4

Just Process for Equitable Industrial Decarbonization: A Social Science Research Agenda

The third panel discussed the crucial role of just processes, a key issue relevant to a social science research agenda for achieving equitable industrial decarbonization. The session aimed to discern existing insights and gaps in understanding industrial decarbonization as an equitable process with a special focus on the models and mechanisms by which value and benefits can be transferred to communities to compensate them for the changes and risks inherent in the process. Discussing community engagement and community partnerships, the panel outlined the importance of language and the need to emphasize transparency when considering how, when, and why to include communities in siting decisions.

In her opening remarks, moderator Elke Weber, Planning Committee Member and Gerhard R. Andlinger Professor in Energy and the Environment and Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs, Princeton School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, emphasized that trust is a crucial factor in all partnerships, particularly in the context of the global push for decarbonization. She pointed out that although the current trust deficit among various stakeholders—including communities, developers, and regulators—poses a distinct challenge, well-designed and well-executed partnerships can build trust over time, facilitating faster and more extensive industrial decarbonization-related action.

THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF JUST PROCESS FOR EQUITABLE INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION: AN ACTION RESEARCH AGENDA FOR CARBON MANAGEMENT AND OTHER EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

Jennifer Hirsch, Senior Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities Research and Education at the Georgia Institute of Technology, discussed her co-authored commissioned paper focusing on a just process for equitable industrial decarbonization.¹ The co-authors are action researchers and practitioners with a history of community engagement in infrastructure and other fields related to industrial decarbonization. Hirsch said that their work emphasizes considering communities as people, not stakeholders, adding that “if it were up to me, we

___________________

¹ Hirsch, J., Jalbert, K., Keeler, L., O’Connell, L. K., Roberts, D.-L., & Smith, J. (2024). [The crucial role of just process for equitable industrial decarbonization: An action research agenda for carbon management and other emerging technologies]. 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

would never use the word stakeholders again to refer to communities where we are the stakeholders going in there and doing work, but they are the residents, and they will live with whatever the work is that we end up doing.”

The paper’s literature review explored insights derived from social science research and community literature and activities—overall and in specific projects—including both successes and challenges in the area of community engagement. Additionally, the literature review examined the potential applicability of this research to industrial decarbonization. The paper’s research agenda focused on identifying social science and humanities research efforts needed to formulate inclusive and just processes for community engagement with the aim of enhancing the likelihood of achieving equitable industrial decarbonization. Hirsch noted that the paper focused on community engagement over public engagement, highlighting the distinction between the two terms. Furthermore, the paper specifically addresses historically marginalized communities and differences in community engagement across factors such as race and class.

Key insights derived from the paper’s literature review on community engagement and public participation in infrastructure development—including mining, oil and gas, and renewable energy—highlight a widespread distrust of infrastructure projects and powerful actors. Hirsch explained that differences in influence and expertise can lead to the disproportionate distribution of risks, harms, and benefits. The paper emphasizes that procedural justice is crucial since the acknowledged governmental bias towards industry reinforces the perceived importance of and need for community empowerment when it comes to holding industry and government accountable. A key takeaway from the paper, noted Hirsch, is the need for more research on the distinct impacts of various engagement approaches on outcomes.

Based on current literature, community engagement within the domain of carbon management is in its early stages. Social science research has been based primarily on public perception surveys, Hirsch noted, which reveal that carbon storage is a particularly controversial aspect of decarbonization efforts, and that acceptance of carbon management projects is influenced by various factors. She pointed out that within the environmental justice community, carbon management is largely perceived as a false solution. Noting that key engagement concerns revolve around collaborative leadership and shared decision-making power, the paper emphasizes the importance of community involvement in determining outcomes—including the right to refuse. Hirsch acknowledged Holly Jean Buck’s literature review² of social science research on carbon capture and storage to date, which focused on public engagement, underscoring the need for additional research on community engagement.

