Comments on: https://sp.copernicus.org/preprints/sp-2023-3/sp-2023-3.pdf

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important work. 

As a project developer and the “social science lead” for multiple projects, I really wish that I would have had this paper a year ago. It contains many many helpful items. I am confident that the other social science leads I know at other project developers will feel the same. There really are many social science best practices contained in this chapter, so thank you very much for this work. I recommend that you publish it soon after receiving feedback and incorporating that feedback appropriately. At the same time, I look forward to a near future version that is written for the audiences you list and taking into account the feedback below. 

My top comments: 

The paper overall assumes that the activities take place in a research fashion. In the world today, social science research does not have enough funding to move us ahead at the pace that is required by the depth of the climate crisis. We will need to enable projects that are linked with small scale test deployments. The best practices listed here seem to be targeted at researchers rather than employees of OAE companies that will end up implementing these solutions. The companies that will be funding these are severely limited in resources: time is always short, trained social scientists are essentially non existent in the company and industry generally, and money is not typically allocated in significant amounts for social science and community engagement on these projects. Perhaps in a future version, you can create best practices for OAE community engagement for OAE practitioners. This would include references to quickly understandable base content, concrete tips on the best practices to apply in different situations, and case studies of successes and challenges that have occurred in projects. 

One concept that I did not see in the discussion is the concept of scale and length of project. What are the differences in best practices during very early testing versus evaluation versus pre deployment? Considering this concept throughout the document would lengthen it but provide significant value. 

The paper doesn’t include a section discussing how to  respond to concerns that have nothing to do with a specific project. For example, in many communities, some people are likely to be opposed to CDR generally, or are climate deniers, or feel that CDR should go ahead in only a “nature based” approach like reforestation. Having a section describing how to respond to those concerns would be positive. 

There is a complex interplay between the communities of any project and the appropriate regulatory bodies. Project opponents and supporters both interact with the regulator to influence the decisions made by those groups (although it it typically the opponents who spend the vast majority of time in contact with the regulator). Sometimes the regulatory bodies are not viewed by the community in a positive light, and trust is low. The piece could benefit from more coverage on how to effectively work with regulators and the public. 

One of the primary ways that communication happens from a project developer to a group of people is through the media - print, radio, TV, social, blogs, etc. The paper would benefit from a discussion of how to integrate a communications plan with a community engagement plan. 

General knowledge on climate, CDR, ocean CDR, and OAE is low in many communities. The paper would benefit from a discussion of determining the level of knowledge and then practical advice on how to integrate effective education material for the community. Are there sources of OAE education material available? How should it be created? 

Overall, the paper is a good set of social science techniques that can be applied to OAE projects. I believe a more appropriate title would be “Social Considerations and Best Practices to Apply to Engaging Publics on OAE.” This paper lists many great social best practices that have been created and applied in other circumstances. However, these aren’t OAE Engagement Best Practices. They are social best practices that can be applied to OAE. We do not yet have enough case studies of OAE project development to determine which of the different social science practices can be called best practices in the new realm. 

Based on your summary, the primary audiences are social science leads, natural science and engineering leads, and funders. The paper seems to be written with a primary audience of social science academics. Changing that would be a huge undertaking and I don’t recommend trying to do that now. I do know a few writers who specialize in creating public facing (non academic) books based on complex techniques if you are interested. 

Detailed comments:

Line 47 talks about societal perception. Line 50 talks about deployments introducing negative consequences. Switching from perception to actual consequences is confusing to me. 

Line 80. My perception is that all ocean CDR is deemed more risky than land-based CDR generally. If there is data to support that perception, it would be nice to note it here. 

Line 83. Is there data to suggest that the approach mentioned will backfire in the case of OAE? I agree with you, but data would be nice. 

Paragraph staring on line 149. It is very difficult to separate actual engagement from pure research. While there are some activities related to sensing the position of a community and some to planning that might be able to be done in mostly a “research” capacity, most can be done only in conjunction with a real project. Is it possible to suggest more strongly that community engagement should be a part of all OAE (and all ocean CDR) projects. 

Section 2: line 158

The sentence structure starting on line 165 feels a little confusing to me.

Line 216 contrasts evaluation of risk by “most people” against line 219 that defines risk by scientists or risk assessors. Defining risk is very different than evaluating risk. Have you considered contrasting how most people evaluate risks against how scientists or assessors evaluate risks? 

Do you have data to support the sentence in line 256-258? If so, it would be an important note. If you don’t have data, it’s a good thing to consider. 

Do you have data for the sentence in 285, ..”Similarly, distributional justice will be of primary concern…”

Section 3 line 457

Line 475. It has proven very difficult to engage with any community in the abstract. It is possible to survey different groups and so perhaps get a feel for their biases and predilections. However, without a specific proposed project to motivate a real conversation, we have not found individuals to take a conversation seriously enough. Further, because so much effort is required to determine a potential site, engage the regulator, engage local communities, etc., it is very time consuming and resource intensive. For most OAE project developers before 2027, it will be very difficult or impossible to take on the cost in terms of time and money and be able to leave an area without having completed some project work. In other words, companies working in this area much choose a project site and then engage with the community, not the other way around. Perhaps consider a strong recommendation to due at least a cursory evaluation of the history and social considerations of a site before committing any kind of significant resources. 

