↓ Skip to main content

Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: A review of the current strength of evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
25 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: A review of the current strength of evidence
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, November 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela K. Werner, Sue Vink, Kerrianne Watt, Paul Jagals

Abstract

Rapid global expansion of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) raises environmental health concerns. Many studies present information on these concerns, yet the strength of epidemiological evidence remains tenuous. This paper is a review of the strength of evidence in scientific reporting of environmental hazards from UNGD activities associated with adverse human health outcomes. Studies were drawn from peer-reviewed and grey literature following a systematic search. Five databases were searched for studies published from January 1995 through March 2014 using key search terms relevant to environmental health. Studies were screened, ranked and then reviewed according to the strength of the evidence presented on adverse environmental health outcomes associated with UNGD. The initial searches yielded >1000 studies, but this was reduced to 109 relevant studies after the ranking process. Only seven studies were considered highly relevant based on strength of evidence. Articles spanned several relevant topics, but most focussed on impacts on typical environmental media, such as water and air, with much of the health impacts inferred rather than evidenced. Additionally, the majority of studies focussed on short-term, rather than long-term, health impacts, which is expected considering the timeframe of UNGD; therefore, very few studies examined health outcomes with longer latencies such as cancer or developmental outcomes. Current scientific evidence for UNGD that demonstrates associations between adverse health outcomes directly with environmental health hazards resulting from UNGD activities generally lacks methodological rigour. Importantly, however, there is also no evidence to rule out such health impacts. While the current evidence in the scientific research reporting leaves questions unanswered about the actual environmental health impacts, public health concerns remain intense. This is a clear gap in the scientific knowledge that requires urgent attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Saudi Arabia 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 370 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 22%
Researcher 50 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 12%
Student > Bachelor 43 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 7%
Other 71 19%
Unknown 58 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 96 25%
Engineering 45 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 32 8%
Social Sciences 24 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 6%
Other 84 22%
Unknown 73 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,359,355
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#1,832
of 29,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,320
of 271,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#5
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.