Hirsch shared a proposed research agenda comprising five questions, with the first four each aimed at a different population:

• Historically Marginalized Communities: What are the benefits, limitations, outcomes, and lessons learned from the varied approaches that have been or are being used to engage historically marginalized communities in projects led by more powerful partners, industries, and institutions?
• Developers, Technologists, and Government Actors: What is needed to ensure that technologists, industry practitioners, and government actors have the competency and literacy to be effective partners with communities—especially historically marginalized communities—in deep decarbonization?
• Engaging Social Scientists and Humanists as Community Benefits Plans (CBP) leads: How can social scientists and humanists shape community benefits planning as action-oriented researchers embedded in carbon management and other industrial decarbonization projects?
• Project Teams: How can project teams develop dynamics that respect and incorporate the diverse range of knowledge and expertise of all team members, especially given the techno-centric nature of the projects (and of the Funding Opportunity Announcements)?
• Final Question: How does the “metrification” of engagement; justice; and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility shape how carbon management projects are designed, implemented, and evaluated?

Delving into the last question, Hirsch pointed out that metrics may inadequately represent the essence of a good life and, as a result, can “run the risk of reducing life to numbers.” The paper lays out questions associated

___________________

² Buck, H. J. (2021). Social science for the next decade of carbon capture and storage. The Electricity Journal, 34(7), 107003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2021.107003

with monitoring community-centric benefits and harms, including identifying justice concerns inappropriate for metric measurement, exploring measurement methodologies, uncovering assumptions in federal screening tools limiting justice comprehension, and determining metrics and data sources for tracking community engagement and its impact on the process. Hirsch shared an innovative example of Georgia Tech colleagues working with a community partner, Eco-Action, on community storytelling involving cognitive mapping and lifecycle analysis with the intention of developing a tool for forecasting potential socio-ecological vulnerabilities and disruptions.

Noting that developers and technologists generally possess limited knowledge, training, and experience working with communities—especially historically marginalized communities—Hirsch explored the preparation that professionals need to become competent and literate partners in deep decarbonization. She said that key considerations include equipping them with knowledge about community history, addressing societal implications of industrial decarbonization projects, determining effective ways to prepare for successful interactions and collaborations, and assessing the influence of developer and technologist training on project outcomes.

Regarding historically marginalized communities, Hirsch shared two examples of addressing place and scale in complex, multi-sited industrial decarbonization initiatives. The first involved using asset-based community development to align local assets with each other and with broader initiatives, such as industrial decarbonization and climate change. The second is taking a collective impact approach. She suggested that the most equitable way to engage communities is through their existing networks, by supporting their efforts and vision for change. This approach enables work at scale while respecting and amplifying community strengths. The example she discussed was Georgia Tech’s collaboration with the Southeast Region Environmental Justice Network to support and advance their 10-year strategic action plan. Working with such networks, she emphasized, allows community voices to lead and operate at a broader scale.

The research agenda outlined in the paper advocates for a social science participatory action research approach, making community leaders co-principal investigators and ensuring their influence when it comes to shaping questions and benefits. Additionally, the agenda emphasizes valuing community expertise. This approach involves employing community principles, utilizing community-collected data, recognizing community members as experts, and research examining the role of community expertise and leadership in influencing outcomes. The agenda also highlights the need for reflexive research through critical participation, given that industrial decarbonization is led by powerful actors.

Hirsch added that this comprehensive approach extends beyond social sciences to include the humanities. Taking the humanities seriously means going beyond communication and storytelling by studying and working with people, not stakeholders to embed technological challenges within cultural contexts. The paper ends with an example of a research agenda that explores broader questions such as “the relationship between imagination, power, and governance.”³

NAVIGATING EQUITY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION: INSIGHTS AND CHALLENGES

In touching on part of the paper, Mijin Cha, Assistant Professor in the Environmental Studies Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, noted that CBPs can under address structures that marginalize diverse voices. Highlighting problems that arise when focusing excessively on outcomes without considering foundational processes, Cha underscored the risk of “checklist justice,” in which procedural, distributive, and recognition-based justice pursued in isolation may obscure the true purpose of equity analysis. She pointed out that environmental justice advocates have proposed a shift from distributing harm to eliminating it, and emphasized the importance of addressing underlying issues and foundational considerations to advance equitable industrial decarbonization.

