Articles | Volume 2-oae2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2-oae2023-11-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2-oae2023-11-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
27 Nov 2023
| OAE Guide 2023 | Chapter 11
| 27 Nov 2023 | OAE Guide 2023 | Chapter 11
Social considerations and best practices to apply to engaging publics on ocean alkalinity enhancement
Terre Satterfield
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Sara Nawaz
Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy, American University, Washington, DC, USA
Miranda Boettcher
German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin, Germany
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Related authors
Andreas Oschlies, Lennart T. Bach, Rosalind E. M. Rickaby, Terre Satterfield, Romany Webb, and Jean-Pierre Gattuso
State Planet, 2-oae2023, 1, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2-oae2023-1-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2-oae2023-1-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Reaching promised climate targets will require the deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Marine CDR options receive more and more interest. Based on idealized theoretical studies, ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) appears as a promising marine CDR method. We provide an overview on the current situation of developing OAE as a marine CDR method and describe the history that has led to the creation of the OAE research best practice guide.
Andreas Oschlies, Lennart T. Bach, Rosalind E. M. Rickaby, Terre Satterfield, Romany Webb, and Jean-Pierre Gattuso
State Planet, 2-oae2023, 1, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2-oae2023-1-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2-oae2023-1-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Reaching promised climate targets will require the deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Marine CDR options receive more and more interest. Based on idealized theoretical studies, ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) appears as a promising marine CDR method. We provide an overview on the current situation of developing OAE as a marine CDR method and describe the history that has led to the creation of the OAE research best practice guide.
Cited articles
Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., and Gauvin, F.-P.: Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes, Soc. Sci. Med., 57, 239–251, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X, 2003.
Andersen, G., Merk, C., Ljones, M. L., and Johannessen, M. P.: Interim report on public perceptions of marine CDR, OceanNETs, Kiel, Germany, 52 pp., https://doi.org/10.3289/oceannets_d3.4, 2022.
Ankamah-Yeboah, I., Xuan, B. B., Hynes, S., and Armstrong, C. W.: Public Perceptions of Deep-Sea Environment: Evidence From Scotland and Norway, Front. Mar. Sci., 7, 137, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00137, 2020.
Balog‐Way, D., McComas, K., and Besley, J:. The evolving field of risk communication, Risk Anal., 40, 2240–2262, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13615, 2020.
Batchelor, N.: Bringing Environmental Justice to the Forefront of Carbon Re, https://www.xprize.org/prizes/carbonremoval/articles/bringing- environmental-justice-to-the-forefront-of-carbon-removal-projects, last access: 12 June 2023.
Bellamy, R.: Mapping public appraisals of carbon dioxide removal, Glob. Environ. Change, 76, 102593, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102593, 2022.
Bellamy, R., Fridahl, M., Lezaun, J., Palmer, J., Rodriguez, E., Lefvert, A., Hansson, A., Grönkvist, S., and Haikola, S.: Incentivising bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) responsibly: Comparing stakeholder policy preferences in the United Kingdom and Sweden, Environ. Sci. Policy, 116, 47–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.022, 2021.
Bertram, C. and Merk, C.: Public Perceptions of Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: The Nature-Engineering Divide?, Front. Clim., 2, 594194, https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.594194, 2020.
Borth, A. C. and Nicholson, S.: A Deliberative Orientation to Governing Carbon Dioxide Removal: Actionable Recommendations for National-Level Action, Front. Clim., 3, 684209, https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.684209, 2021.
Boyd, A. D., Hmielowski, J. D., and David, P.: Public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in Canada: Results of a national survey, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con., 67, 1–9, 2017.
Brown, J.: The world cafe: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter, with David Issacs and the World Cafe community, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 242 pp., ISBN 9781576752586, 2005.
Buck, H. J.: On the Possibilities of a Charming Anthropocene, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 105, 369–377, https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.973005, 2015.
