Energy’s central place in economic, political and social systems—and the broad impacts that energy choices have on the natural world and public health—mean that new technologies often spur public reactions. Understanding these public responses and their drivers is important, as public support can influence new technology adoption and deployment. Here I review the literature on public perceptions of and responses to a wide range of new energy technologies. Unlike previous reviews that tend to focus on particular technologies or types of technologies, this Review covers both large-scale energy infrastructure projects, such as utility-scale wind and solar, fossil fuel extraction and marine renewables, as well as small-scale, ‘consumer-facing’ technologies such as electric vehicles, rooftop solar and smart meters. This approach reveals broad trends that may facilitate communication between policymakers, technologists and the public, and support the transition to a more sustainable energy system. Public responses to new energy technologies can influence adoption and deployment. This Review brings together research on public perceptions of and responses to a wide range of energy technologies around the themes of technology, people, place and process.

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10099333

Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies

The relationship of justice and law is an eternal proposition in the philosophy of law. In general, justice would be realized by the realization of procedural justice and procedural justice includes these key elements: establishing and strengthening the status of the subject of procedural justice; deciding the standard of case's reality and neutrality of judges.

On Procedural Justice

I thoroughly recommend this book as a valiant, inspirational, and pioneering attempt to bring together research in energy and justice. One could fall into the trap of claiming expert timeliness in ...

Energy justice in a changing climate: social equity and low-carbon energy, edited by Karen Bickerstaff, Gordon Walker, and Harriet Bulkeley

Advancing relational accounts of ‘resource-making’ processes by deploying insights from science and technology studies, this article outlines crucial new lines of inquiry for geographical research ...

/pdf/resource-making-controversies-knowledge-anticipatory-1qorela8x7.pdf

Resource-making controversies: Knowledge, anticipatory politics and economization of unconventional fossil fuels:

This paper explores the conflict over shale gas exploration in Lancashire where the company Cuadrilla is preparing to horizontally drill and hydraulically fracture the first shale gas wells in England. At present, this is the only location in Europe where new commercial exploration for shale gas is underway, thus the outcome has wider significance. The initial planning applications were refused by Lancashire County Council in June 2015. The decisions were then appealed by Cuadrilla and there was a public enquiry in February and March of 2016. On 6 October 2016, the central Government over-turned the initial decisions at one site and gave Cuadrilla more time to address traffic concerns at the other. The paper uses the public enquiry to map the contours of the shale gas conflict. It is divided into three sections. The first explores public attitudes towards shale gas development in the UK and reveals growing public awareness and increasing opposition. The second presents the conceptual frame for the analysis, which includes both a critical assessment of the social licence to operate (SLO) and an introduction to a social, actuarial, and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model). The third deploys the SAP model to analyse the public enquiry. The model explains how Cuadrilla is able drill despite the absence of both a local political and social licence to operate. It is concluded that unless the industry and the government can address growing public concerns about shale gas development, continuing conflict could constrain commercial development.

Learning from Lancashire: exploring the contours of the shale gas conflict in England

Questions abound about the appropriate governance systems to manage the risks of unconventional oil and gas development, and the ability for citizens to engage and participate in those systems. In this paper, we map the development of shale gas governance in the US and UK; we highlight the contrasting systems of land ownership and mineral rights, compare the opportunities that these systems of governance present the general public to participate and become involved in shale gas decisions and consider the implications on issues of social justice. We conclude that in both countries, that despite government and industry engagement rhetoric and associated processes, the publics’ influence on shale gas decisions is perceived to be minimal or not at all. We argue that the implications of the observed institutional governance systems, with few opportunities for citizen influence, are developments which inherently lack social justice, procedural fairness, and ultimately, a social license to operate.

Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and the United States: Opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice

Beyond opposition and acceptance: Examining public perceptions of the environmental and health impacts of unconventional oil and gas extraction

Shale energy development is an issue of global importance. The number of reserves globally, and their potential economic return, have increased dramatically in the past decade. Questions abound, however, about the appropriate governance systems to manage the risks of unconventional oil and gas development and the ability for citizens to engage and participate in decisions regarding these systems. Stakeholder participation is essential for the social and political legitimacy of energy extraction and production, what the industry calls a 'social license' to operate.

This book attempts to bring together critical themes inherent in the energy governance literature and illustrate them through cases in multiple countries, including the US, the UK, Canada, South Africa, Germany and Poland. These themes include how multiple actors and institutions – industry, governments and regulatory bodies at all scales, communities, opposition movements, and individual landowners – have roles in developing, contesting, monitoring, and enforcing practices and regulations within unconventional oil and gas development. Overall, the book proposes a systemic, participatory, community-led approach required to achieve a form of legitimacy that allows communities to derive social priorities by a process of community visioning.

This book will be of great relevance to scholars and policy-makers with an interest in shale gas development, and energy policy and governance.

Governing Shale Gas : Development, Citizen Participation and Decision Making in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe

Shale gas governance in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe : Public participation and the role of social justice

Comparative Cross-Country Analysis on Preliminary Identification of Key Factors Underlying Public Perception and Societal Engagement with Nuclear Developments in Different National Contexts [HoNESt – History of Nuclear Energy and Society, Project Report D4.2]

Ioan Charnley-Parry

Papers

Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and the United States: Opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice

Beyond opposition and acceptance: Examining public perceptions of the environmental and health impacts of unconventional oil and gas extraction

Governing Shale Gas : Development, Citizen Participation and Decision Making in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe

Shale gas governance in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe : Public participation and the role of social justice

Comparative Cross-Country Analysis on Preliminary Identification of Key Factors Underlying Public Perception and Societal Engagement with Nuclear Developments in Different National Contexts [HoNESt – History of Nuclear Energy and Society, Project Report D4.2]