Encouraging a broad perspective, Cha suggested that engaging in discussions could lead to a more comprehensive understanding of decarbonization approaches. By questioning the conventional emphasis on private sector initiatives, Cha called for an exploration of alternative and equitable forms of ownership governance. She highlighted

___________________

³ Moore, M.-L., & Milkoreit, M. (2020). Imagination and transformations to sustainable and just futures. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.081

the importance of understanding community considerations and environmental concerns, including a reevaluation of ownership structures for an equitable transition rather than optimizing existing processes and systems.

As a social scientist reflecting on decarbonization research, Cha raised questions about the purpose and appropriateness of community-engaged research methods. She noted the need for community-engaged research to be a co-creation process leading to research questions for an agenda without a predetermined outcome. Cha hopes to challenge the assumption that negative emissions technologies are the only path forward.

Discussing the concept highlighted by Bell et al.⁴ of performative public participation that has little influence on decision-making outcomes, Cha drew attention to the challenges this poses for environmental justice. She called for recognizing community-engaged research—distinct from mere advocacy—as a legitimate and rigorous research method. Emphasizing the importance of maintaining legitimacy amid attempts to discredit community-engaged research, she noted the need to view community-engaged research as a robust research method.

Cha questioned the definition of “community” within the context of Community Benefit Agreements. In the paper, this was exemplified by the Community Alliance for Direct Air Capture, which involves a coalition of researchers, industry partners, and nonprofits supporting direct air capture but lacking environmental justice participation. Emphasizing the need to understand the varied perspectives inherent within the term “community,” she applauded the paper for explicitly addressing this aspect in discussions about community-based efforts. Cha also commended the scaffolding presented by Hirsch and highlighted the need to value co-production of knowledge and community knowledge as legitimate research data and output. She proposed utilizing tools such as cost-benefit analyses to better capture cumulative burdens on environmental justice communities, enabling more comprehensive benefits calculations.

Addressing these challenges, Cha noted academic research funding constraints hindering community-engaged research and stressed the importance of supporting long-term relationships between communities and researchers. She called for a shift from extractive academic practices to sustained collaboration and advocated for a fundamental integration of community collaboration into research funding. Furthermore, she urged the elevation of and compensation for community knowledge, with the aim of balancing power dynamics in partnerships. Lastly, Cha emphasized the need to integrate co-created knowledge into research agendas, particularly for large grants with multiple partnerships.

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION

Edson Severnini, Associate Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University; Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research; and Research Affiliate, Institute of Labor Economics, gleaned two key messages from the paper. First, maintaining transparency is crucial for fostering trust and ensuring informed community participation, particularly in historically marginalized communities. Second, there is a need to engage developers, technologists, and government actors in community collaborations while simultaneously focusing on transparency and trust building, given the potential community impacts of decarbonization projects—such as worker displacement.

Despite the significant climate benefits of the energy transition, as seen in research on the decline of coal mining in Appalachia, credit scores have decreased and financial challenges have increased for individuals with subprime status.⁵ Severnini noted that building trust becomes difficult when community members face potential impacts on their physical and mental health as well as their general standards of living and well-being. He suggested that policies—such as those addressing wage insurance for displaced workers or offering temporary subsidies for workers earning less in new jobs—might be a potential avenue for reducing earnings losses. The aim of a subsidy, he noted, would be to make reemployment more attractive and prevent prolonged unemployment,

___________________

⁴ Bell, S. E., Hughes, M., Tuttle, G., Chisholm, R., Gerus, S., Mullins, D. R., Baller, C., Scarff, K., Spector, R., & Nalamalapu, D. S. (2024). Pipelines and power: Psychological distress, political alienation, and the breakdown of environmental justice in government agencies’ public participation processes. Energy Research & Social Science, 109, 103406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103406

⁵ Blonz, J., Tran, B. R., & Troland, E. E. (2023). The canary in the coal decline: Appalachian household finance and the transition from fossil fuels (NBER Working Paper No. 31072). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31072/

especially when training is ineffective or infeasible. Such potential policies might be explored, he said, through social science research.

