The Industry in Our Backyard:
Documenting the Community Health
Experiences of Marcellus Shale Women
Lisa McDevitt
Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute
McDevitt |1
Abstract:
The aim of this research is to better understand what factors shape how women in
Marcellus Shale communities perceive and experience the community health impacts of
shale gas extraction. The controversial new technologies of high volume hydraulic
fracturing and horizontal drilling have enabled the natural gas industry to extract shale
gas, which was previously unattainable. As a result, communities overlying shale gas
deposits experience a rapid influx of industry, bringing with it questions of negative
environmental, health, and social impacts. By understanding how women experience
these impacts, this study seeks to contribute to the knowledge of how the community as a
whole is affected by the shale gas industry, and contribute to the ongoing debate about
the viability of shale gas as an alternative energy source. The work will draw upon the
existing literatures on the social impacts of fracking, environmental justice, and gender
and environmentalism. The research will be carried out through a combination of
literature review, interviews with community members, and interviews with health care
and legal professionals.
McDevitt |2
1. Overview:
This study aims to increase the understanding of the community health impacts of
shale gas extraction, by looking at the ways in which women experience these stresses as
well as the factors that shape this experience. This research seeks to answer the question,
“what factors shape the experiences of women in communities affected by the shale gas
industry and how do these experiences reflect those of the community as a whole?”
Methods used to achieve this goal will include an extensive review of the existing
literatures related to the subject, as well as field work in the areas affected by shale gas
drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Women, as key figures in the shale gas debate and as a
particularly vulnerable population, will provide a window into these communities.
The first stream of this research will consist of a review of the existing literature
related to the issue, including the literatures on gender and environmentalism, the social
impacts of shale gas extraction, and environmental justice. The second stream will
consist of field work, specifically focusing on interviews with community members
(particularly women) and health professionals in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. These
methods will help create a deeper understanding of women’s experiences and ideas
regarding the industry that has entered their communities, and shed insight on the effects
on the community as a whole.
This topic is of particular importance on a national scale, given the current U.S.
energy outlook and the country’s dependence on foreign oil. While the need for a clean
and domestic energy source is undeniable, the question of whether or not shale gas can
fill that role remains hotly debated. This work will also contribute to the regional debates
surrounding the shale gas industry, particularly in areas that are faced with the decision of
whether or not to allow shale gas extraction (like New York State, for example). What
this study seeks to contribute is a deeper understanding of the consequences of a shift to
domestic natural gas, helping to answer the question of whether the risks are worth the
rewards. This research can be broken down into five distinct aims:
I.
The generation of new knowledge about factors that contribute to the perception
of risk in communities impacted by the shale gas industry. Specific contributions
will include:
 Interviews with women, geared toward understanding their perceptions of
the risks posed to their communities.
 Interviews that seek to reveal community members’ specific concerns
about industry presence.
 The generation of information regarding the interactions between industry
and community members, gathered from interviews and observation.
McDevitt |3

II.
III.
IV.
V.
Observation and analysis of how and where community members find
information regarding the shale gas industry.
The generation of new knowledge about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on
individuals in shale gas communities, with a focus on stresses felt by women in
these communities. Specific contributions will include:
 An analysis of stresses induced by industry presence in the community
 An analysis of health impacts that extend beyond the biophysical, looking
instead at emotional and psychological health.
 An analysis of the ways that fracking-induced stresses affect family and
community dynamics
A better understanding of what creates vulnerability to industry –related
environmental disaster. Specific contributions will include:
 Collection of interview data relating to the perception of environmental
health risk.
 An analysis of several communities affected by Marcellus drilling, the
majority of which are rural white communities.
 A comparison of Marcellus communities to other shale gas communities,
including those in Colorado and Texas.
The generation of new knowledge about the non-biophysical health impacts of
environmental/industrial stresses. Specific contributions will include:
 A collection of interviews with community members, documenting the
ways in which shale gas drilling has affected their daily life.
 Interviews that seek to reveal community members’ worries about
industry presence.
 A search for potential relationships between increased stress-related and
emotional health impacts and shale gas drilling.
The generation of new knowledge, and analysis of existing knowledge, about
women’s roles in a community’s reaction to environmental/industrial disaster.
Specific contributions will include:
 An analysis of the existing literature on women and environmental risk,
focusing specifically on how women are handling fracking in their
communities.
