2

Social Science Issues Associated with the Siting of Infrastructure for Industrial Decarbonization

Emily Grubert, Planning Committee Member and Associate Professor of Sustainable Energy Policy and Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences at the University of Notre Dame, moderated the first panel of the workshop, focusing on social science issues related to the siting of infrastructure in the context of industrial decarbonization. The panel delved into the complex landscape of developing regional hubs for industrial decarbonization and, in the process, encompassed economic, environmental, and procedural factors influencing the siting process. Drawing from existing social science frameworks and siting approaches, panelists identified future social science research needs essential for siting infrastructure related to industrial decarbonization.

A SOCIAL SCIENCE FRAMEWORK TO ASSESS INDUSTRIAL HUB SITING OUTCOMES

The first panelist, Elizabeth Ross, a Mixed Methods Intersectional Analyst at the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis within the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, discussed social science issues associated with siting infrastructure for industrial decarbonization hubs in the context of her commissioned paper—written with co-authors Kristin Wegner Guilfoyle and Sharon Smolinski—which outlines a research agenda.¹ Ross noted that industrial decarbonization can include the decarbonization of existing infrastructure or the development of new infrastructure. She explained that industrial decarbonization hubs are complex and multifaceted since they incorporate clean technologies into industrial processes and materials manufacturing and utilize these technologies as energy sources. The hub siting process is complex and multifaceted, she continued, since siting multiple industrial facilities in a centralized location necessitates coordination among numerous stakeholders, including government entities, other industries, the workforce, and affected community members. She pointed out that the hub siting process has potential environmental, economic, and social impacts and would therefore benefit from an interdisciplinary research agenda.

To formulate the research agenda in their paper, the authors drew insights from the existing literature. Ross said they initially drew from industrial decarbonization roadmaps—specifically those associated with the World

___________________

¹ Guilfoyle, K. W., Smolinski, S., & Ross, E. (2024). [A social science framework to assess industrial hub siting outcomes]. Commissioned paper for the Committee on Developing and Assessing Ideas for Social and Behavioral Research to Speed Efficient and Equitable Industrial Decarbonization: A Workshop. The paper is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/41881_02-2024_developing-and-assessing-ideas-for-social-and-behavioral-research-to-speed-efficient-and-equitable-industrial-decarbonization-a-workshop

Economic Forum’s Transitioning Industrial Clusters initiative,² the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap,³ and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy System report.⁴ Additionally, the authors incorporated insights from social science literature, primarily drawing from siting-acceptance literature related to smaller-scale facilities. Ross highlighted that their approach also considered collective learning frameworks, environmental governance, and additional learning perspectives.

Applying an energy justice perspective to industrial decarbonization hub siting processes can facilitate the long-term accrual of community benefits, Ross commented. Research indicates that collaborative decision-making processes lead to better outcomes since siting processes that community members perceive as just are more likely to garner support and address justice concerns. Ross explained that, for this reason, their research agenda is community focused and incorporates energy justice elements. Existing decarbonization roadmaps were utilized to identify five main groups of factors influencing the effectiveness of successful siting of industrial decarbonization hubs, including: a) institutional and policy; b) social dynamics and partnerships; c) technological; d) economic; and e) environmental. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of these factors, Ross suggested the need for a research agenda to adopt a mixed-methods approach—both quantitative and qualitative—while emphasizing community-based research.

Their paper presents several questions that can be answered through future research, but Ross’s comments focused on social dynamics and partnerships. Ross proposed that future work with numerous stakeholders is needed to explore the execution of these processes in complex siting environments. She specifically noted the need for research on policies to establish cross-border partnerships for industrial decarbonization hubs. Additional research needs to include investigating mechanisms and relevant metrics for tracking and identifying risks throughout hub planning, siting, and operation—ideally, she suggested, with the involvement of community members.

Regarding potential community support and/or opposition, Ross noted that robust literature on smaller-scale facilities could be used to inform a research agenda and hypotheses for industrial decarbonization hub siting. However, due to the unique nature of industrial hubs, she suggested that further research is needed on community perceptions, particularly regarding differing attitudes towards decarbonizing existing hubs versus developing new infrastructure. Additionally, she commented that research could explore community perceptions of industrial decarbonization technologies, especially those in pre-commercial and demonstration phases.

Ross mentioned that further research is needed to understand the multifaceted impact of industrial decarbonization hubs on surrounding communities, particularly when distributed industrial facilities are consolidated into concentrated hubs. Examining the effects on communities losing and gaining facilities, including potential economic losses and environmental health gains, is crucial, she emphasized. Furthermore, workforce skill mapping could be used to enhance hub siting processes by identifying ways to leverage existing workforce skills in potential hub locations. Ross went on to say that data tracking from pre- to post-siting could provide valuable insights and identify benefits into the impacts of hubs on surrounding communities.

