首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Setback distances for unconventional oil and gas development: Delphi study results
【2h】

Setback distances for unconventional oil and gas development: Delphi study results

机译:非常规油气开发的挫折距离:Delphi研究结果

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Emerging evidence indicates that proximity to unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD) is associated with health outcomes. There is intense debate about “How close is too close?” for maintaining public health and safety. The goal of this Delphi study was to elicit expert consensus on appropriate setback distances for UOGD from human activity. Three rounds were used to identify and seek consensus on recommended setback distances. The 18 panelists were health care providers, public health practitioners, environmental advocates, and researchers/scientists. Consensus was defined as agreement of ≥70% of panelists. Content analysis of responses to Round 1 questions revealed four categories: recommend setback distances; do not recommend setback distances; recommend additional setback distances for vulnerable populations; do not recommend additional setback distances for vulnerable populations. In Round 2, panelists indicated their level of agreement with the statements in each category using a five-point Likert scale. Based on emerging consensus, statements within each category were collapsed into seven statements for Round 3: recommend set back distances of <¼ mile; ¼—½ mile; 1–1 ¼ mile; and ≥ 2 mile; not feasible to recommend setback distances; recommend additional setbacks for vulnerable groups; not feasible to recommend additional setbacks for vulnerable groups. The panel reached consensus that setbacks of < ¼ mile should not be recommended and additional setbacks for vulnerable populations should be recommended. The panel did not reach consensus on recommendations for setbacks between ¼ and 2 miles. The results suggest that if setbacks are used the distances should be greater than ¼ of a mile from human activity, and that additional setbacks should be used for settings where vulnerable groups are found, including schools, daycare centers, and hospitals. The lack of consensus on setback distances between 1/4 and 2 miles reflects the limited health and exposure studies and need to better define exposures and track health.
机译:越来越多的证据表明,接近非常规油气开发(UOGD)与健康结果有关。关于“太近了太近了?”的争论非常激烈。维护公众健康和安全。这项Delphi研究的目的是就UOGD与人类活动之间的适当挫折距离达成专家共识。使用三轮来确定建议的退避距离并寻求共识。 18位小组成员分别是卫生保健提供者,公共卫生从业人员,环境倡导者和研究人员/科学家。共识定义为≥70%的小组成员同意。对第1轮问题的回答的内容分析显示了四类:推荐后退距离;不建议后退距离;为弱势人群建议更多的挫折距离;不建议弱势群体增加退缩距离。在第二轮中,小组成员使用五点李克特量表来表示他们与每个类别中陈述的一致性。根据新出现的共识,第3轮中的每个类别内的陈述被细分为7个陈述:建议后退距离小于¼英里; ¼—½英里; 1–1¼英里;且≥2英里;建议后退距离不可行;为弱势群体建议更多的挫折;为弱势群体推荐额外的挫折是不可行的。专家组达成共识,即不应建议小于1/4英里的挫折,而应建议针对脆弱人群的其他挫折。小组就1/4至2英里之间的挫折建议未达成共识。结果表明,如果使用了挫折,则距离人类活动的距离应大于1/4英里,并且应将额外的挫折用于发现弱势群体的地方,包括学校,日托中心和医院。在1/4至2英里之间的缩进距离上缺乏共识,反映出健康和暴露研究有限,需要更好地定义暴露并追踪健康。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号