 A collection of interviews with women within these communities, working
towards a better understanding of their roles.
The study will be conducted by Lisa McDevitt, a fourth year undergraduate student
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She is currently working towards her Bachelor’s of
Science in Geology and Sustainability Studies.
McDevitt |4
2. Background and Significance:
This study focuses on women as the window into the communities as a whole. An
extensive literature exists on women and the environment, particularly on their roles in
environmentalist work. Women are a vulnerable population, and experience
environmental stress through a variety of pathways (including their own health
experiences, as well as caring for sick family members). The media has also highlighted
the role of women in the shale gas debate, with the industry and the anti-fracking
movement both targeting women in their campaigns. While the industry appeals a
woman’s maternal side, and her desire to keep her family together (Truthland, 2012),
anti-fracking media focuses on the roles of women in speaking out against shale gas
extraction (Drajem, 2012).
Currently, the United States relies on petroleum imports to meet its energy needs. In
fact, the U.S. imports more petroleum than any other country; 3,120,755 thousands of
barrels of foreign crude oil was brought in during 2012 (U.S. EIA, 2013). This
dependence on foreign oil has significant consequences, in terms of national security.
Relying on other countries for such a large portion of its energy puts the U.S. at the
mercy of oil producers. Moreover, because oil is a nonrenewable resource, it will
eventually run out. Finding a viable source of domestic energy that could decrease these
imports would at least lessen the power that oil-producing countries hold over the U.S.,
and prepare the country for when the oil does run out. However, natural gas is also a
nonrenewable resource, so it could only serve as a transition fuel while society makes the
switch to renewables.
In addition to the national security issue, the burning of petroleum products also
contributes to anthropogenic climate change. The combustion of fossil fuels releases
carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. The current scientific consensus
is that human induced climate change is a reality, and that carbon dioxide emissions are
largely to blame (though a number of other greenhouse gases, including methane, have
contributed, as has deforestation). The combustion of natural gas which is also a
nonrenewable fossil fuel, does not emit as much carbon dioxide as that of petroleum.
Therefore, natural gas is often considered a “cleaner fuel.”
Until recently, however, much of the U.S. supply remained trapped in shale
reservoirs, impossible to obtain. A fairly new technology, high volume hydraulic
fracturing using horizontal drilling (often referred to unconventional drilling or
“fracking”), has made it possible for drillers to access these reservoirs. The process of
“fracking” involves drilling down to a certain depth (around 6-10 thousand feet), then
drilling horizontally through the shale formation. A mixture of sand, water, and
chemicals is then injected at high pressure, causing the surrounding shale to fracture,
releasing the stored gas. An important distinction must be made between this technology
McDevitt |5
and traditional hydraulic fracturing, a practice that has been in use since 1949: traditional
fracturing occurred at low depth, and fluids were injected at low pressures.
It is also important to note that the actual fracturing, or “fracking”, is but one step in
the process of unconventional gas extraction. An entire infrastructure must be built in
order to extract, process, and store the natural gas. This includes the construction of
compressor stations, flare stacks, well pads, and storage tanks, as well as the construction
of access roads. In order to run these facilities, In order to run these operations,
companies will sometimes find workers in the surrounding communities, and will often
bring in workers from other locations (Food and Water Watch, 2013). This paper focuses
on the impacts of the process as a whole, not just on “fracking.”
Since the development of the new fracking technologies, shale gas extraction has
remained shrouded in a web of regulatory exemptions and conflicting science. A 2004
EPA report found that fracking had no negative impacts on groundwater, a conclusion
that was called into question by the 2010 film, Gasland, which featured shots of
individuals lighting their tapwater on fire. The 2005 Energy Policy Act prohibits the
EPA from regulating the shale gas industry under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and it
was not until after the premier of Gasland that policy makers began discussing the
research and regulation of shale gas extraction. In 2010 the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce began an investigation of the environmental and health-related impacts,
and a month later the EPA began investigating the effects on drinking water. The
findings of this study are expected to be released in 2014 (U.S. EPA, 2012).
The scientific literature on shale gas is full of conflicting research. Reports
negative impacts have flooded the media during the past several years (i.e. Gasland).