Surveys, focus groups, and interviews can be valuable tools for assessing community perceptions and concerns about industrial hubs and offering insights into how these evolve over time. The early assessment of perceptions and concerns is crucial for monitoring and mitigating risks, Ross emphasized, and can inform environmental and economic metrics tracking during industrial hub planning, siting, and operation. In this regard, numerous existing datasets and tools can be utilized to monitor metrics and evaluate the impact of relocating or decarbonizing industrial facilities. She highlighted certain economic and environmental data tracking indicators such as unemployment rates, income, poverty rates, and exposure to environmental hazards. She went on to remark that, additionally, workforce data such as educational attainment, top job sectors, and skill mapping can be employed to assess alignment with current and needed skills. Ross mentioned that many existing datasets contain environmental and energy justice information that could be used to target outreach and collaboration efforts in communities

___________________

² More information on the Transitioning Industrial Clusters initiative is available at https://initiatives.weforum.org/transitioning-industrial-clusters/home

³ More information on the Department of Energy’s Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap is available at https://www.energy.gov/industrial-technologies/doe-industrial-decarbonization-roadmap

⁴ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Accelerating decarbonization of the U.S. energy system. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25932

that have been historically left out of the decision-making process. Datasets that could be leveraged include the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool;⁵ DOE’s Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool;⁶ the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s State and Local Planning for Energy (SLOPE) Platform;⁷ the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool;⁸ and census data. Other potential data sources include Community Benefits Plans (CBPs) submitted by U.S. Department of Defense grant applicants and National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

To conclude, Ross presented a case study that could serve as a starting point for addressing research questions, particularly those related to community impacts. The Houston Hub in Texas and Louisiana is a large-scale collaborative project involving multiple institutions and comprehensive CBPs encompassing workforce development and community engagement.⁹ In closing, she noted that research would ideally involve mapping stakeholders, assessing goal alignment across state borders, documenting CBPs, and evaluating the success of strategies.

NAVIGATING COMMUNITY DYNAMICS AND DECISION MAKING IN INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION: INSIGHTS FROM SOCIOLOGY AND PLANNING

Hilary Boudet, Associate Professor and Associate Director of Graduate Programs at the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University, highlighted the role of “place” in the sociology literature, and of “process” in the planning literature, which could be included in the paper’s facility siting results. The sociological context she noted included rural sociology and environmental sociology literature, along with knowledge about individual demographic factors that can shape public perceptions and community responses to industrial facilities. Boudet encouraged the consideration of different community contexts in the placement of facilities in areas with existing industrial development since previous experience with industrial development profoundly influenced the perceptions of community members and stakeholders towards such projects. She pointed out that engaging with the literature on social movements shifts the research focus from fostering community acceptance to understanding the conditions under which communities oppose facilities, suggesting that community responses may be influenced by various community actors, opportunities for public participation, and availability of resources for community mobilization. She also mentioned social representations theory, a concept in the sociological literature that seeks to understand how individuals and groups make sense of and interpret their social worlds when confronted with unfamiliar technologies. Thus, she went on to say that it would be intriguing to investigate the social representations that people use to understand and communicate about industrial decarbonization hubs versus other more established technologies.

With regard to the planning literature, Boudet said that studying facility siting—particularly facilities categorized as locally unwanted land uses—has revealed a historical focus on addressing “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) responses to large-scale facilities. However, the literature has evolved away from a focus on NIMBYism to emphasizing early community engagement prior to siting decisions, indicating a shift from overcoming opposition to fostering community engagement and ongoing collaboration.

Next, Boudet noted existing frameworks that could be drawn upon or adapted for industrial decarbonization. She highlighted the Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment framework, created by Stephens et al.,¹⁰ which involves social and political evaluation of energy development and encompasses crucial factors for the success of industrial decarbonization hubs. These include technical, institutional, regulatory, legal, political, economic,

___________________

⁵ More information about the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool is available at https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/

⁶ More information about the Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool is available at https://www.energy.gov/scep/slsc/low-income-energy-affordability-data-lead-tool

⁷ More information about the State and Local Planning for Energy (SLOPE) Platform is available at https://maps.nrel.gov/slope

⁸ More information about the EJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

⁹ Great Plains Institute. (2022). Houston hub. https://carboncaptureready.betterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Houston_Carbon_Hydrogen_Hub.pdf

