , Adam Varley , Stacia Ryder , Phil Bartie
{"title":"Who is the ‘public’ when it comes to public opinion on energy? A mixed-methods study of revealed and elicited public attitudes to shale gas extraction","authors":"Lorraine Whitmarsh ,&nbsp;Yu Shuang Gan ,&nbsp;Patrick Devine-Wright ,&nbsp;Darrick Evensen ,&nbsp;Jen Dickie ,&nbsp;Irena Connon ,&nbsp;Adam Varley ,&nbsp;Stacia Ryder ,&nbsp;Phil Bartie","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2024.103840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Shale gas is a contentious energy source. Yet, ‘imagined’ notions of the public (for example, NIMBYs) rarely reflect the reality of public opinion. We use an inductive, empirical approach to define UK publics in relation to shale gas extraction, drawing on multiple data sources (social media, a national survey, and two local surveys) and composite measures. Cluster analyses and thematic coding reveal a diversity of responses ranging from active opposition, through ambivalence, to active support. The number of communities varies by data source and analytical method, but across all datasets we see more opposition than support. Across all datasets, political views were an important lens through which shale gas was understood. Our findings have implications for how developers and policy-makers engage with the public, and expose limitations of pre-defined notions of the public that may not reflect empirical realities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 103840"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629624004316","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Shale gas is a contentious energy source. Yet, ‘imagined’ notions of the public (for example, NIMBYs) rarely reflect the reality of public opinion. We use an inductive, empirical approach to define UK publics in relation to shale gas extraction, drawing on multiple data sources (social media, a national survey, and two local surveys) and composite measures. Cluster analyses and thematic coding reveal a diversity of responses ranging from active opposition, through ambivalence, to active support. The number of communities varies by data source and analytical method, but across all datasets we see more opposition than support. Across all datasets, political views were an important lens through which shale gas was understood. Our findings have implications for how developers and policy-makers engage with the public, and expose limitations of pre-defined notions of the public that may not reflect empirical realities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在能源问题上,谁是 "公众"?关于公众对页岩气开采态度的揭示和诱导的混合方法研究
页岩气是一种有争议的能源。然而,"想象中的 "公众概念(例如,NIMBYs)很少能反映公众舆论的现实。我们采用归纳、实证的方法,利用多种数据来源(社交媒体、一项全国性调查和两项地方性调查)和综合衡量标准来界定与页岩气开采相关的英国公众。聚类分析和主题编码揭示了从积极反对到矛盾再到积极支持的各种反应。不同数据源和分析方法的社区数量各不相同,但在所有数据集中,我们发现反对的多于支持的。在所有数据集中,政治观点是理解页岩气的一个重要视角。我们的研究结果对开发商和政策制定者如何与公众打交道产生了影响,并揭示了预先定义的公众概念的局限性,这些概念可能无法反映经验现实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Energy Research & Social Science
Energy Research & Social Science ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
16.40%
发文量
441
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers. Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.
期刊最新文献
Desert or garden? Energy sacrifice zones, territorial affordances and competing visions for post-coal landscapes: The case of the Czechoslovak Army Mine Retrofit information challenges and potential solutions: Perspectives of households, retrofit professionals and local policy makers in the United Kingdom Institutional entrepreneuring for energy poverty: The role of boundary work in developing a collaborative product-service system for household appliances A technology to solve the water-energy-food crisis? Mapping sociotechnical configurations of agrivoltaics using Q-methodology Justice or just plans? Reviewing the energy transition strategy of Brazil's Ceará state
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1