Some researchers highlight the negative impacts of shale gas extraction processes; for
example Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, of Cornell University, has published several influential
works on the air pollution that results from fracking and other industry processes. Other
studies have found harmful water quality, human health, and social impacts (see
Bamberger & Oswald, 2012; Perry, 2012). These works fuel the dominant discourse
among shale gas opposition: it is an unsafe practice, and the risks are not worth the
potential benefits of a “transistion fuel.”
At the same time, supporters of shale gas drilling have published their own
reports, with vastly different findings than those of the fracking opposition. Many (but
not all) of these reports are funded by the industry and conducted by industry scientists,
and find the environmental and health impact negligible when compared to the benefits
of an alternative to imported petroleum.
McDevitt |6
Trends in the Existing Literature
An analysis of the existing literature provides the basis for the research laid out in this
proposal. The themes that emerge from the literature are outlined below:
1. The existing literature on community health impacts associated with shale gas
extraction suggest that the industry brings with it significant social and
community issues. While the physical health and environmental impacts
dominate this literature, an emerging body of work focuses on the social effects
associated with the industry. The evidence suggests a correlation between the
shale gas industry and a number of social problems, including crime and social
disturbances, traffic issues, and a rise in sexually transmitted infections (Food and
Water Watch, 2013). Community based studies show that the biggest concerns
among residents of shale gas communities in Pennsylvania and Colorado include:
increased traffic and road damage, air pollution and dust, noise, chemical and
wastewater spills, accidents, erosion and sedimentation, negative impacts to water
quality in personal wells, health problems, massive influxes of industry workers,
and the social and environmental changes associated with shift from rural to
industrial (Perry, 2012; Witter et al. 2010). In addition to these concerns,
community members are faced with conflicting data, leading them to be
distrustful of both industry and science (Klemow, 2012). The EPA and other
regulatory agencies tend to view these impacts as indirect (Perry, 2012), but in
order to fully understand how shale gas extraction affects communities in both the
near and long term, it is time to consider all the potential risks. More research
needs to be done to understand the stresses experienced by the community, and
the ways in which these stresses affect overall community health.
2. Shale gas extraction raises questions of environmental justice. Extensive
literature on this subject highlights race and socioeconomic status as key factors
in environmental health disparities (Brulle & Pellow, 2006). Unlike many of the
communities studied in the literature, however, the Marcellus shale is dominated
by predominantly rural white, low-income communities. Another factor
identified in environmental justice literature is a history of environmental risk
exposure; there is some evidence to suggest that multiple exposures may be linked
to increased vulnerability (Evans & Kantrowitz, 2002). These findings may
pertain to the Marcellus Shale region, as an area with a history of environmental
risk due to coal mining practices. Also worth noting is the lack of regulation
surrounding the shale gas industry. The 2005 Energy Policy Act exempts all onshore oil and gas extraction and production from several prominent environmental
acts, including: the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
Research Conservation and Recovery Act, and Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) (104th Congress, 2005).
McDevitt |7
3. The existing literature on gender and environmentalism strongly suggests that
women are generally more likely to take interest in environmental issues. This
may be due to a tendency among women to value altruism (the social value
believed to be most closely related to environmentalism) more highly than men do
(Dietz et al., 2002). Through history, women have often been portrayed as either
particularly virtuous or particularly vulnerable populations in regards to
environmental risk (Arora-Johnsson, 2010), making them an interesting study
population for a number of environmental researchers. The women of
Appalachia are a popular topic in the literature on women’s interest in
environmental issues. Women have historically been active in fighting to end
mountain top removal (Bell, 2013). The literature suggests that women play an
undervalued and understudied role in environmental justice (Pellow & Brehm,
2013) and more research needs to be done to better understand their roles in
understanding environmental risk.
3. Broader Impacts:
a) Regional/State Legislation
Because the shale gas industry is not regulated by the federal government,
state and local governments find themselves responsible for implementing
appropriate policy. Some states, like New York, currently have a
moratorium against fracking for shale gas, but are facing pressures from
both sides of the debate; “pro-fracking” groups want the moratorium
lifted, while “anti-fracking” groups want a more permanent ban.