¹⁰ Stephens, J. C., Wilson, E. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2008). Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 75(8), 1224–1246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2007.12.003

and social factors, which overlap with many of the factors Ross discussed. Boudet also noted that one of her publications includes factors affecting community response and “public perceptions of new energy technologies,” including technology-, people-, place-, and process-based considerations.¹¹

In the context of siting facilities, Boudet remarked that scholars have long been concerned about information flow issues, referred to by some as “information haze,” in which community members struggle to identify reliable information sources and who to trust. She referred to deliberate disinformation campaigns targeting renewable energy technologies, suggesting that social scientists could research the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation¹² to better understand its role in shaping public opinions and subsequently develop strategies to recognize and combat such campaigns.

Regarding recent attention directed toward developing and institutionalizing community benefits arrangements and project labor agreements, Boudet said social scientists could help understand related past developments and how they connect with current changes. She noted that questions frequently arise when industrial decarbonization hubs span multiple states and communities, and also highlighted related issues including defining “community” of this type of development, determining whether efforts need to be led by developers or government entities, and deciding who is best to lead in distributing benefits. Boudet concluded that a complex set of considerations are needed to address concerns about potential risks to communities, to determine the flow of benefits back to communities, and to evaluate decisions.

TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK: UNRAVELING COMPLEXITIES IN INDUSTRIAL HUB DEVELOPMENT AND SITING PERSPECTIVES

Patrick Devine-Wright, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Exeter, shared his perspective from researching the development of industrial hubs in the United Kingdom as part of the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre (IDRIC).¹³ To make the social science framework discussed in the paper as comprehensive and well-informed as possible, he encouraged considering the intellectual tools needed to understand hub development—including written outputs that are not peer reviewed (e.g., policy briefs)—as part of the emerging landscape of work on this topic. He pointed out that creating a comprehensive interdisciplinary framework presents a challenge since potentially relevant disciplines or conceptual perspectives may be inadvertently excluded from the initial framework.

Regarding the structure of an interdisciplinary framework, Devine-Wright stated that numerous factors influence site selection and those factors are often conceptualized separately. When examining interactions between technical, economic, social, and justice dynamics, boundaries are often blurred. He called for further exploration and development of these interactions with a focus on understanding their relationships and specific connections.

Building on Boudet’s insight that decades of research have moved beyond NIMBYism to explore conditions related to acceptance of and objection to siting, Devine-Wright remarked that when adopting a siting perspective, some elements—like the geography of energy technology deployment—can be lost. He highlighted concepts of scale, place, and others as potentially relevant considerations for hub siting.

Devine-Wright went on to say that a focus on host communities is crucial in the context of justice-related considerations. However, since these endeavors extend beyond local communities to encompass city, state, and regional levels, he called for increased emphasis on mechanisms of engagement across various scales. He suggested not only exploring opportunities for deliberative engagement with stakeholders and the public but also anticipating conflicts and uncovering unintended consequences of technologies or deployments through early and sustained deliberative processes.

Noting the inadequacy of a one-size-fits-all approach, Devine-Wright proposed a framework that emphasizes a place-sensitive approach and incorporates ideas from the environmental justice literature. He explained that

___________________

¹¹ Boudet, H. S. (2019). Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nature Energy, 4(6), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0399-x

¹² More information about misinformation and disinformation is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/topics/misinformation

¹³ More information about the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre is available at https://idric.org/

while narratives are crucial for change as well as for rallying support for industrial decarbonization, their framing is important. Further, he pointed out the potential value of considering a more interpretive approach by examining the representations, framings, and meanings deployed by various actors—whether they are expressing skepticism, objection, or support. This approach, he commented, explores why deployments might be perceived positively and how individuals respond to them, which could provide a more nuanced understanding of the overall process.

To conclude, Devine-Wright expressed a desire for further exploration of dimensions related to scale and place, highlighting existing literature on social acceptance and suggesting that insights from the work of Rolf Wüstenhagen and Maarten Wolsink in the European context could be directly applicable and valuable.