Line 481. How do you effectively describe/define the local area? Generally, how does one define the community(ies) that are affected by a project. Is it just people near the beach of the project? Is it recreational users of the area? Businesses in the town over that might be affected? Who gets to say who is in the “affected community?” This is an area that needs more discussion. Saying “it is whomever considers themselves affected” is dangerous - that invites people activated in favor of or opposed to the project to insert themselves even if they are from far away.

Counter to this, any alkalinity changes will likely be undetectable even a small distance away from the actual project site, and this is likely the case for a number of years from now. If the alkalinity is not detectable at a specific site even by the most sensitive instruments, and likely won’t be for years, how much weight should be given to the members of that community? 

Line 491. “Vulnerable groups.” Vulnerable in what way? Ocean alkalinity is well understood. It is benign at small doses. There are no known allergies. Who specifically might be harmed? 

Line 527. Please add a period at the end of the sentence. Consider rewording the sentence - the structure is a little awkward. 

Line 516. Section 3.2. This is a good list. Have you considered providing advice on the order that they should be deployed to the community? It’s unlikely that companies will be able to deploy all of the section here before “engaging” in the community using techniques listed in the section starting on line 593. 

Line 593. You have two section marked 3.2. This also applies to line 630 which should be 6.3.1, line 679, line 714, 750, 809, 876, 939. 

Line 601 - 611. Similar question to the question above about who the community is? There is likely to be a group of people who is relatively more concerned and will want to be engaged, perhaps to delay or stop the project. How to ensure a reasonable cross section of participants? 

Line 617. Could you explain “integrating values, impacts, and concerns”? Is there alternative language you could consider? 

Line 620. Period at end of sentence. 

Line 819-828. The scale of the project is somewhat in question in this section. For example, if a pilot OAE project is the size of two shipping containers, how much tax revenues should be shared with the community?  How many employment opportunities are appropriate? It may be the case that a pilot DAC facility, which would likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars and be acres in size, is significantly smaller than a pilot OAE project. How does that affect what should the community expect in an engagement plan? 

Line 897-8

“”…goal is to elicit or initial heuristic responses…” I think the “or” is not meant to be there, but if that’s not the case, I don’t understand the sentence

Line 924, I suggest adding a comma between “to unpack that” and “given additional …”

Line 931. Have you considered reducing the number of times that superlatives are used. For example, “always key” in this line. It’s fine to say “key to the representativeness…” In my view, “always” doesn’t add value in this context. 

Line 939 - there is recent work on a “faster” version of deliberative polling that is being done by Pete Weber (let me know if you would like an introduction) in California that aims to dramatically reduce the amount of time, effort, and cost of deliberative polling. This version is a cross between polling with no education component and multi-day deliberative polling and can be used early in the process. 

Line 971. Insert “gather” or “create” or “have” between “might” and “greater”

Line 978. The definition of “affected communities” is frequently unclear in OAE projects. How wide does the community reach? In the case of “offshore” OAE, where are the affected communities. Perhaps an entire section on how to effectively define “affected communities” in conjunction with potential communities would be a good section in this document. This is one example of my comment at the very top of the document (Comment A)

Line 1007. Starting with “(3) incorporation of specific…

It would be wonderful to include concrete tips here of how to convince a broad range or a small set of community collaborators to agree to spend their time with the project team in a collaborative way. People in the community are busy and time is scarce. In our experience, most people who are willing to put time in are opponents who do not want to collaborate. 

Line 1019

Are CBAs appropriate in early stage OAE trials? The eventual impact to a community is not going to be large - there are not likely going to be huge plants built in a community for example. What size of a plant is required for a CBA to be appropriate?

General comments

This paper brings understanding from public risk perception and engagement research to the problem of how research on OAE (ocean alkalinity enhancement) as a tool for CDR (carbon dioxide removal) can be both societally responsible and successful. The paper argues that this can (only) be accomplished through a program of methodologically sound social research and public engagement and lays out key priorities and methodological approaches to accomplish this. The paper is fundamentally anticipatory in its stance—it is looking ahead to problems and issues on the societal side that scientists and engineers, as well as policymakers, are unlikely to be considering at this early stage of OAE development, but should be. Thus, the paper situates its recommended approach to OAE within the anticipatory frameworks of responsible research and innovation (RRI) and anticipatory engagement that have been/are being used successfully in the deployment of other new technologies. This paper first presents a literature review on what is known about public perceptions of OAE and contextualizes this limited data in relation to views on (some) other conceptually adjacent? emerging technologies. It then discusses specific methodological challenges and tools for requisite public engagement across the different stages of development. And finally suggests how the integration of this social research should take place, for increased success of OAE research and innovation.

The audiences for this guidance are seen primarily as OAE natural and engineering scientists/researchers, developers, policy makers, and funders. The paper aims to provide these different audiences with suggestions for conducting and incorporating necessary social science research and public engagement for responsible (and successful) development. The chapter concludes with specific tailored recommendations for both social scientists and scientists and engineers working together in this research space.