Information from this study can help educate policy makers on the impacts
of shale gas extraction, and help them to make an informed decision.
b) U.S. Energy Policy
The current energy practice in the U.S. is unsustainable. The country finds
itself in a position where alternative fuel sources are becoming necessary,
and shale gas is a domestic energy source, making it a marketable
alternative in the eyes of many policy-makers. The impact of this work is
to show that perhaps the benefits of shale gas are far outweighed by the
human/social costs, and that the U.S. should consider other alternative
energy sources.
c) Human Health
Currently, little research exists on the health effects associated with the
social and environmental stresses of fracking. This project will contribute
to that body of work, calling attention to the issue so that affected
communities can achieve some kind of justice, as well as receive treatment
McDevitt |8
for the health issues that have gone mostly unacknowledged by the
industry.
d) Environmental Justice
This work will discuss some of the factors that make communities
vulnerable to the shale gas industry (i.e. socioeconomic status, history of
environmental risk). It will highlight the ways in which the industry has
approached and interacted with community members, as well as the ways
in which its practices have affected individuals and families in these areas.
The work contributes a new dimension to the existing body of work by
examining environmental justice (or lack thereof) in low-income, rural,
white communities.
4. Prior Work and Related Studies:
a) Profile: Lisa McDevitt
Lisa McDevitt is an undergraduate student working towards earning her dual B.S. in
Geology and Sustainability Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. During her time
at RPI, she has contributed to two research projects. The first is a collaborative project
where she works with a group of researchers from RPI as well as other international
institutions, titled, the Asthma Files. The goal of this work is to develop a collaborative,
interdisciplinary approach to the complex problem of the ongoing asthma epidemic. Her
role in the project was to review the literature on air quality and asthma, particularly
focusing on the air quality of Singapore.
Her second research project, which she began in the Spring of 2013, is another
collaborative effort, aimed at better understanding the debate around shale gas extraction.
The Fracking Files, consists of a group of students and faculty at RPI, interested in
understanding the fracking process and all of its impacts. The group is led by Professors
Kim Fortun and Yuri Gorby. Lisa has contributed an analysis of existing air quality
science related to natural gas, and is currently working to characterize areas impacted by
the shale gas industry as asthmatic spaces, in an effort to tie together both projects.
While conducting research as a member of the Fracking Files Lisa also interned at
the New York State Office of the Attorney General, in the Environmental Protection
Bureau. Here, she spent time analyzing and compiling the existing literature on the air
quality impacts associated with shale gas extraction and processing. She worked closely
with scientists in the office, with the goal of gathering as much information as possible in
order to inform state policy makers on the environmental costs of fracking.
McDevitt |9
b) Pilot Research and Findings
Research on this project began in the Spring of 2013, as a part of The Fracking Files
collaborative research project. The group aimed to create a comprehensive bibliography
of fracking and shale gas research, as well as to gain enough of an understanding of the
topic to be able to raise awareness in and around RPI’s campus in Troy, NY.
My own contribution to the project was a bibliography of air quality research related to
unconventional gas drilling. After months of analyzing the existing literature on air
quality impacts, I was able to conclude that no definitive evidence has been presented to
prove that fracking and the infrastructure surrounding it do not have local or global air
quality effects. The literature is divided. Through meetings with the rest of the research
group, I soon learned that this was the case in most fracking research. The “facts”
presented often depend upon the views of the authors (and their sources of funding). I
presented my findings at an undergraduate research symposium in May of 2013, which
was attended by other student researchers, as well as faculty and graduate students.
After the semester ended, I shifted my research focus; after reading so much of the
existing scientific literature, I concluded that a scientific consensus in the near future was
unlikely, and was left wondering whether or not society could afford to wait for this
consensus to be reached. This question led me to begin looking for more direct ways to
answer the question of whether or not shale gas provided a safe, domestic alternative to
petroleum imports. I became interested in the communities who experience the industry
and its impacts firsthand. After spending several months looking through the literature
on community impacts, as well as discussing my ideas with fellow researchers, I made
my first trip to a “fracked community.” In October, 2013, a small group of us traveled to
West Union, West Virginia, where we met with community members to distribute an
ATDSR health impact survey. We spent time going through the surveys with
individuals, which gave us the chance to interact with them and hear their stories. It also
gave us the chance to connect with community members and health professionals,
opening doors for future interviews. Though my time in West Union was fairly short, I
was able to gather some information about the interactions between industry and
community members, and the result of these interactions seems to be a general sense of
distrust toward the industry.