Buck, H. J.: Village science meets global discourse: The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation's ocean iron fertilisation experiment, in: Geoengineering our Climate?, edited by: Blackstock, J. and Low, S., Routledge, ISBN 9781849713733, 2019a.
Buck, H. J.: After geoengineering: Climate tragedy, repair, and restoration, Verso Books, ISBN 9781788730365, 2019b.
Buck, H. J.: Should carbon removal be treated as waste management? Lessons from the cultural history of waste, Interface Focus, 10, 20200010, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2020.0010, 2020.
Buck, H. J., Carton, W., Lund, J. F., and Markusson, N.: Countries' long-term climate strategies fail to define residual emissions, Nat. Clim. Chang., 13, 317–319, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01614-7, 2023.
Burget, M., Bardone, E., and Pedaste, M.: Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Sci. Eng. Ethics, 23, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1, 2017.
Burgman, M., Chiaravalloti, R., Fidler, F., Huan, Y., McBride, M., Marcoci, A., Norman, J., Vercammen, A., Wintle, B., and Yu, Y.: A toolkit for open and pluralistic conservation science, Conserv. Lett., 16, e12919, https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12919, 2023.
Campbell, T. H. and Kay, A. C.: Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 107, 809–824, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963, 2014.
Campbell-Arvai, V., Hart, P. S., Raimi, K. T., and Wolske, K. S.: The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies, Climatic Change, 143, 321–336, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1, 2017.
Carr, W. A. and Yung, L.: Perceptions of climate engineering in the South Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and North American Arctic, Climatic Change, 147, 119–132, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2138-x, 2018.
Carton, W., Hougaard, I.-M., Markusson, N., and Lund, J. F.: Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?, WIREs Climate Change, 14, e826, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.826, 2023.
Cooley, S. R., Klinsky, S., Morrow, D. R., and Satterfield, T.: Sociotechnical Considerations About Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal, Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci., 15, 41–66, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-032122-113850, 2023.
Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., and Vaughan, N. E.: Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK, Glob. Environ. Change, 23, 938–947, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002, 2013.
Cox, E., Spence, E., and Pidgeon, N.: Public perceptions of carbon dioxide removal in the United States and the United Kingdom, Nat. Clim. Chang., 10, 744–749, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0823-z, 2020.
Cox, E., Boettcher, M., Spence, E., and Bellamy, R.: Casting a Wider Net on Ocean NETs, Front. Clim., 3, 576294, https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.576294, 2021.
Cox, E. M., Pidgeon, N., Spence, E., and Thomas, G.: Blurred Lines: The Ethics and Policy of Greenhouse Gas Removal at Scale, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6, 38, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00038, 2018.
Cummings, C. L., Lin, S. H., and Trump, B. D.: Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature, Clim. Res., 73, 247–264, https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01475, 2017.
Dell, M. and Olken, B. A.: The Development Effects of the Extractive Colonial Economy: The Dutch Cultivation System in Java, Rev. Econ. Stud., 87, 164–203, https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz017, 2020.
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010), European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, LU, ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9, 2010.
Dooley, K., Holz, C., Kartha, S., Klinsky, S., Roberts, J. T., Shue, H., Winkler, H., Athanasiou, T., Caney, S., Cripps, E., Dubash, N. K., Hall, G., Harris, P. G., Lahn, B., Moellendorf, D., Müller, B., Sagar, A., and Singer, P.: Ethical choices behind quantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement, Nat. Clim. Chang., 11, 300–305, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01015-8, 2021.
Dryzek, J. S.: Introduction: The Deliberative Turn in Democratic Theory, in: Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, edited by: Dryzek, J. S., Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/019925043X.003.0001, 2002.
Eden, S.: Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions, Public Underst. Sci., 5, 183–204, https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001, 1996.
Elsawah, S., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Rothman, D., Schweizer, V., Trutnevyte, E., Carlsen, H., Drakes, C., Frame, B., Fu, B., Guivarch, C., Haasnoot, M., Kemp-Benedict, E., Kok, K., Kosow, H., Ryan, M., and van Delden, H.: Scenario processes for socio-environmental systems analysis of futures: A review of recent efforts and a salient research agenda for supporting decision making, Sci. Total Environ., 729, 138393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138393, 2020.