As an example, he noted a study of workers displaced by trade shocks in which a traditional program was compared with an alternative program.⁶ In the traditional program, displaced workers underwent mandatory job training and received extended unemployment insurance. Meanwhile, the alternative program targeted workers 50 or older and offered wage insurance instead of training. The insurance covered up to half of the difference between pre- and post-separation wages for a period of two years. The study found that wage insurance eligibility increased employment probabilities in the short run and cumulative earnings over the long term. Additionally, the study found reduced unemployment durations and increased tax revenues on higher earnings—exceeding wage insurance payments even under conservative estimates. Severnini suggested that this alternative approach could potentially be implemented in communities impacted by job displacement associated with industrial decarbonization projects.

Next, he went on to address the environmental and health impacts of industrial closures or technology switches and, in so doing, noted opportunities for community engagement. In the context of steelmaking, comparing blast furnace, basic oxygen furnace, and electric arc furnace routes, he highlighted a significant difference in nearby communities with regard to air pollution. He pointed out that there may be positive effects on health outcomes attributable to such reductions in pollution. On the other hand, he noted that closures and technology switches could also affect health negatively because of job displacement and earnings loss, as has been observed in “deaths of despair.”⁷ Drawing on data of Pennsylvanian workers from the 1970s and 1980s, he noted not only higher mortality rates—a 50–100% increase in the year after displacement—but also that workers facing larger earning losses experienced greater mortality increases.⁸ Emphasizing the significance of cost-benefit analysis estimates in the context of industrial decarbonization, he suggested adding the monetization of these effects, which has not yet been included.

Last, Severnini touched on the need for future research investigating the effects of industrial decarbonization projects on local tax revenues and public goods. When studying impacts on local tax revenue, he said it is important to distinguish between areas with a single major industry versus areas with diversified industries. Additionally, he suggested research could consider impacts on local public goods and explore implications for school district finances, student performance, and community health centers—including infant and elder care. He also posed the question of whether government transfers can mitigate potential negative effects. He further noted that social science disciplines can aid in quantifying nuanced impacts of industrial decarbonization.

In summary, Severnini remarked that to effectively engage communities, the initial focus needs to be on short-term needs, particularly with regard to reducing earning losses. Subsequent comprehensive measurements of pollution, health, and community impacts—including local tax revenue and public goods provision, he emphasized—could contribute to a more thorough understanding of the consequences.

ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE BENEFITS FOR INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION

Since the paper’s insights have implications for economic research, Alan Krupnick, Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF), focused his remarks on community and environmental justice benefits and the role of economics—including cost and benefit measurements as well as assessment of distributional impacts. Krupnick noted that he and other economists are increasingly focused on improving the estimation of distributional impacts and quantifying challenging to measure effects of various policies. Additionally, he mentioned that policy design involving the modeling of producer and consumer behavior as well as externalities like pollution is an area to which economists have contributed.

___________________

⁶ Hyman, B., Kovak, B., & Leive, A. (2023). Wage insurance for displaced workers. https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/bkovak/HKL_Wage_Insurance.pdf

⁷ Deaton, A., & Case, A. (2021). Deaths of despair and the future of capitalism. Princeton University Press.

⁸ Sullivan, D., & Von Wachter, T. (2009). Job displacement and mortality: An analysis using administrative data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1265–1306. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1265

Krupnick discussed path dependencies and how social science researchers can leverage economic and modeling research to empower communities and their networks. In this regard, he highlighted a study⁹ that aims to address two key questions. The first involves an evaluation of the effectiveness of policies favored by environmental justice communities in achieving New York State’s net-zero goal by 2050—particularly for disadvantaged communities. The focus includes both emissions and particulate matter (PM; i.e., PM_2.5) concentrations. The second question involves an investigation of the implications for disadvantaged communities of cap-trade-and-invest policies with environmental justice guardrails compared to policies without guardrails. He noted these are both promising areas for additional research and could provide communities engaging with state governments with valuable insights on optimal policies to achieve net-zero goals.

Krupnick provided two examples of tools that can provide environmental justice communities with necessary information for advancing certain policies. The first, based on the change in PM_2.5 emissions by power plants in New York state in the presence versus absence of environmental justice guardrails, showed emission improvements when facility caps were added.¹⁰ The second tool contrasted environmental justice policies with state recommended policies for achieving net-zero goals. Specifically, data illustrate that disadvantaged communities in New York benefit significantly from lower PM_2.5 concentrations when facility-specific caps are added, resulting from the environmental justice policies advocated by organizations like the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Krupnick emphasized that these data demonstrate the ability of economists to provide crucial information of this nature.

