Using Structural Topic Modeling to Explore the Role of Framing in Shaping the Debate on Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals in Oregon

Bibliographic Data

ID3758878
AuthorsGreg Stelmach (0000-0003-2704-0937, Oregon State University, corresponding author), Hilary Boudet (0000-0002-8096-9107, Oregon State University)
Year2022
Volume66
Issue9
Pages1204-1237
Publication date2022-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-7642 • E-ISSN: 1552-3381
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/00027642211056268
OpenAlexW4200009004
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited35

The drastic increase in domestic production of natural gas due to the fracking boom prompted efforts to develop a robust infrastructure in the U.S. to export natural gas. Given environmental concerns over increased fossil fuel development, significant opposition mobilized to "keep it [fossil fuels] in the ground" by acting to prevent not only natural gas production but also its transportation via pipelines and shipping via export terminals. Our analysis focuses on the latter component, specifically examining the long history of proposed liquefied natural gas infrastructure in two coastal communities in Oregon. Members of the public engaged in the formal siting processes and mobilized both opposition and support. We examine their use of collective action frames in both comments at public hearings and letters to the editor in local newspapers ( N = 4618) over the 16 years that these proposals were under consideration, quantifying the dynamic nature of framing using computational text analysis. We find that both groups vary their use of framing over time and by venue, reacting to exogenous events (e.g., September 11th, Fukushima) and tailor their messages to the context (e.g., an in-person hearing or a letter to the editor). Opponents concentrated on potential threats, initially emphasizing local impacts like tanker and pipeline safety but eventually focusing on climate concerns. Supporters, meanwhile, stressed the economic benefits of the projects but alternated their specific framing based on venue-focusing on employment when talking to regulatory agencies and community economic benefits in letters. While this juxtaposition of economic benefits and environmental threats was a key part of public discourse, opponents also expanded their framing to questions of local sovereignty and governance, allowing a broader coalition to develop and ultimately succeeding in defeating the proposals

Boom · Civil engineering · Economic impact analysis · Framing (construction) · Liquefied natural gas · Natural gas · Newspaper · NIMBY · Opposition (politics) · Political science · Politics · Waste management · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Computational and Text Analysis Methods · Engineering · Environmental Engineering · Law · Risk Perception and Management

Tools

Open DOI