Estévez, R. A., Anderson, C. B., Pizarro, J. C., and Burgman, M. A.: Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management, Conserv. Biol., 29, 19–30, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12359, 2015.
Fischhoff, B.: Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process1, Risk Anal., 15, 137–145, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x, 1995.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B.: How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sci., 9, 127–152, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739, 1978.
Fishkin, J., Luskin, R., and Jowell, R.: Deliberative polling and public consultation, Parliament. Aff., 53, 657–666, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/53.4.657, 2000.
Fishkin, J. S.: Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform, Yale University Press, ISBN 0300051611, 1991.
Fishkin, J. S. and Luskin, R. C.: Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion, Acta Polit., 40, 284–298, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500121, 2005.
Fowler Jr., F.: Survey Research Methods, 5th edn., SAGE Publications, 185 pp., ISBN 9781452259000, 2013.
Gannon, K. E. and Hulme, M.: Geoengineering at the “Edge of the World”: Exploring perceptions of ocean fertilisation through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, Geo: Geography and Environment, 5, e00054, https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.54, 2018.
Gray, G. A. and Guppy, N.: Successful Surveys: Research Methods and Practice, Harcourt Brace & Company, Canada, 242 pp., ISBN 0774736569, 1999.
Green, F.: Anti-fossil fuel norms, Climatic Change, 150, 103–116, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2134-6, 2018.
Greenberg, M. R. and Weiner, M. D.: Keeping Surveys Valid, Reliable, and Useful: A Tutorial, Risk Anal., 34, 1362–1375, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12250, 2014.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., and Ohlson, D.: Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9781444333411, 2012.
Gregory, R., Satterfield, T., and Hasell, A.: Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 560–565, 2016.
Hagerman, S., Satterfield, T., Nawaz, S., St-Laurent, G. P., Kozak, R., and Gregory, R.: Social comfort zones for transformative conservation decisions in a changing climate, Conserv. Biol., 35, 1932–1943, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13759, 2021.
Hawkins, J. P., O'Leary, B. C., Bassett, N., Peters, H., Rakowski, S., Reeve, G., and Roberts, C. M.: Public awareness and attitudes towards marine protection in the United Kingdom, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 111, 231–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.07.003, 2016.
Hoberg, G.: The Battle Over Oil Sands Access to Tidewater: A Political Risk Analysis of Pipeline Alternatives, Can. Public Pol., 39, 371–392, https://doi.org/10.3138/CPP.39.3.371, 2013.
Ingelson, A., Kleffner, A., and Nielson, N.: Long-Term Liability for Carbon Capture and Storage in Depleted North American Oil and Gas Reservoirs – A Comparative Analysis, Energy L. J., 31, 431–469, 2010.
Jami, A. A. and Walsh, P. R.: From consultation to collaboration: A participatory framework for positive community engagement with wind energy projects in Ontario, Canada, Energy Research & Social Science, 27, 14–24, 2017.
Jobin, M. and Siegrist, M.: Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies, Risk Anal., 40, 1058–1078, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13462, 2020.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L., and Braman, D.: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. S. S., 658, 192–222, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002, 2015.
Kahneman, D.: Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 511 pp., ISBN 9780374533557, 2011.
Keeney, R. L.: Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 92, 537–549, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(96)00004-5, 1996.
Kovach, M.: Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts, Second Edition, University of Toronto Press, 326 pp., ISBN 9781487525644, 2021.
Lamb, W. F., Antal, M., Bohnenberger, K., Brand-Correa, L. I., Müller-Hansen, F., Jakob, M., Minx, J. C., Raiser, K., Williams, L., and Sovacool, B. K.: What are the social outcomes of climate policies? A systematic map and review of the ex-post literature, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 113006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc11f, 2020.