5. Research Methodology and Plan of Work:
a) Study Components:
 Literature Review
The first stream of this research will consist of a review of the applicable
literatures. A thorough review of the existing research will provide the
M c D e v i t t | 10
basis for the arguments and conclusions developed in this study. The
literatures I will be focusing on are:



The Social Impact of Shale Gas Extraction
Environmental Justice
Gender and Environmentalism.

Field Work
The second stream of research will consist of field work, which will be
conducted in the areas around West Union, WV and Pittsburgh, PA.
During these trips, I plan to observe, interact with, and conduct interviews
with community members, specifically focusing on women. Follow up
interviews will then be conducted via telephone or email. The goal of this
stream of research is to better understand how women in these
communities perceive the risks associated with the shale gas industry, and
how they experience the industry’s presence.

Interviews with Healthcare Professionals
Interviews with healthcare professionals will comprise the third stream of
this research. The aim of this aspect of the study is to deepen the
understanding of how the shale gas industry affects community health as a
whole. This includes biophysical health impacts, as well as social and
environmental stresses. These interviews will help identify stress as a
health effect, and add another layer of depth to the project.
b) Research Questions:
The study will be guided by the following research questions:
1. What shapes how women perceive the risks associated with the shale gas
industry?
a. How do women perceive the risks associated with fracking?
i. What concerns do you have regarding industry presence in your
town?
b. Do women consider environmental health risks of significant importance?
i. Would you consider yourself an environmentalist?
ii. What aspects of your environment are important to you? What
role do they play in your life?
iii. What environmental impacts have you noticed, as a result of
industry activities?
c. Where do community members get their information regarding the shale
gas industry?
M c D e v i t t | 11
i. What information have you received regarding the shale gas
industry (and the potential impacts of its presence), and where did
this information come from?
ii. What information sources do you use most frequently? (i.e.
newspapers, television, internet, etc.)
d. What kinds of interactions occur between community members and
industry?
i. Has the industry contacted you in any way? If so, can you describe
this exchange?
ii. Do you, or does anyone you know work for the shale gas industry?
Doing what job? How has this affected your/their opinions of
fracking?
iii. What is your overall impression of the shale gas industry and its
workers?
2. What risks does the shale gas industry pose to community members in “fracked”
areas?
a. How does fracking affect the health of the surrounding communities?
i. What change in physical health have you seen in yourself? And in
your family members?
ii. Have you been to a doctor? What was his/her diagonosis?
iii. Has the presence of the shale gas industry affected your stress
level? How so?
iv. Have you noticed or been diagnosed with any physical symptoms
of stress?
b. What social stresses are present in shale gas communities?
i. Can you describe the crime rate in your town? Has it changed at
all since drilling began?
ii. Could you describe any concerns you have regarding your own
personal safety? Or that of your family?
iii. Could you describe any changes you’ve noticed in and around your
community since drilling began?
iv. What do you feel is the most significant change being made to
your community?
v. Could you describe the state of the roads in your area?
vi. In what ways has the industry infrastructure affected your sense of
overall well-being?
3. What makes communities vulnerable to the shale gas industry and its impacts?
a. Does a history of environmental health risk make a community more
vulnerable to future risk?
M c D e v i t t | 12
i. In the time that you have lived in this area, have you experience
other environmental stresses? If so, can you please describe them?
ii. How has your community dealt with environmental, health, or
social stresses in the past?
b. How do socioeconomic factors contribute to the production of risk?
i. What is the mean income of the community?
ii. What is the economic history of the area?
4. What affects how communities react to and cope with the presence of the shale
gas industry?
a. What role do women play in reacting to the environmental, health, and
social risks that result from industry presence?
i. What are your overall feelings towards the shale gas industry?
ii. In what ways have you acted upon those feelings?
iii. Who in your community has taken on a leadership role (if anyone)
in arguing their point of view regarding the shale gas industry and
its impacts?
 How would you describe his/her success?
b. What factors affect the community’s ability to support the shale gas
infrastructure?
i. Where do non-native industry workers stay?
ii. Could you describe the state of the roads in your area?
iii. What measures has local government taken to make sure that
industry workers are accommodated?
iv. What community resources and services have been affected?