This paper in its aims and its execution aligns well with much current research and policy recommendations on responsible research and innovation. It is written in a highly accessible mode for its intended audiences, and provides careful definition and consideration of how the problem of how OAE (ocean alkalinity enhancement) research (as tool for CDR-carbon dioxide removal) can be both societally responsible and successful through a program of methodologically sound social research and public engagement. The authors propose the study of public perceptions of OAE as potentially risky or controversial is “worthy of exploration” and they draw particular attention to the diversity of views likely to emerge across relevant social groups, a critical issue for the innovation system to address with care. The need for social science research on public perceptions and public engagement that the paper advocates should not require this careful defense, but it absolutely does. So, the paper is making a necessary and useful intervention. The methods and approach they propose are also directly applicable to the larger marine-relevant and terrestrial CDR fields, within which OAE is just one approach, so there is potential broader application of this work. They rightly point out (141) that this is not a promotional piece.

A major strength of the paper is the depth of knowledge and understanding by the authors of perceptions of specific other adjacent fields to OAE and the wider marine and terrestrial environments for CDR, as well as energy, justice and climate mitigation fields, and the risk perception field itself. The paper thus can serve as both a detailed introduction to risk and benefit perception of technologies and consideration of the specifics of OAE as a technological risk object and a governance issue, across geographic scales.

Specific comments

Section 2-Literature review(s)

The authors note, correctly, that just providing accurate scientific information and improving public literacy are unlikely to resolve public concerns, and the evidence they provide of some indications already of negative public views on OAE is important.

In approaching the review of the extant literature on OAE perceptions and arguably related other areas, they cite 8 ‘initial propositions’ that provide more analytic rigor to this literature review. And then they discuss these across 3 main areas of public perception—OAE (and related) as risk objects; how risk perceivers’ characteristics drive or shape perceptions; and how regulatory and risk management contexts are likely to affect people’s judgments about OAE.

226) The argument re: controllability as a key factor in risk perception of OAE is important and rightly placed high in the argument.

280) Their provision across these areas of a summary ‘key message’ is excellent, especially for this intended audience, many of whom may be unfamiliar with the work cited and its implications for this study.

Overall, the reviews are comprehensive and cover all expected topics. This is well done.

The section (2.2.3) on moral hazard conditions could also draw attention to the parallels of these phenomena in the wider energy system change literature with notable contestation over principles of using fossil fuels as a necessary transition to renewables versus more hardline views opposing continued extraction in any form.

Section 2.3 on the effects of risk management and governance contexts on public views is absolutely critical and provides a suitable (though brief) summary of the key questions around issues of governance (monitoring; financing; addressing global responsibility; and assuring re: clean up/removal), environmental justice (in its multiple aspects), and the pivotal factor of trust in risk management.

One note, the summary of EJ views does not cite the ever-rising issue of recognition justice, although it is arguably related to reparative justice, which they do discuss.

In Section 3, they then go on to discuss methods for engagement of “interested and affected groups.” Here they articulate the goals and methods for gaining understanding of public views, laying down a number of key preparatory steps, and finally providing summaries of the main social science engagement methods at different stages of technology development and scales of effort. Table 1 (p 39) summarizes this, providing a useful snapshot and linking each method to RRI aims.

Comments: In general, the content in these sections is excellent, but there is some unevenness. Many other sources could be cited for the summary advice, but at least 1-2 per point, for example, in section 3.2 would clarify from whom they’re drawing this advice. There’s inexplicably more citation and detail in reference to approaches 3 and 4 than 1 and 2. This creates a sense that some are more recommended than others, so a more consistent and systematic pattern would be helpful (especially since the number of citations in each does not at all index the number of relevant studies, or other metrics).  Related to this unevenness effect, the authors later state that the review focuses “primarily on early-stage research” (984), but that’s not entirely clear from this section as presented.

Section 4 on post-engagement activities provides a brief summary of the ideals of how and and in what form these activities should take place (e.g., effective two-way communication, importance of early [and though they don’t say so, often] consultation). They cite the importance of informing modeling efforts, although this advice needs more explanation than they provide to make it fully coherent in this paper and for this audience.

Technical corrections

P 3)  inconsistent font in para 1

166) ‘fertilization approached’ is unclear?

252) ibid reference? in note ref per journal format?

329) ibid in note ref again? Consistent w/ journal format?

335) ditto (and elsewhere in the paper, but assuming it's probably okay w/ this journal?)

393—this part (a) is not followed by a parallel part (b) (maybe 399?)

435—why is this one reference dynamically linked?

447—delete double end parens

532 – add # after (2008)

637- change ‘run’ to ‘runs’

795- add vertical space

936 -‘a good review’ should be ‘good reviews’

1320-extra vertical space should be removed

1592—(6), column 2, in table 1 re: deliberative polling doesn’t actually specify what stage this would be—for consistency would be good to add (narrative 622 relative to this calls this ‘late-stage’)