Löhr, K., Weinhardt, M., and Sieber, S.: The “World Café” as a Participatory Method for Collecting Qualitative Data, Int. J. Qual. Meth., 19, 1609406920916976, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920916976, 2020.
Low, S. and Schäfer, S.: Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling, Energy Research & Social Science, 60, 101326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101326, 2020.
Low, S., Baum, C. M., and Sovacool, B. K.: Taking it outside: Exploring social opposition to 21 early-stage experiments in radical climate interventions, Energy Research & Social Science, 90, 102594, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102594, 2022.
Lund, J. F., Markusson, N., Carton, W., and Buck, H. J.: Net zero and the unexplored politics of residual emissions, Energy Research & Social Science, 98, 103035, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103035, 2023.
Mabon, L. and Shackley, S.: Meeting the Targets or Re-Imagining Society? An Empirical Study into the Ethical Landscape of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Scotland, Environ. Value., 24, 465–482, https://doi.org/10.3197/096327115X14345368709907, 2015.
Macnaghten, P., Davies, S. R., and Kearnes, M.: Understanding Public Responses to Emerging Technologies: A Narrative Approach, J. Environ. Pol. Plan., 21, 504–518, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110, 2019.
Mahmoudi, H., Renn, O., Vanclay, F., Hoffmann, V., and Karami, E.: A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment, Environ. Impact Assess., 43, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.003, 2013.
Mansbridge, J.: Deliberative Polling as the Gold Standard, The Good Society, 19, 55–62, https://doi.org/10.1353/gso.0.0085, 2010.
Markusson, N., McLaren, D., and Tyfield, D.: Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs), Global Sustainability, 1, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.10, 2018.
Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L. and Segal, M. E.: The Intelligenter Method (II) for “smarter” urban policy-making and regulation drafting, Cities, 61, 83–95, 2017.
Marsden, S.: Adawx, Spanaxnox, and the Geopolitics of the Tsimshian, BC Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly, University of British Columbia Press, 135, 101–135, 2002.
Maund, P., Irvine, K., Lawson, B., Steadman, J., Risely, K., Cunningham, A., and Davies, Z.: What motivates the masses: Understanding why people contribute to conservation citizen science projects, Biol. Conserv., 246, 108587, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108587, 2020.
McCauley, D., Ramasar, V., Heffron, R. J., Sovacool, B. K., Mebratu, D., and Mundaca, L.: Energy justice in the transition to low carbon energy systems: Exploring key themes in interdisciplinary research, Appl. Energ., 233–234, 916–921, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.005, 2019.
McMahan, E. A. and Estes, D.: The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis, J. Posit. Psychol., 10, 507–519, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994224, 2015.
Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., Kniebes, C., Rehdanz, K., and Schmidt, U.: Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection, Climatic Change, 130, 299–312, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7, 2015.
Merk, C., Nordø, Å. D., Andersen, G., Lægreid, O. M., and Tvinnereim, E.: Don't send us your waste gases: Public attitudes toward international carbon dioxide transportation and storage in Europe, Energy Research & Social Science, 87, 102450, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102450, 2022.
Merlino, S., Locritani, M., Guarnieri, A., Delrosso, D., Bianucci, M., and Paterni, M.: Marine litter tracking system: a case study with open-source technology and a citizen science-based approach, Sensors, 23, 935, https://doi.org/10.3390/s23020935, 2023.
Mohan, A., Geden, O., Fridahl, M., Buck, H. J., and Peters, G. P.: UNFCCC must confront the political economy of net-negative emissions, One Earth, 4, 1348–1351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.001, 2021.
Moosdorf, N., Renforth, P., and Hartmann, J.: Carbon Dioxide Efficiency of Terrestrial Enhanced Weathering, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 4809–4816, https://doi.org/10.1021/es4052022, 2014.