5. How does community stress affect overall community health?
a. What factors shape/alter a community’s sense of well-being?
i. How has industry presence affected your own personal sense of
well-being?
ii. Have you noticed any changes in community dynamics since the
shale gas industry arrived?
c) Field Sites:
Interviews will be conducted with individuals at two primary field sites. These field sites
will include:

West Union, WV & Surrounding Communities
Site Justification: The West Union region is one of two regions where I will conduct
interviews with community members and healthcare professionals. The area has been
heavily impacted by the natural gas industry. The communities here tend to consist of
M c D e v i t t | 13
poor, white families, making it a unique study group for better understanding
vulnerability production.

Pittsburgh, PA & Surrounding Communities
Site Justification: The Pittsburgh area will be my second field site, where I will do my
field work, which will include collecting interviews. The natural gas industry is
prominent in Pennsylvania, and there is already some research being done on the health
and environmental impacts of fracking in Pennsylvania.
d) Schedule of Research:
October to November 2013:
 Conduct preliminary field work
 make contact with potential interviewees and set up interviews
 Conduct a review of existing literature
December, 2013
 Continue field work in the form of weekend trips to field sites
 Continue conduction interviews, including follow up interviews via phone or
email
 Submit finalized research proposal to Professor Fortun
January, 2014
 Travel to Pittsburgh to conduct interviews and make contacts for future
interviews
 Begin writing
February to March, 2014
 Continue writing
 Conduct final interviews
 Synthesize data gathered through interviews
April to May, 2014
 Complete writing
 Submit final project to Professor Fisk
M c D e v i t t | 14
e) Addressing the Ethics:
Because the issue of shale gas extraction is such a divisive topic, I will likely run
into a variety of opinions and experiences. From what I have seen in my pilot
research, some individuals within these communities do feel that they have been
wronged by the shale gas industry, and their stories are full of strong emotions. It
will be important to stick to my research goals, while being sympathetic to
interviewees’ sense of suffering. My goals are simply to record their experiences in
a way that will be useful to academics and policy makers alike. I plan to make these
goals clear to interviewees.
Additionally, there are individuals who do truly believe that shale gas is a viable
energy solution. Though my preliminary research may not agree with this, I intend
to listen with an open mind to any new information, though I will not hesitate to
question sources and data that I feel may not adequately reflect the reality of the
situation. My goal is not to impose my own opinions on anyone, only to convey the
reality of shale gas extraction and advocate for responsible decision making
regarding its regulation.
6. Dissemination:
This work will be submitted as my senior thesis at RPI. The final written work will
be structured as a book, with each chapter highlighting a different factor that shapes
women’s experiences with communities affected by the shale gas industry. This study
will be of interest to researchers studying the shale gas debate, environmental justice
related to industrial practices, and gender roles in environmentalism. This project will
reach these audiences through circulation among fellow researchers and professors at
RPI. The finished product will also be presented to the Fracking Files research group at
RPI.
M c D e v i t t | 15
Sources:
114th Congress. Public Law 109 -58- Energy Policy Act of 2005. N. p., 2005. Print.
Abrahm Lustgarten. “Unfair Share: How Oil and Gas Drillers Avoid Paying Royalties.”
ProPublica (2013): n. pag.
“Addressing the Societal Costs of Unconventional Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production.pdf.” n. pag. Print.
Anderson, Brooklynn J., and Gene L. Theodori. “Local Leaders’ Perceptions of Energy
Development in the Barnett Shale.” Southern rural sociology 24.1 (2009): 113–129.
Print.
Andrea Nightingale. “The Nature of Gender: Work, Gender and Environment.” (2006): n. pag.
Print.
Anonymous. “Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.; Weitz & Luxenberg Alerts Public to Potential
Hazards of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Energy Business Journal (2010): 45. Print.
Billie Jo Hance, Caron Chess, and Peter M. Sandman. Industry Risk Communication Manual:
Improving Dialogue With Communities. CRC Press, 1990. Print.
Brulle, Robert J., and David N. Pellow. “ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Human Health and
Environmental Inequalities.” Annual Review of Public Health 27.1 (2006): 103–124.
CrossRef. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.
Bryan Schutt. “EPA Air Rules For Hydraulic Fracturing Provide Flexibility For Industry.”
SNL Energy FERC Gas Report (2012): n. pag.
Chris Hamby. “Behind the Story: ‘Breathless and Burdened.’” The Center for Public Integrity
29 Oct. 2013.
Daniel J. Rozell, and Sheldon J. Reaven. “Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas
Extraction from the Marcellus Shale.” Risk Analysis 32.8 (2011): n. pag.
