Literature DB >> 29569653

Cultural Theory of Risk as a Heuristic for Understanding Perceptions of Oil and Gas Development in Eastern Montana, USA.

Jamie McEvoy1, Susan Gilbertz2, Matthew Anderson3, Kerri Jean Ormerod4, Nicolas Bergmann1.   

Abstract

This paper applies Douglas' cultural theory of risk to understand perceptions of risk associated with oil and gas development in eastern Montana. Based on the analysis of interviews with 36 rural residents, findings show the dominant perception of risk is most closely aligned with an Individualist worldview. Despite direct experience with oil or wastewater spills, most interviewees described spills as "no big deal", viewed nature as resilient, and felt that the economic benefits outweigh negative impacts. Cultural theory was a useful heuristic for understanding this dominant worldview, as well as identifying points of deviation. For example, interviewees discussed the benefits of landowner associations - a more Egalitarian approach to dealing with oil companies. Some landowners relied on external authorities (e.g., sheriff) when dealing with oil companies, revealing a Hierarchical approach to issues they face. Interviewees expressed frustration with the lack of enforcement of existing regulations, which can be interpreted as either support for - or indictment of - Hierarchical solutions. While the Individualist worldview is dominant, our qualitative analysis reveals the complex tensions at work among rural residents. The results suggest areas where policymakers, advocacy groups, and residents may find common ground to address potential environmental and health risks.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cultural Theory of Risk; Montana; Oil and Gas Development; Risk Perception

Year:  2017        PMID: 29569653      PMCID: PMC5858731          DOI: 10.1016/j.exis.2017.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Extr Ind Soc        ISSN: 2214-790X


  5 in total

Review 1.  Potential public health hazards, exposures and health effects from unconventional natural gas development.

Authors:  John L Adgate; Bernard D Goldstein; Lisa M McKenzie
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 2.  Review of risks to communities from shale energy development.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Jacquet
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 3.  A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States.

Authors:  Avner Vengosh; Robert B Jackson; Nathaniel Warner; Thomas H Darrah; Andrew Kondash
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Social benefit versus technological risk.

Authors:  C Starr
Journal:  Science       Date:  1969-09-19       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Perception of risk.

Authors:  P Slovic
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-04-17       Impact factor: 47.728

  5 in total
  3 in total

1.  Unconventional natural gas development and adverse birth outcomes in Pennsylvania: The potential mediating role of antenatal anxiety and depression.

Authors:  Joan A Casey; Dana E Goin; Kara E Rudolph; Brian S Schwartz; Dione Mercer; Holly Elser; Ellen A Eisen; Rachel Morello-Frosch
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 6.498

2.  The Bakken Blind Field: Investigating Planetary Urbanization and Opaqueness in the Oil and Gas Fields of Eastern Montana, USA.

Authors:  Susan J Gilbertz; Matthew B Anderson; Jason M Adkins
Journal:  Ann Am Assoc Geogr       Date:  2020-07-27

3.  Why take the risk? Exploring the psychosocial determinants of floodwater driving.

Authors:  Shauntelle Benjamin; Melissa Parsons; Deborah Apthorp; Amy D Lykins
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-07-19
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.