Morrow, D. R., Thompson, M. S., Anderson, A., Batres, M., Buck, H. J., Dooley, K., Geden, O., Ghosh, A., Low, S., and Njamnshi, A.: Principles for thinking about carbon dioxide removal in just climate policy, One Earth, 3, 150–153, 2020.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL): Best Practices: Public Outreach and Education for Geologic Storage Projects, US Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 68 pp., https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/BPM_PublicOutreach.pdf (last access: 16 November 2023), 2017.
Nawaz, S., Lezaun, J., Valenzuela, J. M., and Renforth, P.: Broaden Research on Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement to Better Characterize Social Impacts, Environ. Sci. Technol., 57, 8863–8869, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c09595, 2023a.
Nawaz, S., Peterson St-Laurent, G., and Satterfield, T.: Public evaluations of four approaches to ocean-based carbon dioxide removal, Clim. Policy, 23, 379–394, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2179589, 2023b.
O'Neill, B. C., Carter, T. R., Ebi, K., Harrison, P. A., Kemp-Benedict, E., Kok, K., Kriegler, E., Preston, B. L., Riahi, K., Sillmann, J., van Ruijven, B. J., van Vuuren, D., Carlisle, D., Conde, C., Fuglestvedt, J., Green, C., Hasegawa, T., Leininger, J., Monteith, S., and Pichs-Madruga, R.: Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework, Nat. Clim. Chang., 10, 1074–1084, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00952-0, 2020.
Osaka, S., Bellamy, R., and Castree, N.: Framing “nature-based” solutions to climate change, WIREs Climate Change, 12, e729, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.729, 2021.
Oschlies, A., Bach, L. T., Rickaby, R. E. M., Satterfield, T., Webb, R., and Gattuso, J.-P.: Climate targets, carbon dioxide removal, and the potential role of ocean alkalinity enhancement, in: Guide to Best Practices in Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement Research, edited by: Oschlies, A., Stevenson, A., Bach, L. T., Fennel, K., Rickaby, R. E. M., Satterfield, T., Webb, R., and Gattuso, J.-P., Copernicus Publications, State Planet, 2-oae2023, 1, https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2-oae2023-1-2023, 2023.
Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., and Guston, D.: A Framework for Responsible Innovation, in: Responsible Innovation, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 27–50, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch2, 2013.
Parkins, J. R. and Mitchell, R. E.: Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management, Soc. Natur. Resour., 18, 529–540, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947977, 2005.
Pereira, L. M., Crespo, G. O., Amon, D. J., Badhe, R., Bandeira, S., Bengtsson, F., Boettcher, M., Carmine, G., Cheung, W. W., and Chibwe, B.: The living infinite: Envisioning futures for transformed human-nature relationships on the high seas, Mar. Policy, 153, 105644, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105644, 2023.
Pidgeon, N.: Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks: frames, values and deliberation, J. Risk Res., 24, 28–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1749118, 2021.
Pidgeon, N. and Fischhoff, B.: The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks, in: Effective risk communication, Routledge, 319–342, ISBN 9781849712644, 2013.
Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., and Rogers-Hayden, T.: Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom, Nat. Nanotechnol., 4, 95–98, https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.362, 2009.
Pidgeon, N., Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Spence, A., Butler, C., and Poortinga, W.: Exploring early public responses to geoengineering, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 370, 4176–4196, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0099, 2012.
Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A., and Vaughan, N.: Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 451–457, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1807, 2013.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F.: Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs, Risk Anal., 24, 1475–1486, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00543.x, 2004.
Potts, T., Pita, C., O'Higgins, T., and Mee, L.: Who cares? European attitudes towards marine and coastal environments, Mar. Policy, 72, 59–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.012, 2016.
Puustinen, A., Raisio, H., and Valtonen, V.: Security Cafés: A Deliberative Democratic Method to Engage Citizens in Meaningful Two-Way Conversations with Security Authorities and to Gather Data, in: Society as an Interaction Space: A Systemic Approach, edited by: Lehtimäki, H., Uusikylä, P., and Smedlund, A., Springer Nature, Singapore, 311–330, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_15, 2020.