M c D e v i t t | 16
Dietz, T., P. C. Stern, and G. A. Guagnano. “Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases
of Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 30.4 (1998): 450–471. CrossRef.
Web. 25 Sept. 2013.
Dietz, Thomas, Linda Kalof, and Paul C. Stern. “Gender, Values, and Environmentalism.”
Social Science Quarterly 83.1 (2002): 353–364. Print.
Elizabeth Bell. Our Roots Run Deep as Ironweed: Appalachian Women and Fight for
Environmental Justice. University of Illinois Press, 2013. Print.
Elizabeth Royte. “What the Frack Is in Our Food?” Nation 295.25 (2012): 111–118. Print.
Energy in Depth. Women of the Marcellus. N. p., 2012. Film.
Evans, Gary W., and Elyse Kantrowitz. “Socioeconomic Status and Health: The Potential Role
of Environmental Risk Exposure.” Annual Review of Public Health 23.1 (2002): 303–
331. CrossRef. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.
Finkel, Madelon L., and Adam Law. “The Rush to Drill for Natural Gas: A Public Health
Cautionary Tale.” Public Health 101.784 (2011): n. pag. Google Scholar. Web. 10 Sept.
2013.
Finucane, Melissa L. et al. “Gender, Race, and Perceived Risk: The’white Male’effect.”
Health, risk & society 2.2 (2000): 159–172. Print.
Food and Water Watch: A Pennsylvania Case Study. The Social Costs of Fracking. N. p.,
2002. Google Scholar. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.
Heather Ash. “EPA Launches Hydraulic Fracturing Study to Investigate Health and
Environmental Concerns While North Dakota Resists Regulation: Should Citizens Be
Concerned?” n. pag. Print.
M c D e v i t t | 17
Huhnsik Chung, and Gregory Hoffnagle. “The Risks of Hydrofracking.” Risk Management
58.5 (2011): 32. Print.
HYDRAULIC, IMPLICATIONS OF. “WORKSHOP REPORT1.” Duke Environmental Law
& Policy Forum. Vol. 22. N. p. 245. Google Scholar. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
---. “WORKSHOP REPORT1.” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum. Vol. 22. N. p.
245. Google Scholar. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Jacquet, Jeffery, and Richard C. Stedman. “Natural Gas Landowner Coalitions in New York
State: Emerging Benefits of Collective Natural Resource Management.” Journal of Rural
Social Sciences 26.1 (2011): 62–91. Print.
Jacquet, Jeffrey B. “Landowner Attitudes toward Natural Gas and Wind Farm Development in
Northern Pennsylvania.” Energy Policy 50 (2012): 677–688. CrossRef. Web. 11 Nov.
2013.
---. “Landowner Attitudes toward Natural Gas and Wind Farm Development in Northern
Pennsylvania.” Energy Policy 50 (2012): 677–688. CrossRef. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
Jenrose Fitzgerald. “Science Wars as Culture Wars: Fracking and the Battle for the Hearts and
Minds of Women.” 3 May 2013 : n. pag. Print.
Joshua Zaffos. “Potential Effects of Fracking Worry Front Range Families.” PostIndependent
Citizen Telegraph 29 Sept. 2013.
Kotsakis, Andreas. “The Regulation of the Technical, Environmental and Health Aspects of
Current Exploratory Shale Gas Extraction in the United Kingdom: Initial Lessons for the
Future of European Union Energy Policy.” Review of European Community &
International Environmental Law 21.3 (2012): 282–290. Print.
M c D e v i t t | 18
Kriesky, J. et al. “Differing Opinions about Natural Gas Drilling in Two Adjacent Counties
with Different Levels of Drilling Activity.” Energy Policy 58 (2013): 228–236. CrossRef.
Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Lena Groeger. “From Gung-Ho to Uh-Oh: Charting the Government’s Moves on Fracking.”
ProPublica. N. p., 7 Feb. 2012.
Marianne Levelle. “Natural Gas Stirs Hope and Fear in Pennsylvania.” National Geographic
News (2010): n. pag.
Mark Drajem. “Pennsylvania Grandmothers Star in Global Fracking Debate.” Bloomberg 21
Sept. 2012.
Michelle Bamberger, and Robert E. Oswald. “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal
Health.” A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 22 (2012): 51–77.
Mike Lloyd. “Natural Gas Drilling: Questions Residents and Local Leaders Should Be
Asking.” 2012.