NAVIGATING CREDIBILITY, DEFINING PROBLEMS, BALANCING TRADE-OFFS, AND UNRAVELING HISTORICAL CONTEXTS

Alexander Gazmararian, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Politics and Prize Fellow in Social Sciences at Princeton University, suggested ways to strengthen siting efforts in relation to social science research questions by incorporating insights from political science and economics—particularly those related to government credibility.¹⁴ Industrial hubs, involving long-term commitments by firms and communities, are often influenced by federal policies in the United States. He highlighted potential problems arising from the unique priorities of shifting political administrations, which could affect the durability of support for investments. Given that this dynamic can pose risks for investors and influence the social acceptability of such projects, Gazmararian emphasized the importance of addressing government credibility concerns in the context of industrial hubs. He noted that his research revealed concerns about the reliability of government commitments to support investments in industrial areas where new hubs may be located. He further discussed the need to distinguish between industrial hubs, which require sustained investment, and quickly built renewable energy projects like wind and solar. He identified the long-term nature of these hubs as a key aspect of the siting problem, urging a focus on this aspect in research questions. In relation to designing community engagement processes entailing a long-term perspective, Gazmararian proposed two relevant research questions: first, how processes and institutions can minimize uncertainty about sustained support for hubs; and second, how federal policymakers can address this uncertainty.

Gazmararian suggested, in addition, the need for a clear articulation of the problem of long-term engagement and descriptive research associated with establishing industrial hubs. Highlighting the distinct nature of these hubs compared to renewable energy projects, he called for a thorough understanding of the challenges before delving into a theoretical framework. While the paper acknowledged data needs and challenges such as community acceptance and investment risks, Gazmararian proposed an assessment of existing evidence associated with problems that arise when siting industrial hubs. Such problems may include hesitancy by industry, local opposition, workforce shortages, coordination dilemmas that could hinder energy justice goals, and limited community input opportunities. Once a clearer understanding of the challenges exists, he said, then a framework could be developed with interventions and solutions.

Gazmararian went on to make two related points. The first focused on the trade-offs associated with incentives for companies investing in industrial hubs, and second focused on the subsequent local benefits to communities. Local, state, and federal tax incentives can play a crucial role in attracting investments but can impact the distribution of benefits to local communities. Community acceptance of these projects can be influenced by whether they anticipate receiving benefits, he said. He discussed the potential role of trade-offs for tax incentives that can attract these kinds of investments and have implications for public goods such as schools, roads, and infrastructure—factors that can motivate communities to embrace these projects. He noted that this becomes especially pertinent for communities relying on fossil fuel-related economic benefits that are facing declining tax revenue due to the clean energy transition. He suggested exploring whether industrial hubs, with their fixed geographic nature and federal prioritization in particular areas, hinder the ability of state and local policymakers to design investments that benefit

___________________

¹⁴ Gazmararian also noted his recent book: Gazmararian, A. F., & Tingley, D. (2023). Uncertain futures: How to unlock the climate impasse. Cambridge University Press.

communities. Beyond the siting process, he pointed out the relevance of examining tax incentive design, their impact on industrial organizational behavior, and the subsequent distribution of benefits to communities.

Gazmararian’s last point underscored the importance of considering the historical context, aligning his ideas with Boudet’s emphasis on community context. Industrial hubs are often located in areas with a history of extraction by the fossil fuel sector. This history may make communities skeptical of promises of local benefits, yet he noted that such background also advances a community’s familiarity with industrial processes. He encouraged an exploration of how historical experiences influence community acceptance of industrial projects.

SOCIAL SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS GUIDING THE SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION OF INDUSTRIES FOR DECARBONIZATION EFFORTS

In the panel discussion, Grubert raised a question exploring whether there is a social science agenda that can be used to help decide not only the viability of a siting project but also whether an industry needs to decarbonize. She also raised a crucial point about the scale of decarbonization and the need to prospectively explore the pertinent stakeholders in these discussions. Devine-Wright responded by saying that, at the national level in the United Kingdom, a wealth of perspectives and ideas contribute to ongoing efforts to envision a net-zero society by 2050. He explained that the focus is on exploring various scenarios and pathways to achieve net zero by emphasizing inclusivity and incorporating multiple voices. Differing opinions exist, he noted, about whether this transformation needs to involve concepts like green growth and ecological modernity or if it is better to instead lean towards sufficiency, circular economy principles, and reduced resource use.

Devine-Wright emphasized that, ultimately, regional hubs and local communities require an integrated approach that connects across multiple scales of governance. He highlighted the need to link local and regional narratives to a national vision for a decarbonized society. Concomitantly, he pointed out that a narrow focus on industrial decarbonization entails the potential risk of overlooking critical issues such as reducing poverty, prioritizing the need for clean air, and maintaining children’s health. He noted that, when pursuing net zero, the approach needs to consider these various concerns. He again emphasized a place-sensitive perspective rather than a sole focus on individual technologies or industries.

Planning Committee Member David Victor remarked that hubs are complex endeavors with many actors, connecting to earlier comments from Gazmararian about credibility. Victor noted that attempting to tackle multiple issues simultaneously during hub initiation would likely jeopardize the probability of success. While it may be suboptimal from a planning perspective, he suggested that starting with a few anchor customers and suppliers could help guide sector prioritization decisions. He urged consideration of the complexities involved in hub establishment and its implications for shaping the social science agenda.