On the topic of quantifying co-benefits, Krupnick pointed out that RFF specializes in the “pollution health impacts valuation pathway.” He said that, over the past decade, numerous epidemiological studies have emphasized the heightened susceptibility of Black communities, compared to other demographics, to PM_2.5 pollution. These concentration-response functions, he noted, can be used to better quantify the differential effects of pollution changes on marginalized communities compared to their counterparts. Krupnick suggested that the valuation or monetization of health impacts are an additional aspect to consider.¹¹ However, despite the potential benefits, Krupnick emphasized that discussing the differential valuation of health impacts for marginalized communities remains a sensitive topic, given that a standardized set of valuation functions is used throughout the government and the economic profession.

Addressing transparency and accessibility of information, particularly in the context of education, Krupnick emphasized the importance of considering the form and target audience when disseminating information. He noted that Hirsch’s paper offers valuable insights into these topics. A significant challenge with regard to transparency, Krupnick went on to say, revolves around the excessive classification of confidential business information by both industry and the Department of Energy (DOE). This can pose challenges for groups seeking access to critical data for purposes such as reviewing performance expectations of hydrogen hubs or direct air capture hubs. The handling of this issue can lead to information accessibility-related conflicts.

In closing, Krupnick highlighted ongoing work aimed at providing DOE and other agencies with tools for informed decision making regarding grant allocations and policy design. By pointing out the lack of clarity on the criteria and trade-offs used in selecting seven hydrogen hubs,¹² he underscored the importance of transparency in such decisions. He noted that future initiatives need to address CBPs, enhance innovation in policy design, and conduct further research on advanced market commitments, or voluntary trading that can stimulate industrial decarbonization. Additionally, efforts are underway to establish robust evaluation systems using appropriate methods, metrics, and data for retrospectively assessing the success of these programs. He emphasized that such evaluations not only justify continued funding but also facilitate learning and improvement for future initiatives, with direct implications for communities affected by these policies.

___________________

⁹ Krupnick, A., Robertson, M., Look, W., Bautista, E., & Ko, E. (2024). Prioritizing justice in New York State Cap-Trade-and-Invest. Resources for the Future. https://media.rff.org/documents/Report_24-05.pdf

¹⁰ Krupnick, A., Robertson, M., Look, W., Bautista, E., & Ko, E. (2024). Prioritizing justice in New York State Cap-Trade-and-Invest. Resources for the Future. https://media.rff.org/documents/Report_24-05.pdf

¹¹ Resources for the Future. (2004). Valuation. https://www.rff.org/topics/data-and-decition-tools/valuation/

¹² More information about the seven regional hubs is available at https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-7-billion-americas-first-clean-hydrogen-hubs-driving

PERSPECTIVES ON INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION INITIATIVE-RELATED MANDATES, INCENTIVES, AND CHALLENGES

Weber’s first question for the panelists focused on transformative aspirational goals such as justice, community involvement, and co-creation of knowledge while simultaneously acknowledging historical power imbalances. Specifically, she asked panelists to address the mandates and incentives required to effectively navigate these challenges. As a starting point for addressing transparency concerns, Hirsch proposed the need to work with project leads to ensure CBPs actively involve community partners. This would involve including community partners throughout the process, instead of using project leads as community representatives.

Krupnick pointed out the role of the Department of Defense (DOD) as a funding source for hydrogen hubs, noting that DOD can influence the flow of information and the quality of CBPs as well as the quality of development plans. By leveraging its position, Krupnick suggested, DOD can ensure positive outcomes for communities and the nation as a whole during the pursuit of decarbonization.

Cha challenged the perception of a dichotomy between an equitable and rapid transition, emphasizing that the most effective approach for a rapid transition is through equity. Reframing the conversation can move discussions away from the idea that one has to be chosen over the other, she argued.