Nicole Jacobs. “Marcellus Shale Just for Men? Not so Fast.” Energy in Depth. N. p., 6 Apr.
2012.
Pellow, David N., and Hollie Nyseth Brehm. “An Environmental Sociology for the TwentyFirst Century.” Annual Review of Sociology 39.1 (2013): 229–250. CrossRef. Web. 6 Oct.
2013.
Perry, Simona L. “Development, Land Use, and Collective Trauma: The Marcellus Shale Gas
Boom in Rural Pennsylvania.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 34.1 (2012):
81–92. CrossRef. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Rachael Colley, and Nicole Jacobs. “Marcellus Shale: Helping Keep Families Together.” EID
Marcellus 2 Apr. 2012.
M c D e v i t t | 19
Rademacher, Yvonne. “Community Disaster Management Assets: A Case Study of the Farm
Community in Sussex County, Delaware.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science
4.1 (2013): 33–47. CrossRef. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
Rebecca J. Sargisson et al. “Volunteering: A Community Response to the Rena Oil Spill in
New Zealand.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 20.4 (2012): n. pag.
Richard Stedman et al. “Natural Gas Development: Views of New York and Pennsylvania
Residents in the Marcellus Shale Region.” Cornell University Community and Regional
Development Institute Research and Policy Brief 39 (2011): n. pag. Print.
Roxana Witter et al. Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County
Colorado. Denver, Colorado: Univeristy of Colorado Denver, Colorado School of Public
Health, 2010. Print.
S.L. Perry. “Addressing the Societal Costs of Unconventional Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production: A Framework for Evaluating Short-Term, Future, and Cumulative Risks and
Uncertainties of Hydrofracking.” Environmental Practice 14.4 (2012): 352–365.
Sajal Roy. “Women Entrepreneurs in Conserving Land: An Analytical Study at the
Sundarbans, Bangladesh.” Canadian Social Science 8.5 (2012): 125–138. Print.
Sara Jerving. “The Fracking Frenzy’s Impact on Women.” PR Watch 4 Apr. 2012.
Schmidt, Charles W. “Blind Rush? Shale Gas Boom Proceeds amid Human Health
Questions.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119.8 (2011): a348. Print.
Seema Arora-Jonsson. “Virtue and Vulnerability: Discourses on Women, Gender and Climate
Change.” Global Environmental Change 21.2 (2011): 744–751.
Sharon Guynup. “Air Pollution Destroys Health of Texas Fracking Communities.”
Environmental New Service 20 Sept. 2013.
M c D e v i t t | 20
Siler, Patrick. “Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale: The Need for Legislative
Amendments to New York’s Mineral Resources Law.” St. John’s L. Rev. 86 (2012): 351–
351. Print.
So-Min Cheong. “Community Adaptation to the Hebei-Spirit Oil Spill.” Ecology and Society
17.3 (2012): n. pag.
Steinzor, Nadia, Wilma Subra, and Lisa Sumi. “Investigating Links between Shale Gas
Development and Health Impacts Through a Community Survey Project in
Pennsylvania.” NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational
Health Policy 23.1 (2013): 55–83. CrossRef. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Svendsen, Erik R. et al. “GRACE: Public Health Recovery Methods Following an
Environmental Disaster.” Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health 65.2
(2010): 77–85. Print.
Theodori, Gene L. “Paradoxical Perceptions of Problems Associated with Unconventional
Natural Gas Development.” Southern Rural Sociology 24.3 (2009): 97–117. Print.
Truthland. Energy In Depth, 2012. Film.
US EIA. “U.S. Imports of Crude Oil.” US EIA. N. p., n.d.
US EPA. “Electricity from Natural Gas.” N. p., n.d.
US Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) Regulations Handbook, 2012. New York: N. p., 2013.
Print.
“US Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) Regulations Handbook, 2012.pdf.” n. pag. Print.
Weigle, Jason L. “Resilience, Community, and Perceptions of Marcellus Shale Development
in the Pennsylvania Wilds: Reframing the Discussion.” Sociological Viewpoints 27.1
(2011): 3. Print.
M c D e v i t t | 21
Zhang, Yang, Michael K. Lindell, and Carla S. Prater. “Vulnerability of Community
Businesses to Environmental Disasters.” Disasters 33.1 (2009): 38–57. Print.