In light of the above-mentioned complexities, Gazmararian proposed an approach to solving the coordination problem that considers climate literature, suggesting that industrial hubs could learn from the concept of sequencing climate policy to build progressive and ambitious coalitions. He suggested exploring social science questions related to determining the optimal sequencing of hub development to foster community acceptance while simultaneously ensuring sufficient growth and reaping the advantages of colocation. Gazmararian emphasized the need to consider the types of firms required and the incentives necessary for long-term optimization.

Drawing upon his nuclear plant-related experience, Victor addressed the challenge of community engagement—specifically the difficulty associated with conducting social science research in an abstract environment where community priorities are unclear. He inquired about whether social science-based guidance exists on organizing a research agenda when challenging ex-ante planning is required.

Boudet replied that the literature emphasizes the importance of engaging community members early in the process to understand their values and needs. This approach, she emphasized, aims to let community perspectives guide decision-making processes rather than focusing solely on the potential benefits or harms of a project. Boudet suggested considering these projects on a broader regional scale, pointing to potential parallels in building government credibility for siting.

Devine-Wright addressed the challenge of community engagement when the nature of the engagement is not fully defined. He pointed to existing social science literature on upstream engagement in technological assessment

processes, particularly related to responsible technological innovation. This approach involves integrating public values into the design of emerging technologies. He went on to introduce the concept of socio-technical imaginaries, which endeavors to explore visions associated with future technological systems and their anticipated benefits. Pointing out that relevant literature may exist that describes the navigation of uncertainties surrounding the deployment of new technologies, Devine-Wright emphasized the importance of addressing skepticism and mistrust from the outset, particularly in communities with historical experiences of industrialization and deindustrialization. Building trust, he added, is critical to address early in the process, since it is difficult to establish trust at later stages.

Planning Committee Member Elke Weber noted that various groups and coalitions can form as a result of community cooperation and opposition to projects. She asked if panel participants knew of any similar trends in industrial decarbonization from the research literature or public coverage of these issues. Boudet responded that her focus lies in understanding various types of responses to projects, including factors driving opposition and acceptance. She noted a segment of the literature that involves a debate on terminology choice with respect to the term “social acceptance.” The nuanced nature of “acceptance,” Boudet noted, can range from genuine support for a project to a more passive form of acceptance that resembles quiescence, in which the community does not express opposition but might harbor reservations. She emphasized that this variation in levels of acceptance, possibly even including negative sentiments within the community, can pose challenges during a project’s construction and operation.

Gazmararian agreed that research is needed on both sides of the “acceptance” continuum. He emphasized the importance of understanding both the beneficiaries and potential opponents of projects. This dual focus is crucial, he stated, given variation across project types and the influence of tax incentives. He also underscored the need to appreciate the contextual dynamics of community stakeholders with varying levels of influence and power, as these factors can influence community preferences and shape project outcomes.

Devine-Wright highlighted a predominant focus on host communities, noting that the paper is centered around regional hubs. He emphasized the difference between regional industrial decarbonization and community acceptance. He underscored the potential costs associated with inadequate public engagement and the importance of a more inclusive perspective beyond individual communities.

Susan Tierney, Planning Committee Chair, closed the panel by discussing the nature of initiatives that may be competing for federal funding, emphasizing the lack in the literature of comprehensive examples that address transparency and community engagement challenges in the face of potentially intense competition between local or even regional players. She underscored the common involvement of entities such as chambers of commerce or state officials but noted that engagement with local communities is often limited. Tierney posed a research question about possible ways to bridge the gap between secrecy, transparency, and engagement. Particularly in the face of competitive dynamics, she went on to comment, this aspect can often be a significant obstacle. She called for greater intellectual attention to finding effective ways to navigate these considerations.

Pertaining to the empirical work on host communities and industrial clusters in the United Kingdom, Devine-Wright noted challenges concerning both industry and community engagement. Due to various uncertainties, he commented, industries often express reluctance to engage with communities about potential projects before feasibility assessments, and some communities cite mistrust based on past experiences of secrecy. Acknowledging the difficulty of advocating for earlier engagement and transparency, he emphasized the substantial risks involved. His suggestion was to explore social science research on the co-production of knowledge. Remarking on the potential for building trust over time, Devine-Wright went on to recognize a prevailing lack of trust seen in the United Kingdom, making such conversations challenging and hindering effective collaboration.

This page intentionally left blank.