Policy conflicts in the siting of natural gas pipelines

ABSTRACT

Researchers often focus on the most intense conflicts, skewing our perception of the diversity and nature of policy conflicts. The paper examines the discourse engaged in the siting of three pipeline projects under construction, each with varying levels of conflict, and one rejected project of high conflict. We analyze over 700 newspaper articles that span the life of each proposed pipeline and supplement the news media data with interviews. Using these data, we compare differences in actor types, frames, and behaviors in natural gas pipeline siting processes characterized by high, medium, and low conflict. Comparing the characteristics of energy siting conflicts at varying intensities helps support corresponding portrayals of how people engage in the policy process. This paper offers theoretical and empirical guidance on understanding policy conflict intensity variation.