Ramana, M. V.: Nuclear power and the public, B. Atom. Sci., 67, 43–51, https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340211413358, 2011.
Rayner, S., Heyward, C., Kruger, T., Pidgeon, N., Redgwell, C., and Savulescu, J.: The Oxford Principles, Climatic Change, 121, 499–512, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2, 2013.
Renn, O.: A Model for an Analytic-Deliberative Process in Risk Management, Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 3049–3055, https://doi.org/10.1021/es981283m, 1999.
Renn, O.: The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: Participation and discourse in risk management, Risk analysis and society: An interdisciplinary characterization of the field, Cambridge University Press, 289–366, ISBN 0521825563, 2004.
Renn, O.: Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance, Int. J. Disast. Risk. Sci., 6, 8–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0037-6, 2015.
Rickels, W., Proelß, A., Geden, O., Burhenne, J., and Fridahl, M.: Integrating Carbon Dioxide Removal Into European Emissions Trading, Front. Clim., 3, 690023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.690023, 2021.
Ross, L., Day, M., and National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Community Energy Planning: Best Practices and Lessons Learned in NREL's Work with Communities, 16 pp., https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82937.pdf (last access: 16 November 2023), 2022.
Rutting, L., Vervoort, J., Mees, H., Pereira, L., Veeger, M., Muiderman, K., Mangnus, A., Winkler, K., Olsson, P., Hichert, T., Lane, R., Bottega Pergher, B., Christiaens, L., Bansal, N., Hendriks, A., and Driessen, P.: Disruptive seeds: a scenario approach to explore power shifts in sustainability transformations, Sustain. Sci., 18, 1117–1133, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01251-7, 2023.
Salomon, A. K., Okamoto, D. K., Wilson, Kii'iljuus Barbara J., Tommy Happynook, hiininaasim, Wickaninnish, Mack, wiicuckum A., Allan Davidson, S. H., Guujaaw, G., L. Humchitt, W. W. H., and Happynook, T. M.: Disrupting and diversifying the values, voices and governance principles that shape biodiversity science and management, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B, 378, 20220196, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0196, 2023.
Salter, J., Robinson, J., and Wiek, A.: Participatory methods of integrated assessment – a review, WIREs Climate Change, 1, 697–717, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.73, 2010.
Satterfield, T., Nawaz, S., and St-Laurent, G. P.: Exploring public acceptability of direct air carbon capture with storage: climate urgency, moral hazards and perceptions of the “whole versus the parts”, Climatic Change, 176, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03483-7, 2023.
Schiele, H., Krummaker, S., Hoffmann, P., and Kowalski, R.: The “research world café” as method of scientific enquiry: Combining rigor with relevance and speed, J. Bus. Res., 140, 280–296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.075, 2022.
Schulte, I., Yowargana, P., Nielsen, J. Ø., Kraxner, F., and Fuss, S.: Towards Integration? Considering Social Aspects with Large-Scale Computational Models for Nature-Based Solutions, SSRN, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4257773, 25 October 2022.
Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A. J., Smith, A., and Turner, B.: Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B, 375, 20190120, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120, 2020.
Shrum, T. R., Markowitz, E., Buck, H., Gregory, R., van der Linden, S., Attari, S. Z., and Van Boven, L.: Behavioural frameworks to understand public perceptions of and risk response to carbon dioxide removal, Interface Focus, 10, 20200002, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2020.0002, 2020.
Siegrist, M.: Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature, Risk Anal., 41, 480–490, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325, 2021.
Siegrist, M. and Árvai, J.: Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research, Risk Anal., 40, 2191–2206, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13599, 2020.
Simao, A., Densham, P. J., and Haklay, M. M.: Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: An application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites, J. Environ. Manage., 90, 2027–2040, 2009.
Simpson, A.: On ethnographic refusal: Indigeneity, “voice” and colonial citizenship, Juncture: The Journal of Thematic Dialogue, PKP Publishing Services Network, 9, 67–80, 2007.