Noting the potential barriers that exist between certain private actors (e.g., developers and technologists) and the community, Severnini added that government intermediaries might be important players in the process. He highlighted the need to consider societal benefits beyond individual communities and emphasized the challenge associated with different geographical locations. Acknowledging the need for equitable distribution, he emphasized the importance of government actors in equalizing and facilitating dialogue between stakeholders.

Benjamin K. Sovacool, author of another commissioned paper (see Chapter 5), expressed an interest in citizen involvement, energy democracy, and participatory research. He noted shale gas-related studies in the United Kingdom, focused on certain negative consequences (e.g., stress, anxiety, community divisions, significant emotional impact comparable to traumatic life events), that arose from involving the public in the consultation process. He again noted the work of Bell et al. on mental health effects associated with public involvement in pipeline-support process projects.¹³ The question Sovacool posed involved finding a balance between including the public versus the potential risks of subjecting people to emotionally challenging processes that could lead to negative mental health outcomes.

While acknowledging she has not seen Bell’s paper, Hirsch said she is unsurprised at the potential negative impacts of public processes on mental health. She attributed these challenges to the current structure of public processes and went on to suggest that collaborations with experienced organizers, especially those employing asset-based community development perspectives—as opposed to perspectives focusing exclusively on deficits and problems—could mitigate stress and mental health issues. She emphasized the importance of improving public participation and community engagement rather than avoiding it, and of acknowledging the mental health issues and psychological harm that result from oppression.

Severnini added that fear of job losses and financial instability can contribute to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. He called for further research—particularly on wage insurance—to address these concerns. Emphasizing the importance of addressing short-term needs to build trust, Severnini suggested that providing a safety net for individuals transitioning to new jobs could help reduce immediate financial uncertainties, thus alleviating anxieties and other factors that may lead to mental health challenges.

Planning Committee Member David Victor said he finds it intriguing that many people in the industry view either hydrogen or carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies as an important technical solution. “It is now accepted wisdom,” he commented, “that environmental justice concerns are not consistent with hydrogen or CCS, because that is what the [environmental justice] community said.” He went on to suggest that this assumption could be explored as a lower-priority research topic in order to evaluate what is—or is not—deemed acceptable. Cha attributed the industry’s enthusiasm for hydrogen and CCS to the potential for significant profits. She high-

___________________

¹³ Bell, S. E., Hughes, M., Tuttle, G., Chisholm, R., Gerus, S., Mullins, D. R., Baller, C., Scarff, K., Spector, R., & Nalamalapu, D. S. (2024). Pipelines and power: Psychological distress, political alienation, and the breakdown of environmental justice in government agencies’ public participation processes. Energy Research & Social Science, 109, 103406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103406

lighted the nonbenign nature of CCS infrastructure, particularly its concentration in disadvantaged communities with existing historical burdens and emphasized that opposition from environmental justice groups is not simply a rejection without reason but is rooted in concerns about perpetuating historical harms.

Krupnick noted the importance of providing good information in the right format while concomitantly addressing disinformation and misinformation. He acknowledged the existence of oppositional communities that need to be addressed and incorporated into the decision-making process. With respect to hydrogen and CCS, he noted the need to distinguish between two issues: the quality of information received and philosophical, ethical, and moral positions.

Regarding community benefits, Victor also underscored the importance of project evaluations. He expressed concern that funding allocation might outpace the need for thoughtful consideration of project effectiveness. Victor raised a question centered on the adequacy and appropriateness of CBPs, suggesting the need for experimentation with various strategies specifically tailored to community preferences. He challenged the conventional approach to the measurement and evaluation of these plans, noting the potential loss of community leverage with the current approach and asked for consideration of alternative methodologies.

Hirsch responded that the commissioned paper highlights the problematic nature of the metrification of benefits conducted through CBPs and similar mechanisms. She said that such metrics often result in a narrow understanding of justice-related concerns, separating diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility from community engagement. Based on both the literature and personal experiences, Hirsch noted that communities primarily desire meaningful participation in shaping CBPs. Giving communities a seat at the table, she proposed, emphasizes humanistic considerations over rigid measurement tools and could pave the way for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to project evaluation and development. Weber suggested a broad reconsideration of community benefits. She emphasized the importance of asking communities, based on local circumstances, to identify preferred or necessary facets.