Simpson, A.: Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States, Duke University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1198w8z, 2014.
Slovic, P.: Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy, Risk Anal., 13, 675–682, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x, 1993.
Slovic, P.: The perception of risk, Earthscan Publications, London, England, xxxvii, 473 pp., ISBN 1853835285, 2000.
Slovic, P.: “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide, Judgm. Decis. Mak., 2, 79–95, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000061, 2007.
Spence, E., Cox, E., and Pidgeon, N.: Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy, Climatic Change, 165, 23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03050-y, 2021.
Stirling, A.: “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology, Sci. Technol. Hum. Val., 33, 262–294, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265, 2008.
Strefler, J., Amann, T., Bauer, N., Kriegler, E., and Hartmann, J.: Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 034010, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c4, 2018.
Sunstein, C. R.: Irreversible and Catastrophic, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.707128, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 242, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/286/ (last access: 16 November 2023), 1 March 2005.
Thomas, M., Partridge, T., Harthorn, B. H., and Pidgeon, N.: Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK, Nat. Energy, 2, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.54, 2017.
Tollefson, J.: Ocean-fertilization project off Canada sparks furore, Nature, 490, 458–459, https://doi.org/10.1038/490458a, 2012.
Tuck, E. and Yang, K. W.: Decolonization is not a metaphor, Tabula Rasa, 38, 61–111, https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n38.04, 2021.
Tuhiwai-Smith, L.: Decolonizing Methodologies, 3rd edn., Bloomsbury Publishing, 344 pp., ISBN 978178699812, 2021.
Veland, S. and Merk, C.: Lay person perceptions of marine carbon dioxide removal (CDR) – Working paper, OceanNETs, Kiel, Germany, 24 pp., https://doi.org/10.3289/oceannets_d3.3, 2021.
Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. F., and DeVries, N. K.: How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks, Risk Anal., 27, 715–727, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00915.x, 2007.
Webb, R., Silverman-Roati, K., and Gerrard, M.: Removing Carbon Dioxide Through Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement and Seaweed Cultivation: Legal Challenges and Opportunities, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2739/ (last access: 1 March 2023), 2021.
Whyte, K. P.: The Recognition Dimensions of Environmental Justice in Indian Country, Environmental Justice, 4, 199–205, https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2011.0036, 2011.
Whyte, K. P.: Indigeneity in Geoengineering Discourses: Some Considerations, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21, 289–307, https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562529, 2018.
Wibeck, V., Hansson, A., Anshelm, J., Asayama, S., Dilling, L., Feetham, P. M., Hauser, R., Ishii, A., and Sugiyama, M.: Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries, Climatic Change, 145, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2067-0, 2017.
Wilson, S.: Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods, Fernwood publishing, ISBN 9781552662816, 2020.
Wolfe, P.: Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native, Journal of Genocide Research, 8, 387–409, https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240, 2006.
Wolske, K. S., Raimi, K. T., Campbell-Arvai, V., and Hart, P. S.: Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions, Climatic Change, 152, 345–361, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z, 2019.
Wong, P.-H.: Consenting to Geoengineering, Philos. Technol., 29, 173–188, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0203-1, 2016.
World Resources Institute (WRI): Development without conflict: The business case for community consent, edited by: Sohn, J., 56 pp., http://pdf.wri.org/development_without_conflict_fpic.pdf (last access: 16 November 2023), 2007.
World Resources Institute (WRI): CCS and Community Engagement-Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage Projects, 98 pp., https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/pdf/ccs_and_community_engagement.pdf (last access: 16 November 2023), 2010.
Short summary
To ensure that ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) research is attentive to societal priorities and does not prematurely engender widespread social rejection, it will be critical to understand the conditions most likely to lead to social approval. To facilitate this, we (1) characterize what is known to date about public perceptions of OAE, (2) provide suggestions on how to conduct public engagement, and (3) suggest how knowledge gained can be integrated into ongoing scientific work.
To ensure that ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) research is attentive to societal priorities...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint