Complex socio-technical transitions in fossil fuel country: considerations for direct air capture deployment in the U.S. Gulf Coast region

Complex socio-technical transitions in fossil fuel country: considerations for direct air capture deployment in the U.S. Gulf Coast region | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Complex socio-technical transitions in fossil fuel country: considerations for direct air capture deployment in the U.S. Gulf Coast region Celina Scott-Buechler, Katherine Wang, Catherine Fraser, Charlotte Scott This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4438185/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract There is growing recognition of the need for just transitions to climate-aligned workforces in communities that have traditionally relied economically on high-emissions sectors like the fossil fuel industry. Direct air capture (DAC) has been proposed as an emergent industry that could help deliver just transitions for energy communities like those in the Gulf Coast region of the United States, where there has been recent private sector interest in DAC deployment. Through focus groups across three sites in the Gulf Coast region, we reveal a complex landscape shaped by the entrenched position of the fossil fuel industry and the need for careful navigation to avoid social and economic upheaval. Community perceptions underscore the dual nature of the fossil fuel industry: providing economic stability but also contributing to environmental and health challenges. DAC emerges as a potential solution, offering shared skill sets with the fossil fuel industry, yet participants express reservations about industry risks and historical lack of community engagement. The study emphasizes the importance of community involvement in decision-making, advocating for cooperative ownership models, community advisory boards, and transparent processes. Results from qualitative focus group discussions and quantitative surveys illustrate a shift in community support for DAC after informed discussions, highlighting the importance of socio-technical considerations over technological features alone. direct air capture just transition sociotechnical transition community perceptions Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction The phase-out of fossil fuels is critical to meet ambitious climate targets (IPCC, 2022; Lelieveld et al., 2019 ; Johnsson et al., 2017); however, if not properly managed this transition could pose significant social and economic challenges for communities economically, socially, and/or culturally reliant on the fossil fuel industry (Wang & Lo, 2021 ; Dwarkasing, 2023 ; Crowe et al., 2020). Indeed, the transition away from coal and other fossil fuels could face tremendous political resistance, especially where it raises concerns about the distribution of costs and benefits, highlighting the need for policies and social dialogue that can address these challenges and ensure a just transition for affected communities (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013 ; Harrahill & Douglas, 2019). A just transition (JT) approach to climate action elucidates the interdependencies of industrial infrastructure and capital with social, economic, and cultural systems. A socio-technical approach to transition recognizes the social production of technology, and the differential access to and reliance on technology among social groups (Trist, 1981 ; Sovocool et al., 2020). Such an approach highlights necessary shifts in or even reorganization of social institutions, especially in the pursuit of more just societies (Braunger & Walk, 2022 ). Moreover, the concept of a just transition recognizes that the burden of transitioning away from fossil fuels should not fall on workers employed in these industries nor the communities that have traditionally borne the brunt of environmental and health impacts associated with fossil fuel extraction and production. Rather, groups traditionally excluded from decision-making processes should be centered in the transition and given meaningful power over the shapes it takes. As communities work toward locally tailored just transition strategies, new industries must be molded to meet the specific needs of these communities, ensuring that the transition is inclusive and equitable—both as an ethical mandate as well as to prevent social backlash (Graff et al., 2018 ; Madsen et al., 2023 ). In addition to considering just transitions for communities as a whole, a just transition for workers in industries like oil and gas specifically will require that those communities assess for themselves through coordinated multi-stakeholder planning the kinds of financial assistance, new forms of employment, and training they need to pivot (Ravikumar & Latimer, 2022), as well as the risks of potential new industries. Self-determination is especially important for communities that traditionally have been excluded from decision-making processes, including rural communities and fenceline communities that have borne disproportionate environmental harms (Eisenberg, 2018). As McCauley & Heffron (2018) define it, a true JT advances distributional, procedural, and restorative justice in the pursuit of a post-carbon economy, tailored to meet social, cultural, and environmental needs in addition to providing economic opportunities to communities. It is therefore important to understand not just perceptions and potential acceptance of the physical infrastructure of new industries, but also the process by which it may be produced in communities—topics that lend themselves to more place-based qualitative research. The Gulf Coast, home to more than 47% of the United States’ petroleum refining (EIA, 2023), is one of the regions most reliant on the fossil fuel industry, making it a priority for just transition research and policy. In regions economically dependent on the industry, like the Gulf Coast, fossil fuel extraction and processing provide employment, tax revenues, demand for local services, and in many cases serve as the primary source of economic stability and livelihood for communities (Snyder, 2018 ; Nacke et al., 2022 ; Schimpf et al., 2021). The fossil fuel industry has also embedded itself in the social fabric of these communities, creating dependency and a sense of identity tied to the industry (Cha, 2020 ; Haarstand & Wanvik, 2017). While the fossil fuel industry has offered communities benefits, it has also contributed to local harms such as environmental degradation, health issues, and economic volatility (Cranmer et al., 2023 ). This has been both mediated and exacerbated by poor environmental governance regimes and systemic inequalities and power dynamics that have historically marginalized communities (Donaghy et al., 2023 ; Healy & Barry, 2017 ). Given the complex and interconnected nature of these issues, holistic assessment of not only the economic challenges faced by fossil fuel-dependent communities, but also the social, environmental, and health impacts they have experienced is necessary. Further, tailored just transition strategies to local contexts are necessary, as the resources necessary to produce transitions – financial, institutional, and social – vary regionally. Direct air capture (DAC), a pathway for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), has recently garnered policy attention and has been proposed as an industry that could facilitate a just transition in communities economically reliant on the fossil fuel industry (Scott-Buechler et al., 2024 ). DAC involves capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and either storing it underground or utilizing it for long-lived products like cement. Where carbon capture and storage (CCS) is installed directly onto point sources of carbon emissions, DAC has the potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere regardless of the emission source, allowing for its decoupling from the fossil fuel industry. Scott-Buechler et al. ( 2024 ) and Batres (2021) highlight the potential of DAC as part of a just transition strategy for fossil fuel-dependent communities given its shared skill sets with fossil fuel production. They argue that by leveraging the existing expertise and infrastructure in the fossil fuel industry, DAC can provide opportunities for economic diversification and job creation in communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel extraction. However, Scott-Buechler et al. ( 2024 ) also note that some of the qualities that could make DAC a convenient “drop in” industry, especially early participation from the fossil fuel industry, may also present unique moral hazards and risks of continued environmental injustice. Indeed, while other forms of CDR can provide co-benefits for communities (Field & Mach, 2017; Turner et al., 2018), DAC offers a global good (reduced atmospheric CO 2 concentrations) with local burdens (infrastructure development and operation), raising questions of environmental [in]justice. The Gulf Coast region has already attracted significant private sector attention for DAC deployment. For example, 1PointFive, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum recently announced plans for a Texas deployment to open as early as 2024 (1PointFive, 2022). More significantly, in 2023 the Gulf Coast was announced as the site for the world’s two largest projects to receive federal grant funding. These projects will be funded through the DAC Hubs program of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which marked the world's first multi-billion dollar public program specifically dedicated to DAC deployment. Together with the previously announced 1PointFive project, the Gulf Coast has already emerged as the world’s DAC hub, home to the three largest project proposals in the world, with each facility capable of removing up to 1 million tons of CO 2 per year. Given the need for just transition policies and programs in the Gulf Coast region and the potential of direct air capture as a tool for economic diversification in fossil fuel-dependent communities, it is crucial to assess the perspectives and attitudes of local stakeholders towards DAC and its role in a just transition. This study examines the perceptions and opinions of community members in the Gulf Coast region regarding direct air capture as a potential solution for achieving a just transition for communities economically reliant on the fossil fuel industry. The study employs a community focus group approach to gather qualitative and quantitative data on stakeholder perspectives, experiences, and knowledge regarding DAC and its implications for their communities. This study explores community perceptions of DAC as part of economic transition, along with the potential barriers and challenges faced by these communities in transitioning towards a low-carbon economy. We also identify opportunities for collaboration and support in implementing DAC as part of a just transition strategy. Overall, this research fills a gap in the existing literature and provides valuable insights that can inform policy-making and decision-making processes related to achieving a just transition in the Gulf Coast region and other similar carbon-intensive regions. Methods Focus Groups Focus groups and surveys were utilized for this study; both were granted approval by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Four parallel focus groups were conducted in each of three communities (for a total of twelve focus groups) in the Gulf Coast region: Port Arthur, Texas, Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Alexandria, Louisiana. These communities were chosen based on their historical economic reliance on the fossil fuel industry and their vulnerability to economic disruptions caused by the transition away from carbon-intensive activities. Focus groups aimed to be demographically representative of their communities across racial, gender, and socioeconomic demographics; however, given the small sample size, focus group results are not intended to be quantitatively representative of community perceptions. Rather, focus groups provide the opportunity for richer understanding of local contexts and perceptions, and may be built upon in additional quantitative and qualitative research (Gough et al., 2014 ; Nyumba et al., 2018 ). Participants were recruited through local focus group recruitment firms to ensure diverse perspectives were represented. We sought out community centers, such as churches, YMCAs, or schools, to host the focus groups. Hosting the focus groups there allowed us to conduct focus groups in locations without a dedicated market research center, which are usually found in larger urban areas. Given the emphasis on fossil fuel workforces, efforts were made to include individuals who had previous or current employment in the fossil fuel industry. Each focus group consisted of three to six participants (total N = 40), with four parallel focus groups at each site. Before breaking up into focus groups, all participants were given the same presentation summarizing DAC, including CO 2 transportation and storage mechanisms, and sources for energy and heat. In addition, possible mechanisms for community involvement in infrastructure development were reviewed. Participants were then invited to ask technical questions on the presentation, but instructed to hold any opinions or questions about implementation for their small-group discussions. Technical questions were answered in front of the whole group so that all participants received the additional technical information before breaking into small-group discussion. Each focus group was assigned a facilitator whose role was to guide discussion based on a standardized guide, ask follow-up questions where prudent, and take notes. Facilitators were instructed not to share their own opinions or answer questions not explicitly covered in the presentation or Q&A sessions. Focus group discussions were conducted using a semi-structured group interview guide that covered topics such as participants' knowledge and understanding of DAC, their perceptions of its potential benefits and drawbacks, their local communities, and their thoughts on how DAC could contribute to a just transition and how to prevent potential challenges in their communities. Participants outlined their key considerations, suggestions, and non-negotiables for building DAC in their communities, such as ownership structure, energy sources, community and job benefits, and mitigating environmental risk. Participants also spoke of the prominence and role of the fossil fuel industry in their communities, including their concerns about environmental impact, job market and employment benefits, and clean energy transition. The focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis, ensuring that the participants' perspectives and insights could be accurately captured and rigorously assessed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo qualitative data analysis software, allowing for the identification of key themes and patterns within the data (Saldaña, 2021). A set of codes was established in advance (a priori) based on the discussion questions participants were presented with, and emergent themes were assessed through the qualitative coding process. Quantitative data were also collected among the participants in the focus groups to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the communities' perspectives on direct air capture and its potential contributions to a just transition. This was done through the use of surveys administered before the start of the focus group, after the presentation and Q&A, and a third time after the completion of the focus group. The surveys asked participants to report their knowledge of DAC, rate their level of support for DAC generally and in one’s community, and perceptions of their communities’ and its workforces’ support for DAC. Finally, participants were asked to rank the features of a DAC project in order of importance to determine their support. Surveys were conducted privately and anonymously, giving participants the opportunity to share opinions they may not have felt comfortable sharing in small-group discussions. Quantitative data analysis was conducted using R to calculate descriptive statistics and examine patterns in participants' responses. State Surveys Data were gathered through a state-representative survey conducted in Texas (N = 1,118) and Louisiana (N = 754). The sampling employed probability-based techniques through the PureSpectrum Marketplace Platform, a regional web panel provider that uses online advertisements, text messages, and in-app notifications to recruit participants. Those recruited were given a link to access the Qualtrics survey. The survey aimed for state-representative sampling in both states, ensuring a balanced representation in terms of sex, race, ethnicity, education, and political affiliation. Participants were excluded if they failed to finish the survey or failed an attention verification test, leaving a final sample size of 1,159. Survey participants were asked how much, if anything, they had heard about technological carbon dioxide removal. They were then provided a brief description of direct air capture, and then asked if they supported or opposed the deployment of DAC in general on a four-point Likert scale (“Strongly oppose” to “Strongly support”). Participants were then asked, if DAC were deployed in the state, what effect it would have on the state economy using a five-point Likert scale (“Very negative” to “Very positive”, with a central “No effect”). Finally, participants were asked what they thought the top potential benefit of DAC would be, the top concern about DAC, and how they thought communities should be engaged in the local DAC deployment. We constructed a proportional odds logistic regression model to analyze data for Likert-scale questions. The model included political affiliation, political ideology (on a scale from “Very conservative” to “Very liberal”, which was converted to a numerical variable, “Very conservative” = -2 to “Very liberal” = 2), age, education level, income bracket, and race as demographic covariates. Zip codes were also linked to power plant data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2023); the combined capacity of petroleum, natural gas, and coal facilities in participants’ zip codes was used as an additional covariate. The proportional odds assumption for the ordinal logistic regression was tested using a Brant test. Results & Discussion Perceived Status of the Fossil Fuel Industry in the Gulf Coast Region Focus group discussions revealed a widespread perception that the fossil fuel industry had embedded itself in Gulf Coast economies such that its elimination would face local backlash, even if many participants supported the transition at face-value. Participants noted this was not only because of the large workforce supported by the industry but also the local identity and culture that had developed around it as a result. Participants in Port Arthur and Lake Charles in particular noted a substantial fossil fuel stronghold in local industries and workforces. When asked about the perceived local impact of energy transition, a Port Arthur participant affirmed the status of fossil fuels: “[energy] may be starting to transition, but I don't see the oil and gas industry dying in 20 years. I don't give a damn what they do in Washington.” This sentiment, however, showed to be mixed across locations and participant perceptions. Participants in Lake Charles noted that younger generations under 35 and the upcoming workforce were more likely to perceive the oil and gas industry as dwindling, and thus might be interested in fresh alternatives. Participants also noted, however, the industry’s negative environmental and health impacts on local communities. The industry’s pollution – largely unchecked by regulators – had created health problems for locals. This was especially evident in Port Arthur and Lake Charles, where participants were keenly aware of the health and environmental impacts of nearby oil refineries and chemical plants. One Port Arthur participant noted, I say they owe us … but ain't no money in the world can bring back the loved ones that you lost from this air and caught cancer and stomach problems and lung problems and heart disease and stuff from this air. …The whole time you were breathing this air, you don't know what it's from. You just thinking it was from that bad pork chop you ate. This recognition of harm led participants across all sites to stress that an industry transition away from fossil fuels would need to contend with the industry’s negative health impacts on local communities. When considering DAC in this light, many participants specifically noted health and environmental benefits, such as improving pollution and air quality, as key interests. Indeed, given negative personal or community experiences with the fossil fuel industry, many Port Arthur participants questioned the trustworthiness of projects associated with the industry—or one that looked like it. One participant expressed that fossil fuel development occurred in their community without their knowledge or input, creating distrust among community members: “You never really hear about them until they're either coming and they're going to be developed or they decided not to come." A Port Arthur participant voiced more succinctly the lack of community autonomy in their land usage and development: "The little people have no power here. O&G [oil and gas] has got all the power.” The industry’s power, participants stressed, extended beyond the economic. Fossil fuel dominance had captured local politics, with politicians influenced by their financial connections to the industry. Political corruption was therefore identified as a significant barrier to achieving a just transition for communities across all three locations. Pushback against government involvement in project decision-making at all levels was decisive and unanimous; as expressed by one Lake Charles participant: “I just don’t trust the government to protect the people. I mean, they say they will, but if somebody's going to line their pockets with enough money, that’s where they’re going.” Another commented on pervasive unaddressed environmental harms at the hands of the fossil fuel industry that “ha[d] never been taken care of because of all the corrupt politicians.” This analysis of local power structures led many to stress that realizing a just transition would require a shift in power from wealthy industries to the affected communities themselves. Opportunities for & Limitations to Direct Air Capture as a Pathway to Just Transition Participants expressed mixed views on the potential benefits and challenges that direct air capture could bring to their communities. When asked about their communities’ workforces, participants described mostly minimum wage and blue collar jobs that limited economic opportunity and mobility in their regions. Some participants saw direct air capture as a promising opportunity for economic diversification and job creation. Participants from Alexandria noted that such opportunities provided an appealing transition out of the economic depression caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. More broadly, participants believed that direct air capture could someday provide alternative sources of employment for those currently reliant on the fossil fuel industry. However, even those that expressed optimism about DAC's potential workforce contributions emphasized that a budding industry would have to compete with existing oil and gas jobs. The workforce stronghold of the fossil fuel industry indicates the need for job retraining and competitive benefits to incentivize industry transfer. Participants expressed a need for local hire requirements to first serve job benefits to their communities before outsourcing labor, as well as stable long-term job positions. Additionally, participants cited a competitive living wage and health insurance as the most crucial job benefits. Many also noted pensions, transportation, sign-on bonuses, vacation, and childcare. Generalizing to the region, some suggested that in areas where the fossil fuel industry was stronger, new industries like DAC would need to first hire outside the industry and build a track-record of offering good-quality, long-lasting jobs before fossil fuel workers could be swayed to leave their jobs. Indeed, strong cultural identities and ties to the fossil fuel industry were identified as challenges for new industries hoping to establish themselves locally. Beyond jobs, participants shared anecdotes of fossil fuel companies funding churches and buying and renovating abandoned homes for workers. Indeed, while a just transition would need to provide jobs, it would also need to provide these kinds of “wraparound services” to build community trust and recognition. Many had a hard time believing – or were hostile to the idea – that a new industry like DAC would provide these kinds of benefits. Participants also expressed concerns about the long-term viability and stability of a direct air capture industry in their region, especially where project financing was concerned. A Port Arthur participant expressed concern about incentives for direct air capture past the limits of government funding, saying, “What bothers me is that undoubtedly these corporations or even these companies that decide to build them, they're going to end up getting federal money. They are. That's going to happen regardless. So in that sense, I don't agree with that, because once the money runs out, where’s the motivation? You know what I'm saying? What's going to happen at that point? Really? Well, we've been cleaning the air for eight years…We're going to retire this. Well, that's not fair.” Finally, across sites, participants noted the potential for further local environmental damage with DAC deployment. In particular, concerns about underground and pipeline leakages, contamination, and further pollution arose. Participants in Lake Charles expressed distrust of local officials and industries after chemical dumping, which had made people sick. Participants at all sites emphasized the need to mitigate environmental and health risk and prioritize community safety. In particular, transparent emergency protocols co-developed with the community was emphasized. Community Engagement and Power Mechanisms for community engagement in the planning and implementation of DAC emerged as another important theme across groups. While participants’ views of ownership structures differed, there was near-unanimous distrust in local officials as mediators of community interests. This also led to mistrust among participants across sites in government ownership and operation of DAC, citing political corruption. To respond to community harms from fossil fuel developments and local governments, participants unanimously expressed a need for ensured community involvement and decision-making power. An Alexandria participant described this opportunity of community involvement and power, “Build trust in company’s systems, the community, make sure that they're aware and have input on what's going on.” Another Alexandria participant noted, “That was, I feel like if it’s going to be in our community, we need to decide we need to lead, take back our power.” When asked for specific community ownership or engagement structures, participants raised community advisory boards, direct community voting, workshops and town halls, and full community ownership. The prospect of a cooperatively-owned DAC hub highlighted the potential for community empowerment, with one participant arguing: Cooperatively-owned… would be ideal…because the community decides whether or not it gets shut down. The community decides if it's productive. The community decides on how it's funded. The community decides on how people get a job there and it's local. It's not somebody up in Timbuktu who knows nothing about the area. Speaking to community empowerment, another participant contended: “At the end of the day, it's about us. And that's where I end on that one. If the company is going to come in and invest and going to make a difference in our air quality, well then let's make a difference for the people quality as well.” In short, meaningful community involvement would be necessary to make DAC responsive to local needs and concerns. Indeed, while community involvement in decision-making processes was crucial, participants emphasized that it must be accompanied by tangible benefits that improve residents’ quality of life. As Fig. 2 illustrates, survey participants expressed a strong preference for benefits sharing between communities and developers. This suggests that communities value not only having a say in project planning, but also seeing direct, positive impacts from DAC deployment. While job creation is certainly a key priority, the data indicates that communities also desire a wider range of benefits, such as tax revenue to support education, infrastructure, and other public goods. Policymakers and developers must recognize that community input alone is not enough - it must be tied to concrete, material outcomes that enhance the well-being of local populations. While community power was forefronted in many discussions, DAC was also presented as an opportunity for industry to take responsibility for past harms. As a Lake Charles participant put it, “This was a problem caused by private industry. It should be a problem fixed by private industry.” Opinion was mixed on whether fossil fuel companies should be allowed to participate in DAC, given its environmental track-record. Some noted that DAC offered an opportunity for fossil fuel companies to take accountability for greenhouse gas emissions, while others expressed distrust in their intentions in permitting continued emissions—in either case, community oversight would be necessary. Finally, participants across sites expressed interest in utilizing carbon for community projects—a prospect that made more sense, in their minds, than putting it underground. As an Alexandria participant noted, But if you're making it into something that's beneficial for the community, if you're making it into something because the kids doesn't have nothing out here, then okay, then it's a kill two birds with one stone type of deal. We'll put this plant out here, we'll take the carbon and then you can use this carbon for your community. We can build playgrounds, we can build better things for you guys, we can fix the highway, we can fix the bumps in the road. It's for concrete, we can pave the streets. For some participants, carbon utilization offered means to address damage by natural disasters to roads, homes, and schools. Indeed, visible infrastructural benefits, many stressed, would enable community understanding and buy-in for DAC. Combined with strong community participation and decision-making power (including its ownership structure), investing in community infrastructure could allow DAC to serve just transition needs beyond jobs. Focus Group Survey Results In addition to focus group discussions, which was the focus of this study, pre- and post-discussion surveys offered an opportunity to triangulate findings. Importantly, survey results reflect general reactions to DAC as a sociotechnical system – and specifically the sociotechnical system imagined by community members, including community benefits and engagement – rather than DAC as a technology alone. Surveys were distributed following the group presentation and then again at the end of group discussions. At both intervals, participants were asked how they thought members of their communities would respond to DAC, how they would respond to DAC themselves, and how workers employed in coal, oil, gas, and natural gas would respond to DAC (Fig. 1). Initial support of DAC varied widely by community, but in all three communities, support for DAC increased after the discussion, including the “strongly support” measure. This supports the qualitative finding that the sociotechnical system within which DAC is produced may be more important than the technology itself. Across Port Arthur, Texas, Alexandria, and Lake Charles, Louisiana, post-discussion survey results indicate a strong preference for renewable energy sources for DAC, with wind and solar energy favored by 92.3%, 54.5%, and 87.5% of participants respectively. Community involvement emerged as a key priority, with community workshops as the preferred engagement method receiving 76.9%, 90.9%, and 68.75% support in each location. For CO 2 storage, utilization as long-lived materials was notably preferred in Port Arthur and Alexandria, at 92.3% and 100%, indicating a strong inclination towards sustainable storage solutions. Further, the demand for job creation was evident, with a significant emphasis on both short-term and long-term employment opportunities, highlighted by 92.3% and 81.8% of participants in Port Arthur and Alexandria emphasizing long-term jobs. These results (see Supplementary Materials for full summary statistics) underscore the communities’ desires for DAC projects that prioritize renewable energy, active community engagement, innovative CO 2 storage, and robust employment opportunities. State Survey Results The ordinal logistic regression model tested predictors for support for DAC (also referred to as “technological CDR”) in Texas and Louisiana, as well as perceived effects of DAC deployment on the state economy (Table 1). Table 1 Ordinal logistic regression model results for (a) amount respondents have heard about technological carbon dioxide removal (direct air capture), (b) general support for deploying technological carbon dioxide removal (direct air capture). Reported results include odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals in parentheses. Heard of DAC model intercepts are as follows: (1) Nothing at all | A little, (2) A little | A lot. Support for DAC model intercepts are as follows: (1) Strongly oppose | Somewhat oppose, (2) Somewhat oppose | Somewhat support, (3) Somewhat support | Strongly support. Significant results at the p < 0.001 level are marked with ‘***’, at the p = 0.05 level with ‘**’, and at the p = 0.1 level with ‘*’. Heard of DAC Support for DAC Intercepts 1: 4.74 (2.62–8.56)*** 2: 56.41 (29.79–106.82)*** 1: 0.07 (0.04–0.14)*** 2: 0.21 (0.11–0.39)*** 3: 1.67 (1.00–3.04)* Race/Ethnicity (base: white) Black: 1.42 (1.03–1.96)** Hispanic: 0.90 (0.28–2.69) Black: 0.79 (0.57–1.09) Hispanic: 0.95 (0.37–2.53) Party (base: Democrat) Republican: 0.86 (0.64–1.16) Independent: 0.91 (0.67–1.24) Republican: 0.38 (0.29–0.51)*** Independent: 0.74 (0.54–1.01)* Income (numeric) 1.22 (1.12–1.33)*** 1.08 (0.99–1.18)* Education (numeric) 1.12 (1.04–1.22)** 1.01 (0.93–1.09) Environmental [In]Justice Index (numeric) 1.52 (1.18–1.97)** 1.36 (1.05–1.77)** Fossil Fuel Production Capacity in Zip (numeric) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)* Location Type (base: Metropolitan) Micropolitan: 1.09 (0.71–1.67) Small town: 1.43 (0.74–2.74) Rural: 3.80 (1.25–11.60)** Micropolitan: 0.74 (0.48–1.15) Small town: 0.78 (0.39–1.59) Rural: 0.33 (0.09–1.23)* Model results indicate that Republicans, as compared with Democrats, were significantly less likely to support the deployment of DAC. Independents also showed lower support for DAC compared to Democrats, although this effect was only marginally significant. This aligns with national survey data on perceptions of DAC, which found that Republicans and Independents showed significantly lower support for DAC in or near their communities or in the U.S. in general as compared with Democrats (Scott-Buecher et al., 2024). Race and ethnicity were not found to significantly influence support for DAC, indicating that attitudes towards DAC may cut across these lines. However, Black respondents were significantly more likely to have heard of DAC compared to white respondents. Education showed no significant effect on support for DAC, but higher education levels were associated with a greater likelihood of having heard of DAC. Age was not included in the updated Table 1 and its effects cannot be commented on based on the provided information. Income was a significant predictor for both having heard of DAC and support for DAC, with higher income respondents more likely to have heard of DAC and to support DAC deployment. This could reflect a broader awareness or valuation of economic and environmental benefits among higher income brackets or a belief in the potential for DAC to spur job creation and economic growth in their states. Environmental justice index, a measure of the relative environmental burden and vulnerability of a given area, was a significant predictor for both having heard of DAC and support for DAC. Higher environmental justice index scores, indicating greater environmental burden and vulnerability, were associated with a greater likelihood of having heard of DAC and higher support for DAC deployment. Proximity to fossil fuel infrastructure, indicated by combined capacity of all coal, petroleum and natural gas plants in one’s zip code, showed a statistically significant (albeit extremely small) dip in support for DAC, but no significant effect on having heard of DAC. Compared to metropolitan areas, respondents in rural areas were significantly more likely to have heard of DAC but showed lower support for DAC deployment, although this latter effect was only marginally significant. Micropolitan areas and small towns did not show significant differences from metropolitan areas in either having heard of DAC or support for DAC. The polarization observed along partisan lines underscores the challenge of garnering broad support for DAC deployment. However, the lack of significant demographic disparities outside of political affiliation suggests potential common ground for engaging diverse communities in discussions about DAC's role in climate mitigation and economic development. Further research should explore how to bridge these ideological divides and effectively communicate the economic and environmental benefits of DAC to foster wider public acceptance and support. Survey data show a clear community preference for being actively involved in DAC projects, mirroring focus group desires for engagement and shared benefits (Fig. 2). Greatest preference was shown for benefits sharing between community members and developers, suggesting interest not only in communities being involved in decisionmaking but in seeing direct, positive impacts from DAC initiatives in their region. “No requirements” was by far the least popular of the options for community involvement where projects occurred. Of the benefits (global or local) expected from DAC projects, survey participants overwhelmingly expected improvements to the environment (environmental health and protecting the environment for future generations) (Fig. 3). This aligns with focus group findings, which highlight the desire for tangible local environmental improvements from DAC projects. As with focus group discussions, it may be that DAC was perceived in the survey as being able to clean up air pollution that affects local human health, like particulate matter or nitrous oxide. Current DAC technologies are not reported to have these benefits, and so it may be necessary to address this common misconception directly to prevent false promises. Indeed, environmental benefits were selected by more than three times the number of participants who selected benefits for climate change. This may suggest that in Republican states where climate change is less salient, a broader environmental frame should be used when communicating DAC. The survey also echoes focus group discussions about DAC’s potential for economic and job benefits, though it reveals a segment of respondents unsure of these benefits, indicating a gap that could be addressed with the comprehensive stakeholder education recommended by focus group members. Survey participants’ prevailing concern about DAC was its cost of implementation (Fig. 4), which mirrors focus group participants' worries about financial sustainability and long-term viability of DAC projects. Concerns about impacts on local resources (view- and sound-sheds, grid strain), DAC’s potential inefficacy or counterproductivity, and harms to community enfranchisement and local jobs in the fossil fuel sector were roughly equivalent. This differs from our focus group findings, which underscored fears that communities might be left out of project decisions, or that there would be tensions with jobs in the fossil fuel industry above concerns about the technology itself. This suggests that broader constituencies may have diverse concerns, whereas communities in which projects are sited focus concerns primarily on local impacts. Conclusion The deployment of DAC in communities that have traditionally relied economically on and/or disproportionately borne the worst impacts of the fossil fuel industry should be cautiously considered, taking into account prevailing political economic conditions. This study explores the complex landscape of transitioning fossil fuel-dependent communities, with a particular focus on the Gulf Coast region, which faces unique challenges given significant reliance on the fossil fuel industry. Our findings shed light on the perceptions, concerns, and aspirations of community members regarding the potential adoption of direct air capture (DAC) as a pathway for achieving a just transition. Our findings underscore the entrenched position of the fossil fuel industry in the Gulf Coast, not only as an economic driver but also as a part of the social and cultural identity of communities. Despite acknowledging the negative environmental and health impacts associated with the industry, participants expressed skepticism that the industry would be phased out in the near term, emphasizing the need for a careful and inclusive transition. DAC emerges as a promising avenue for economic diversification and job creation in these communities, leveraging existing skill sets and infrastructure. However, participants voiced concerns about the industry’s potential risks, including environmental injustice and lack of meaningful community engagement. Results highlight the importance of community involvement in decision-making processes to ensure a just transition that addresses historical injustices and empowers affected communities. Indeed, community engagement and power dynamics were central themes, with participants expressing a strong desire for meaningful involvement in the planning and implementation of DAC projects. Trust in local officials and the fossil fuel industry was found to be low, emphasizing the need for transparent processes and mechanisms that empower communities. This study suggests that a cooperative ownership model, community advisory boards, and direct community voting could be vital in building trust and ensuring the just distribution of benefits. Furthermore, the study brings attention to the broader socio-economic context, emphasizing the importance of job retraining and competitive benefits. Participants stressed the need for stable, long-term job positions with competitive wages, health insurance, and other benefits, indicating that any transition strategy must address the economic well-being of individuals in these communities. The focus group survey data revealed notable differences in attitudes towards DAC across the three communities. Participants in Alexandria expressed significantly higher levels of support for DAC deployment compared to those in Port Arthur and Lake Charles. These differences suggest that local context may play a role in shaping perceptions of DAC, with factors such as geographic location, economic ties to the fossil fuel industry, and cultural identities potentially influencing receptiveness to new technologies; indeed, while Alexandria – like Lake Charles and Port Arthur – is located along “Cancer Coast,” Alexandria is further inland and the concentration of petrochemical facilities in its immediate perimeter lower. While further research is needed to fully unpack these dynamics, the higher levels of support observed in Alexandria highlight the importance of considering site-specific factors when assessing the feasibility and public acceptability of DAC deployment in fossil fuel-dependent regions. Our findings provide a nuanced understanding of community perspectives on DAC and its role in achieving a just transition, which can inform policy-making and decision-making processes in the Gulf Coast region and similar carbon-intensive areas. Our analysis suggests that there may be significant variation in attitudes towards DAC and energy transition strategies even within fossil fuel-dependent regions like the Gulf Coast. The differences observed between Alexandria and the other two communities highlight the need for further research to better understand how local factors such as economic dependence on fossil fuels, geographic proximity to industry infrastructure, and cultural identities shape perceptions of emerging technologies like DAC. Comparative studies across multiple fossil fuel-dependent regions could help identify key variables that influence community receptiveness to energy transitions, and inform the development of locally tailored engagement and communication strategies. References Batres, M., Wang, F. M., Buck, H., Kapila, R., Kosar, U., Licker, R., ... & Suarez, V. (2021). Environmental and climate justice and technological carbon removal. The Electricity Journal, 34 (7), 107002. Braunger, I., & Walk, P. (2022). Power in transitions: Gendered power asymmetries in the United Kingdom and the United States coal transitions. Energy Research & Social Science , 87 , 102474. Cha, J. M. (2020). A just transition for whom? Politics, contestation, and social identity in the disruption of coal in the Powder River Basin. Energy Research & Social Science, 69 , 101657. Cranmer, Z., Steinfield, L., Miranda, J., & Stohler, T. (2023). Energy distributive injustices: Assessing the demographics of communities surrounding renewable and fossil fuel power plants in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 100 , 103050. Crowe, J. A., & Li, R. (2020). Is the just transition socially accepted? Energy history, place, and support for coal and solar in Illinois, Texas, and Vermont. Energy Research & Social Science, 59 , 101309. Donaghy, T. Q., Healy, N., Jiang, C. Y., & Battle, C. P. (2023). Fossil fuel racism in the United States: How phasing out coal, oil, and gas can protect communities. Energy Research & Social Science, 100 , 103104. Dwarkasing, C. (2023). Inequality determined social outcomes of low-carbon transition policies: A conceptual meta-review of justice impacts. Energy Research & Social Science, 97 , 102974. Energy Information Agency (EIA). (June 21, 2023). GULF OF MEXICO FACT SHEET . Web: https://www.eia.gov/special/gulf_of_mexico/. Accessed November 23, 2023. Energy Information (EIA). (October 4, 2023). Power Plants Dataset . Web: https://atlas.eia.gov/datasets/eia::power-plants/about. Accessed March 22, 2024. Gough, C., O’Keefe, L., & Mander, S. (2014). Public perceptions of CO 2 transportation in pipelines. Energy Policy, 70 , 106-114. Graff, M., Carley, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2018). Stakeholder perceptions of the United States energy transition: Local-level dynamics and community responses to national politics and policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 43 , 144-157. Haarstad, H., & Wanvik, T. I. (2017). Carbonscapes and beyond: Conceptualizing the instability of oil landscapes. Progress in Human Geography, 41 (4), 432-450. Healy, N., & Barry, J. (2017). Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition”. Energy Policy, 108 , 451-459. IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844. Lelieveld, J., Klingmüller, K., Pozzer, A., Burnett, R. T., Haines, A., & Ramanathan, V. (2019). Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 116 (15), 7192-7197. Madsen, P. T., Hansen, D. S., Sperling, K., Houeland, C., & Jenkins, K. E. (2023). Abandoning fossil fuel production: What can be learned from the Danish phase-out of oil and gas?. Energy Research & Social Science, 103 , 103211. Nacke, L., Cherp, A., & Jewell, J. (2022). Phases of fossil fuel decline: Diagnostic framework for policy sequencing and feasible transition pathways in resource dependent regions. Oxford Open Energy, 1 , oiac002. Newell, P., & Mulvaney, D. (2013). The political economy of the ‘just transition’. The Geographical Journal, 179 (2), 132-140. Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9 , 20–32. Schimpf, C., DeCillia, B., Sleptcov, N., Thomas, M., & Thorlakson, L. (2022). If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it: how the public’s economic confidence in the fossil fuel industry reduces support for a clean energy transition. Environmental Politics, 31 (6), 1081-1101. Scott-Buechler, C., Cain, B., Osman, K., Ardoin, N. M., Fraser, C., Adcox, G., ... & Jackson, R. B. (2024). Communities conditionally support deployment of direct air capture for carbon dioxide removal in the United States. Communications Earth & Environment, 5 (1), 175. Snyder, B. F. (2018). Vulnerability to decarbonization in hydrocarbon-intensive counties in the United States: A just transition to avoid post-industrial decay. Energy Research & Social Science, 42 , 34-43. Sovacool, B. K., Hess, D. J., Amir, S., Geels, F. W., Hirsh, R., Medina, L. R., ... & Yearley, S. (2020). Sociotechnical agendas: Reviewing future directions for energy and climate research. Energy Research & Social Science, 70 , 101617. Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems (Vol. 2). Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre. Wang, X., & Lo, K. (2021). Just transition: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 82 , 102291. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Materials are not available with this version. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4438185","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":303801216,"identity":"26363a74-057b-421c-837a-fba4359e9822","order_by":0,"name":"Celina Scott-Buechler","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8558-0715","institution":"Stanford University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Celina","middleName":"","lastName":"Scott-Buechler","suffix":""},{"id":303801217,"identity":"ace83d4d-8d30-4aca-991a-d4d71c359e1a","order_by":1,"name":"Katherine Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stanford University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katherine","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":303801218,"identity":"426938d6-b018-4e7c-a20a-5d82038d298a","order_by":2,"name":"Catherine Fraser","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Data for Progress","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Catherine","middleName":"","lastName":"Fraser","suffix":""},{"id":303801219,"identity":"0d82206c-9964-4c66-b351-ffa07dd5fe9e","order_by":3,"name":"Charlotte Scott","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Data for Progress","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Charlotte","middleName":"","lastName":"Scott","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-05-17 17:58:57","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4438185/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4438185/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":56973749,"identity":"f4b68205-9771-436c-bb9c-3350f334e148","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-23 01:44:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":520581,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived support or opposition of DAC. a) “Overall, do you think people in your community would support or oppose a direct air capture project being built in your community?” b) “Overall, would you support or oppose a direct air capture project being built in your community?” c) “Overall, do you think workers currently employed by coal, oil and gas, and natural gas industries in your community would support or oppose a direct air capture project being built in your community?” Dark gray in Alexandria's “Pre-Discussion” bar reflects a missing response.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4438185/v1/ac58a2ca4936c514ca1492f9.jpg"},{"id":56973751,"identity":"bf509706-741e-45a6-ac87-d54d7d4f4b70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-23 01:44:57","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123318,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas and Louisiana survey participants’ chosen method of community engagement in local DAC project decision making.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4438185/v1/9fcb2d345f5a00cc0c02758d.png"},{"id":56973750,"identity":"4d6fa2e8-268e-4a2a-b341-d054ab28f199","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-23 01:44:57","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41087,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived benefits of DAC deployment in survey participants’ states, Texas and Louisiana.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4438185/v1/78d150ebcea2a0f5f7a7dc44.png"},{"id":56973752,"identity":"a88eacb8-957c-40eb-b772-ca4cb931eb09","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-23 01:44:57","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55351,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConcerns about DAC deployment in survey participants’ states, Texas and Louisiana.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4438185/v1/98a3b9c0569e30e532f9e54b.png"},{"id":56974351,"identity":"093841b3-c2f0-44f1-bec2-dee82779129b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-23 01:52:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1157612,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4438185/v1/0c2ef8d8-a911-4fba-a870-00093e431e8a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eComplex socio-technical transitions in fossil fuel country: considerations for direct air capture deployment in the U.S. Gulf Coast region\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe phase-out of fossil fuels is critical to meet ambitious climate targets (IPCC, 2022; Lelieveld et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Johnsson et al., 2017); however, if not properly managed this transition could pose significant social and economic challenges for communities economically, socially, and/or culturally reliant on the fossil fuel industry (Wang \u0026amp; Lo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Dwarkasing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Crowe et al., 2020). Indeed, the transition away from coal and other fossil fuels could face tremendous political resistance, especially where it raises concerns about the distribution of costs and benefits, highlighting the need for policies and social dialogue that can address these challenges and ensure a just transition for affected communities (Newell \u0026amp; Mulvaney, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Harrahill \u0026amp; Douglas, 2019). A just transition (JT) approach to climate action elucidates the interdependencies of industrial infrastructure and capital with social, economic, and cultural systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA socio-technical approach to transition recognizes the social production of technology, and the differential access to and reliance on technology among social groups (Trist, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e; Sovocool et al., 2020). Such an approach highlights necessary shifts in or even reorganization of social institutions, especially in the pursuit of more just societies (Braunger \u0026amp; Walk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the concept of a just transition recognizes that the burden of transitioning away from fossil fuels should not fall on workers employed in these industries nor the communities that have traditionally borne the brunt of environmental and health impacts associated with fossil fuel extraction and production. Rather, groups traditionally excluded from decision-making processes should be centered in the transition and given meaningful power over the shapes it takes. As communities work toward locally tailored just transition strategies, new industries must be molded to meet the specific needs of these communities, ensuring that the transition is inclusive and equitable\u0026mdash;both as an ethical mandate as well as to prevent social backlash (Graff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Madsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to considering just transitions for communities as a whole, a just transition for workers in industries like oil and gas specifically will require that those communities assess for themselves through coordinated multi-stakeholder planning the kinds of financial assistance, new forms of employment, and training they need to pivot (Ravikumar \u0026amp; Latimer, 2022), as well as the risks of potential new industries. Self-determination is especially important for communities that traditionally have been excluded from decision-making processes, including rural communities and fenceline communities that have borne disproportionate environmental harms (Eisenberg, 2018). As McCauley \u0026amp; Heffron (2018) define it, a true JT advances distributional, procedural, and restorative justice in the pursuit of a post-carbon economy, tailored to meet social, cultural, and environmental needs in addition to providing economic opportunities to communities. It is therefore important to understand not just perceptions and potential acceptance of the physical infrastructure of new industries, but also the process by which it may be produced in communities\u0026mdash;topics that lend themselves to more place-based qualitative research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Gulf Coast, home to more than 47% of the United States\u0026rsquo; petroleum refining (EIA, 2023), is one of the regions most reliant on the fossil fuel industry, making it a priority for just transition research and policy. In regions economically dependent on the industry, like the Gulf Coast, fossil fuel extraction and processing provide employment, tax revenues, demand for local services, and in many cases serve as the primary source of economic stability and livelihood for communities (Snyder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Nacke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Schimpf et al., 2021). The fossil fuel industry has also embedded itself in the social fabric of these communities, creating dependency and a sense of identity tied to the industry (Cha, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Haarstand \u0026amp; Wanvik, 2017). While the fossil fuel industry has offered communities benefits, it has also contributed to local harms such as environmental degradation, health issues, and economic volatility (Cranmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This has been both mediated and exacerbated by poor environmental governance regimes and systemic inequalities and power dynamics that have historically marginalized communities (Donaghy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Healy \u0026amp; Barry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Given the complex and interconnected nature of these issues, holistic assessment of not only the economic challenges faced by fossil fuel-dependent communities, but also the social, environmental, and health impacts they have experienced is necessary. Further, tailored just transition strategies to local contexts are necessary, as the resources necessary to produce transitions \u0026ndash; financial, institutional, and social \u0026ndash; vary regionally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect air capture (DAC), a pathway for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), has recently garnered policy attention and has been proposed as an industry that could facilitate a just transition in communities economically reliant on the fossil fuel industry (Scott-Buechler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). DAC involves capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and either storing it underground or utilizing it for long-lived products like cement. Where carbon capture and storage (CCS) is installed directly onto point sources of carbon emissions, DAC has the potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere regardless of the emission source, allowing for its decoupling from the fossil fuel industry. Scott-Buechler et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and Batres (2021) highlight the potential of DAC as part of a just transition strategy for fossil fuel-dependent communities given its shared skill sets with fossil fuel production. They argue that by leveraging the existing expertise and infrastructure in the fossil fuel industry, DAC can provide opportunities for economic diversification and job creation in communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel extraction. However, Scott-Buechler et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) also note that some of the qualities that could make DAC a convenient \u0026ldquo;drop in\u0026rdquo; industry, especially early participation from the fossil fuel industry, may also present unique moral hazards and risks of continued environmental injustice. Indeed, while other forms of CDR can provide co-benefits for communities (Field \u0026amp; Mach, 2017; Turner et al., 2018), DAC offers a global good (reduced atmospheric CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e concentrations) with local burdens (infrastructure development and operation), raising questions of environmental [in]justice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Gulf Coast region has already attracted significant private sector attention for DAC deployment. For example, 1PointFive, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum recently announced plans for a Texas deployment to open as early as 2024 (1PointFive, 2022). More significantly, in 2023 the Gulf Coast was announced as the site for the world\u0026rsquo;s two largest projects to receive federal grant funding. These projects will be funded through the DAC Hubs program of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which marked the world's first multi-billion dollar public program specifically dedicated to DAC deployment. Together with the previously announced 1PointFive project, the Gulf Coast has already emerged as the world\u0026rsquo;s DAC hub, home to the three largest project proposals in the world, with each facility capable of removing up to 1\u0026nbsp;million tons of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e per year.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the need for just transition policies and programs in the Gulf Coast region and the potential of direct air capture as a tool for economic diversification in fossil fuel-dependent communities, it is crucial to assess the perspectives and attitudes of local stakeholders towards DAC and its role in a just transition. This study examines the perceptions and opinions of community members in the Gulf Coast region regarding direct air capture as a potential solution for achieving a just transition for communities economically reliant on the fossil fuel industry. The study employs a community focus group approach to gather qualitative and quantitative data on stakeholder perspectives, experiences, and knowledge regarding DAC and its implications for their communities. This study explores community perceptions of DAC as part of economic transition, along with the potential barriers and challenges faced by these communities in transitioning towards a low-carbon economy. We also identify opportunities for collaboration and support in implementing DAC as part of a just transition strategy. Overall, this research fills a gap in the existing literature and provides valuable insights that can inform policy-making and decision-making processes related to achieving a just transition in the Gulf Coast region and other similar carbon-intensive regions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFocus Groups\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocus groups and surveys were utilized for this study; both were granted approval by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (IRB).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFour parallel focus groups were conducted in each of three communities (for a total of twelve focus groups) in the Gulf Coast region: Port Arthur, Texas, Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Alexandria, Louisiana. These communities were chosen based on their historical economic reliance on the fossil fuel industry and their vulnerability to economic disruptions caused by the transition away from carbon-intensive activities. Focus groups aimed to be demographically representative of their communities across racial, gender, and socioeconomic demographics; however, given the small sample size, focus group results are not intended to be quantitatively representative of community perceptions. Rather, focus groups provide the opportunity for richer understanding of local contexts and perceptions, and may be built upon in additional quantitative and qualitative research (Gough et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Nyumba et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through local focus group recruitment firms to ensure diverse perspectives were represented. We sought out community centers, such as churches, YMCAs, or schools, to host the focus groups. Hosting the focus groups there allowed us to conduct focus groups in locations without a dedicated market research center, which are usually found in larger urban areas. Given the emphasis on fossil fuel workforces, efforts were made to include individuals who had previous or current employment in the fossil fuel industry. Each focus group consisted of three to six participants (total N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40), with four parallel focus groups at each site. Before breaking up into focus groups, all participants were given the same presentation summarizing DAC, including CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e transportation and storage mechanisms, and sources for energy and heat. In addition, possible mechanisms for community involvement in infrastructure development were reviewed. Participants were then invited to ask technical questions on the presentation, but instructed to hold any opinions or questions about implementation for their small-group discussions. Technical questions were answered in front of the whole group so that all participants received the additional technical information before breaking into small-group discussion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach focus group was assigned a facilitator whose role was to guide discussion based on a standardized guide, ask follow-up questions where prudent, and take notes. Facilitators were instructed not to share their own opinions or answer questions not explicitly covered in the presentation or Q\u0026amp;A sessions. Focus group discussions were conducted using a semi-structured group interview guide that covered topics such as participants' knowledge and understanding of DAC, their perceptions of its potential benefits and drawbacks, their local communities, and their thoughts on how DAC could contribute to a just transition and how to prevent potential challenges in their communities. Participants outlined their key considerations, suggestions, and non-negotiables for building DAC in their communities, such as ownership structure, energy sources, community and job benefits, and mitigating environmental risk. Participants also spoke of the prominence and role of the fossil fuel industry in their communities, including their concerns about environmental impact, job market and employment benefits, and clean energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis, ensuring that the participants' perspectives and insights could be accurately captured and rigorously assessed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo qualitative data analysis software, allowing for the identification of key themes and patterns within the data (Salda\u0026ntilde;a, 2021). A set of codes was established in advance (a priori) based on the discussion questions participants were presented with, and emergent themes were assessed through the qualitative coding process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were also collected among the participants in the focus groups to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the communities' perspectives on direct air capture and its potential contributions to a just transition. This was done through the use of surveys administered before the start of the focus group, after the presentation and Q\u0026amp;A, and a third time after the completion of the focus group. The surveys asked participants to report their knowledge of DAC, rate their level of support for DAC generally and in one\u0026rsquo;s community, and perceptions of their communities\u0026rsquo; and its workforces\u0026rsquo; support for DAC. Finally, participants were asked to rank the features of a DAC project in order of importance to determine their support. Surveys were conducted privately and anonymously, giving participants the opportunity to share opinions they may not have felt comfortable sharing in small-group discussions. Quantitative data analysis was conducted using R to calculate descriptive statistics and examine patterns in participants' responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eState Surveys\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were gathered through a state-representative survey conducted in Texas (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,118) and Louisiana (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;754). The sampling employed probability-based techniques through the PureSpectrum Marketplace Platform, a regional web panel provider that uses online advertisements, text messages, and in-app notifications to recruit participants. Those recruited were given a link to access the Qualtrics survey. The survey aimed for state-representative sampling in both states, ensuring a balanced representation in terms of sex, race, ethnicity, education, and political affiliation. Participants were excluded if they failed to finish the survey or failed an attention verification test, leaving a final sample size of 1,159.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey participants were asked how much, if anything, they had heard about technological carbon dioxide removal. They were then provided a brief description of direct air capture, and then asked if they supported or opposed the deployment of DAC in general on a four-point Likert scale (\u0026ldquo;Strongly oppose\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;Strongly support\u0026rdquo;). Participants were then asked, if DAC were deployed in the state, what effect it would have on the state economy using a five-point Likert scale (\u0026ldquo;Very negative\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;Very positive\u0026rdquo;, with a central \u0026ldquo;No effect\u0026rdquo;). Finally, participants were asked what they thought the top potential benefit of DAC would be, the top concern about DAC, and how they thought communities should be engaged in the local DAC deployment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe constructed a proportional odds logistic regression model to analyze data for Likert-scale questions. The model included political affiliation, political ideology (on a scale from \u0026ldquo;Very conservative\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;Very liberal\u0026rdquo;, which was converted to a numerical variable, \u0026ldquo;Very conservative\u0026rdquo; = -2 to \u0026ldquo;Very liberal\u0026rdquo; = 2), age, education level, income bracket, and race as demographic covariates. Zip codes were also linked to power plant data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2023); the combined capacity of petroleum, natural gas, and coal facilities in participants\u0026rsquo; zip codes was used as an additional covariate. The proportional odds assumption for the ordinal logistic regression was tested using a Brant test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results \u0026 Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePerceived Status of the Fossil Fuel Industry in the Gulf Coast Region\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFocus group discussions revealed a widespread perception that the fossil fuel industry had embedded itself in Gulf Coast economies such that its elimination would face local backlash, even if many participants supported the transition at face-value. Participants noted this was not only because of the large workforce supported by the industry but also the local identity and culture that had developed around it as a result. Participants in Port Arthur and Lake Charles in particular noted a substantial fossil fuel stronghold in local industries and workforces. When asked about the perceived local impact of energy transition, a Port Arthur participant affirmed the status of fossil fuels: \u0026ldquo;[energy] may be starting to transition, but I don't see the oil and gas industry dying in 20 years. I don't give a damn what they do in Washington.\u0026rdquo; This sentiment, however, showed to be mixed across locations and participant perceptions. Participants in Lake Charles noted that younger generations under 35 and the upcoming workforce were more likely to perceive the oil and gas industry as dwindling, and thus might be interested in fresh alternatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants also noted, however, the industry\u0026rsquo;s negative environmental and health impacts on local communities. The industry\u0026rsquo;s pollution \u0026ndash; largely unchecked by regulators \u0026ndash; had created health problems for locals. This was especially evident in Port Arthur and Lake Charles, where participants were keenly aware of the health and environmental impacts of nearby oil refineries and chemical plants. One Port Arthur participant noted,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI say they owe us \u0026hellip; but ain't no money in the world can bring back the loved ones that you lost from this air and caught cancer and stomach problems and lung problems and heart disease and stuff from this air. \u0026hellip;The whole time you were breathing this air, you don't know what it's from. You just thinking it was from that bad pork chop you ate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis recognition of harm led participants across all sites to stress that an industry transition away from fossil fuels would need to contend with the industry\u0026rsquo;s negative health impacts on local communities. When considering DAC in this light, many participants specifically noted health and environmental benefits, such as improving pollution and air quality, as key interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndeed, given negative personal or community experiences with the fossil fuel industry, many Port Arthur participants questioned the trustworthiness of projects associated with the industry\u0026mdash;or one that looked like it. One participant expressed that fossil fuel development occurred in their community without their knowledge or input, creating distrust among community members: \u0026ldquo;You never really hear about them until they're either coming and they're going to be developed or they decided not to come.\" A Port Arthur participant voiced more succinctly the lack of community autonomy in their land usage and development: \"The little people have no power here. O\u0026amp;G [oil and gas] has got all the power.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe industry\u0026rsquo;s power, participants stressed, extended beyond the economic. Fossil fuel dominance had captured local politics, with politicians influenced by their financial connections to the industry. Political corruption was therefore identified as a significant barrier to achieving a just transition for communities across all three locations. Pushback against government involvement in project decision-making at all levels was decisive and unanimous; as expressed by one Lake Charles participant: \u0026ldquo;I just don\u0026rsquo;t trust the government to protect the people. I mean, they say they will, but if somebody's going to line their pockets with enough money, that\u0026rsquo;s where they\u0026rsquo;re going.\u0026rdquo; Another commented on pervasive unaddressed environmental harms at the hands of the fossil fuel industry that \u0026ldquo;ha[d] never been taken care of because of all the corrupt politicians.\u0026rdquo; This analysis of local power structures led many to stress that realizing a just transition would require a shift in power from wealthy industries to the affected communities themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOpportunities for \u0026amp; Limitations to Direct Air Capture as a Pathway to Just Transition\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants expressed mixed views on the potential benefits and challenges that direct air capture could bring to their communities. When asked about their communities\u0026rsquo; workforces, participants described mostly minimum wage and blue collar jobs that limited economic opportunity and mobility in their regions. Some participants saw direct air capture as a promising opportunity for economic diversification and job creation. Participants from Alexandria noted that such opportunities provided an appealing transition out of the economic depression caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. More broadly, participants believed that direct air capture could someday provide alternative sources of employment for those currently reliant on the fossil fuel industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, even those that expressed optimism about DAC's potential workforce contributions emphasized that a budding industry would have to compete with existing oil and gas jobs. The workforce stronghold of the fossil fuel industry indicates the need for job retraining and competitive benefits to incentivize industry transfer. Participants expressed a need for local hire requirements to first serve job benefits to their communities before outsourcing labor, as well as stable long-term job positions. Additionally, participants cited a competitive living wage and health insurance as the most crucial job benefits. Many also noted pensions, transportation, sign-on bonuses, vacation, and childcare. Generalizing to the region, some suggested that in areas where the fossil fuel industry was stronger, new industries like DAC would need to first hire outside the industry and build a track-record of offering good-quality, long-lasting jobs before fossil fuel workers could be swayed to leave their jobs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndeed, strong cultural identities and ties to the fossil fuel industry were identified as challenges for new industries hoping to establish themselves locally. Beyond jobs, participants shared anecdotes of fossil fuel companies funding churches and buying and renovating abandoned homes for workers. Indeed, while a just transition would need to provide jobs, it would also need to provide these kinds of \u0026ldquo;wraparound services\u0026rdquo; to build community trust and recognition. Many had a hard time believing \u0026ndash; or were hostile to the idea \u0026ndash; that a new industry like DAC would provide these kinds of benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants also expressed concerns about the long-term viability and stability of a direct air capture industry in their region, especially where project financing was concerned. A Port Arthur participant expressed concern about incentives for direct air capture past the limits of government funding, saying, \u0026ldquo;What bothers me is that undoubtedly these corporations or even these companies that decide to build them, they're going to end up getting federal money. They are. That's going to happen regardless. So in that sense, I don't agree with that, because once the money runs out, where\u0026rsquo;s the motivation? You know what I'm saying? What's going to happen at that point? Really? Well, we've been cleaning the air for eight years\u0026hellip;We're going to retire this. Well, that's not fair.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, across sites, participants noted the potential for further local environmental damage with DAC deployment. In particular, concerns about underground and pipeline leakages, contamination, and further pollution arose. Participants in Lake Charles expressed distrust of local officials and industries after chemical dumping, which had made people sick. Participants at all sites emphasized the need to mitigate environmental and health risk and prioritize community safety. In particular, transparent emergency protocols co-developed with the community was emphasized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCommunity Engagement and Power\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMechanisms for community engagement in the planning and implementation of DAC emerged as another important theme across groups. While participants\u0026rsquo; views of ownership structures differed, there was near-unanimous distrust in local officials as mediators of community interests. This also led to mistrust among participants across sites in government ownership and operation of DAC, citing political corruption. To respond to community harms from fossil fuel developments and local governments, participants unanimously expressed a need for ensured community involvement and decision-making power. An Alexandria participant described this opportunity of community involvement and power, \u0026ldquo;Build trust in company\u0026rsquo;s systems, the community, make sure that they're aware and have input on what's going on.\u0026rdquo; Another Alexandria participant noted, \u0026ldquo;That was, I feel like if it\u0026rsquo;s going to be in our community, we need to decide we need to lead, take back our power.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen asked for specific community ownership or engagement structures, participants raised community advisory boards, direct community voting, workshops and town halls, and full community ownership. The prospect of a cooperatively-owned DAC hub highlighted the potential for community empowerment, with one participant arguing:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCooperatively-owned\u0026hellip; would be ideal\u0026hellip;because the community decides whether or not it gets shut down. The community decides if it's productive. The community decides on how it's funded. The community decides on how people get a job there and it's local. It's not somebody up in Timbuktu who knows nothing about the area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpeaking to community empowerment, another participant contended: \u0026ldquo;At the end of the day, it's about us. And that's where I end on that one. If the company is going to come in and invest and going to make a difference in our air quality, well then let's make a difference for the people quality as well.\u0026rdquo; In short, meaningful community involvement would be necessary to make DAC responsive to local needs and concerns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndeed, while community involvement in decision-making processes was crucial, participants emphasized that it must be accompanied by tangible benefits that improve residents\u0026rsquo; quality of life. As Fig.\u0026nbsp;2 illustrates, survey participants expressed a strong preference for benefits sharing between communities and developers. This suggests that communities value not only having a say in project planning, but also seeing direct, positive impacts from DAC deployment. While job creation is certainly a key priority, the data indicates that communities also desire a wider range of benefits, such as tax revenue to support education, infrastructure, and other public goods. Policymakers and developers must recognize that community input alone is not enough - it must be tied to concrete, material outcomes that enhance the well-being of local populations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile community power was forefronted in many discussions, DAC was also presented as an opportunity for industry to take responsibility for past harms. As a Lake Charles participant put it, \u0026ldquo;This was a problem caused by private industry. It should be a problem fixed by private industry.\u0026rdquo; Opinion was mixed on whether fossil fuel companies should be allowed to participate in DAC, given its environmental track-record. Some noted that DAC offered an opportunity for fossil fuel companies to take accountability for greenhouse gas emissions, while others expressed distrust in their intentions in permitting continued emissions\u0026mdash;in either case, community oversight would be necessary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, participants across sites expressed interest in utilizing carbon for community projects\u0026mdash;a prospect that made more sense, in their minds, than putting it underground. As an Alexandria participant noted,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBut if you're making it into something that's beneficial for the community, if you're making it into something because the kids doesn't have nothing out here, then okay, then it's a kill two birds with one stone type of deal. We'll put this plant out here, we'll take the carbon and then you can use this carbon for your community. We can build playgrounds, we can build better things for you guys, we can fix the highway, we can fix the bumps in the road. It's for concrete, we can pave the streets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor some participants, carbon utilization offered means to address damage by natural disasters to roads, homes, and schools. Indeed, visible infrastructural benefits, many stressed, would enable community understanding and buy-in for DAC. Combined with strong community participation and decision-making power (including its ownership structure), investing in community infrastructure could allow DAC to serve just transition needs beyond jobs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFocus Group Survey Results\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to focus group discussions, which was the focus of this study, pre- and post-discussion surveys offered an opportunity to triangulate findings. Importantly, survey results reflect general reactions to DAC as a sociotechnical system \u0026ndash; and specifically the sociotechnical system imagined by community members, including community benefits and engagement \u0026ndash; rather than DAC as a technology alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurveys were distributed following the group presentation and then again at the end of group discussions. At both intervals, participants were asked how they thought members of their communities would respond to DAC, how they would respond to DAC themselves, and how workers employed in coal, oil, gas, and natural gas would respond to DAC (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInitial support of DAC varied widely by community, but in all three communities, support for DAC increased after the discussion, including the \u0026ldquo;strongly support\u0026rdquo; measure. This supports the qualitative finding that the sociotechnical system within which DAC is produced may be more important than the technology itself.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross Port Arthur, Texas, Alexandria, and Lake Charles, Louisiana, post-discussion survey results indicate a strong preference for renewable energy sources for DAC, with wind and solar energy favored by 92.3%, 54.5%, and 87.5% of participants respectively. Community involvement emerged as a key priority, with community workshops as the preferred engagement method receiving 76.9%, 90.9%, and 68.75% support in each location. For CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e storage, utilization as long-lived materials was notably preferred in Port Arthur and Alexandria, at 92.3% and 100%, indicating a strong inclination towards sustainable storage solutions. Further, the demand for job creation was evident, with a significant emphasis on both short-term and long-term employment opportunities, highlighted by 92.3% and 81.8% of participants in Port Arthur and Alexandria emphasizing long-term jobs. These results (see Supplementary Materials for full summary statistics) underscore the communities\u0026rsquo; desires for DAC projects that prioritize renewable energy, active community engagement, innovative CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e storage, and robust employment opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eState Survey Results\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ordinal logistic regression model tested predictors for support for DAC (also referred to as \u0026ldquo;technological CDR\u0026rdquo;) in Texas and Louisiana, as well as perceived effects of DAC deployment on the state economy (Table\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrdinal logistic regression model results for (a) amount respondents have heard about technological carbon dioxide removal (direct air capture), (b) general support for deploying technological carbon dioxide removal (direct air capture). Reported results include odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals in parentheses. Heard of DAC model intercepts are as follows: (1) Nothing at all | A little, (2) A little | A lot. Support for DAC model intercepts are as follows: (1) Strongly oppose | Somewhat oppose, (2) Somewhat oppose | Somewhat support, (3) Somewhat support | Strongly support. Significant results at the p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 level are marked with \u0026lsquo;***\u0026rsquo;, at the p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05 level with \u0026lsquo;**\u0026rsquo;, and at the p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1 level with \u0026lsquo;*\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeard of DAC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupport for DAC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntercepts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1: 4.74 (2.62\u0026ndash;8.56)***\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2: 56.41 (29.79\u0026ndash;106.82)***\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1: 0.07 (0.04\u0026ndash;0.14)***\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2: 0.21 (0.11\u0026ndash;0.39)***\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3: 1.67 (1.00\u0026ndash;3.04)*\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRace/Ethnicity (base: white)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBlack: 1.42 (1.03\u0026ndash;1.96)**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHispanic: 0.90 (0.28\u0026ndash;2.69)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBlack: 0.79 (0.57\u0026ndash;1.09)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHispanic: 0.95 (0.37\u0026ndash;2.53)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParty (base: Democrat)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepublican: 0.86 (0.64\u0026ndash;1.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent: 0.91 (0.67\u0026ndash;1.24)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepublican: 0.38 (0.29\u0026ndash;0.51)***\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent: 0.74 (0.54\u0026ndash;1.01)*\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncome (numeric)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.22 (1.12\u0026ndash;1.33)***\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.08 (0.99\u0026ndash;1.18)*\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation (numeric)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.12 (1.04\u0026ndash;1.22)**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.01 (0.93\u0026ndash;1.09)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnvironmental [In]Justice Index (numeric)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.52 (1.18\u0026ndash;1.97)**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.36 (1.05\u0026ndash;1.77)**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFossil Fuel Production Capacity in Zip (numeric)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.00 (1.00\u0026ndash;1.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.00 (1.00\u0026ndash;1.00)*\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation Type (base: Metropolitan)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMicropolitan: 1.09 (0.71\u0026ndash;1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSmall town: 1.43 (0.74\u0026ndash;2.74)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRural: 3.80 (1.25\u0026ndash;11.60)**\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMicropolitan: 0.74 (0.48\u0026ndash;1.15)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSmall town: 0.78 (0.39\u0026ndash;1.59)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRural: 0.33 (0.09\u0026ndash;1.23)*\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel results indicate that Republicans, as compared with Democrats, were significantly less likely to support the deployment of DAC. Independents also showed lower support for DAC compared to Democrats, although this effect was only marginally significant. This aligns with national survey data on perceptions of DAC, which found that Republicans and Independents showed significantly lower support for DAC in or near their communities or in the U.S. in general as compared with Democrats (Scott-Buecher et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRace and ethnicity were not found to significantly influence support for DAC, indicating that attitudes towards DAC may cut across these lines. However, Black respondents were significantly more likely to have heard of DAC compared to white respondents. Education showed no significant effect on support for DAC, but higher education levels were associated with a greater likelihood of having heard of DAC. Age was not included in the updated Table\u0026nbsp;1 and its effects cannot be commented on based on the provided information.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncome was a significant predictor for both having heard of DAC and support for DAC, with higher income respondents more likely to have heard of DAC and to support DAC deployment. This could reflect a broader awareness or valuation of economic and environmental benefits among higher income brackets or a belief in the potential for DAC to spur job creation and economic growth in their states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental justice index, a measure of the relative environmental burden and vulnerability of a given area, was a significant predictor for both having heard of DAC and support for DAC. Higher environmental justice index scores, indicating greater environmental burden and vulnerability, were associated with a greater likelihood of having heard of DAC and higher support for DAC deployment. Proximity to fossil fuel infrastructure, indicated by combined capacity of all coal, petroleum and natural gas plants in one\u0026rsquo;s zip code, showed a statistically significant (albeit extremely small) dip in support for DAC, but no significant effect on having heard of DAC. Compared to metropolitan areas, respondents in rural areas were significantly more likely to have heard of DAC but showed lower support for DAC deployment, although this latter effect was only marginally significant. Micropolitan areas and small towns did not show significant differences from metropolitan areas in either having heard of DAC or support for DAC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe polarization observed along partisan lines underscores the challenge of garnering broad support for DAC deployment. However, the lack of significant demographic disparities outside of political affiliation suggests potential common ground for engaging diverse communities in discussions about DAC's role in climate mitigation and economic development. Further research should explore how to bridge these ideological divides and effectively communicate the economic and environmental benefits of DAC to foster wider public acceptance and support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey data show a clear community preference for being actively involved in DAC projects, mirroring focus group desires for engagement and shared benefits (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). Greatest preference was shown for benefits sharing between community members and developers, suggesting interest not only in communities being involved in decisionmaking but in seeing direct, positive impacts from DAC initiatives in their region. \u0026ldquo;No requirements\u0026rdquo; was by far the least popular of the options for community involvement where projects occurred.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the benefits (global or local) expected from DAC projects, survey participants overwhelmingly expected improvements to the environment (environmental health and protecting the environment for future generations) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). This aligns with focus group findings, which highlight the desire for tangible local environmental improvements from DAC projects. As with focus group discussions, it may be that DAC was perceived in the survey as being able to clean up air pollution that affects local human health, like particulate matter or nitrous oxide. Current DAC technologies are not reported to have these benefits, and so it may be necessary to address this common misconception directly to prevent false promises. Indeed, environmental benefits were selected by more than three times the number of participants who selected benefits for climate change. This may suggest that in Republican states where climate change is less salient, a broader environmental frame should be used when communicating DAC. The survey also echoes focus group discussions about DAC\u0026rsquo;s potential for economic and job benefits, though it reveals a segment of respondents unsure of these benefits, indicating a gap that could be addressed with the comprehensive stakeholder education recommended by focus group members.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey participants\u0026rsquo; prevailing concern about DAC was its cost of implementation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4), which mirrors focus group participants' worries about financial sustainability and long-term viability of DAC projects. Concerns about impacts on local resources (view- and sound-sheds, grid strain), DAC\u0026rsquo;s potential inefficacy or counterproductivity, and harms to community enfranchisement and local jobs in the fossil fuel sector were roughly equivalent. This differs from our focus group findings, which underscored fears that communities might be left out of project decisions, or that there would be tensions with jobs in the fossil fuel industry above concerns about the technology itself. This suggests that broader constituencies may have diverse concerns, whereas communities in which projects are sited focus concerns primarily on local impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe deployment of DAC in communities that have traditionally relied economically on and/or disproportionately borne the worst impacts of the fossil fuel industry should be cautiously considered, taking into account prevailing political economic conditions. This study explores the complex landscape of transitioning fossil fuel-dependent communities, with a particular focus on the Gulf Coast region, which faces unique challenges given significant reliance on the fossil fuel industry. Our findings shed light on the perceptions, concerns, and aspirations of community members regarding the potential adoption of direct air capture (DAC) as a pathway for achieving a just transition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings underscore the entrenched position of the fossil fuel industry in the Gulf Coast, not only as an economic driver but also as a part of the social and cultural identity of communities. Despite acknowledging the negative environmental and health impacts associated with the industry, participants expressed skepticism that the industry would be phased out in the near term, emphasizing the need for a careful and inclusive transition. DAC emerges as a promising avenue for economic diversification and job creation in these communities, leveraging existing skill sets and infrastructure. However, participants voiced concerns about the industry\u0026rsquo;s potential risks, including environmental injustice and lack of meaningful community engagement. Results highlight the importance of community involvement in decision-making processes to ensure a just transition that addresses historical injustices and empowers affected communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Indeed, community engagement and power dynamics were central themes, with participants expressing a strong desire for meaningful involvement in the planning and implementation of DAC projects. Trust in local officials and the fossil fuel industry was found to be low, emphasizing the need for transparent processes and mechanisms that empower communities. This study suggests that a cooperative ownership model, community advisory boards, and direct community voting could be vital in building trust and ensuring the just distribution of benefits. Furthermore, the study brings attention to the broader socio-economic context, emphasizing the importance of job retraining and competitive benefits. Participants stressed the need for stable, long-term job positions with competitive wages, health insurance, and other benefits, indicating that any transition strategy must address the economic well-being of individuals in these communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe focus group survey data revealed notable differences in attitudes towards DAC across the three communities. Participants in Alexandria expressed significantly higher levels of support for DAC deployment compared to those in Port Arthur and Lake Charles. These differences suggest that local context may play a role in shaping perceptions of DAC, with factors such as geographic location, economic ties to the fossil fuel industry, and cultural identities potentially influencing receptiveness to new technologies; indeed, while Alexandria \u0026ndash; like Lake Charles and Port Arthur \u0026ndash; is located along \u0026ldquo;Cancer Coast,\u0026rdquo; Alexandria is further inland and the concentration of petrochemical facilities in its immediate perimeter lower. While further research is needed to fully unpack these dynamics, the higher levels of support observed in Alexandria highlight the importance of considering site-specific factors when assessing the feasibility and public acceptability of DAC deployment in fossil fuel-dependent regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings provide a nuanced understanding of community perspectives on DAC and its role in achieving a just transition, which can inform policy-making and decision-making processes in the Gulf Coast region and similar carbon-intensive areas. Our analysis suggests that there may be significant variation in attitudes towards DAC and energy transition strategies even within fossil fuel-dependent regions like the Gulf Coast. The differences observed between Alexandria and the other two communities highlight the need for further research to better understand how local factors such as economic dependence on fossil fuels, geographic proximity to industry infrastructure, and cultural identities shape perceptions of emerging technologies like DAC. Comparative studies across multiple fossil fuel-dependent regions could help identify key variables that influence community receptiveness to energy transitions, and inform the development of locally tailored engagement and communication strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBatres, M., Wang, F. M., Buck, H., Kapila, R., Kosar, U., Licker, R., ... \u0026amp; Suarez, V. (2021). Environmental and climate justice and technological carbon removal. \u003cem\u003eThe Electricity Journal, 34\u003c/em\u003e(7), 107002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraunger, I., \u0026amp; Walk, P. (2022). Power in transitions: Gendered power asymmetries in the United Kingdom and the United States coal transitions. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e, 102474.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCha, J. M. (2020). A just transition for whom? Politics, contestation, and social identity in the disruption of coal in the Powder River Basin. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 69\u003c/em\u003e, 101657.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCranmer, Z., Steinfield, L., Miranda, J., \u0026amp; Stohler, T. (2023). Energy distributive injustices: Assessing the demographics of communities surrounding renewable and fossil fuel power plants in the United States. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 100\u003c/em\u003e, 103050.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrowe, J. A., \u0026amp; Li, R. (2020). Is the just transition socially accepted? Energy history, place, and support for coal and solar in Illinois, Texas, and Vermont. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 59\u003c/em\u003e, 101309.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonaghy, T. Q., Healy, N., Jiang, C. Y., \u0026amp; Battle, C. P. (2023). Fossil fuel racism in the United States: How phasing out coal, oil, and gas can protect communities. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 100\u003c/em\u003e, 103104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDwarkasing, C. (2023). Inequality determined social outcomes of low-carbon transition policies: A conceptual meta-review of justice impacts. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 97\u003c/em\u003e, 102974.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnergy Information Agency (EIA). (June 21, 2023). \u003cem\u003eGULF OF MEXICO FACT SHEET\u003c/em\u003e. Web: https://www.eia.gov/special/gulf_of_mexico/. Accessed November 23, 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnergy Information (EIA). (October 4, 2023). \u003cem\u003ePower Plants Dataset\u003c/em\u003e. Web: https://atlas.eia.gov/datasets/eia::power-plants/about. Accessed March 22, 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGough, C., O\u0026rsquo;Keefe, L., \u0026amp; Mander, S. (2014). Public perceptions of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e transportation in pipelines. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy, 70\u003c/em\u003e, 106-114.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraff, M., Carley, S., \u0026amp; Konisky, D. M. (2018). Stakeholder perceptions of the United States energy transition: Local-level dynamics and community responses to national politics and policy. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 43\u003c/em\u003e, 144-157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaarstad, H., \u0026amp; Wanvik, T. I. (2017). Carbonscapes and beyond: Conceptualizing the instability of oil landscapes. \u003cem\u003eProgress in Human Geography, 41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 432-450.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHealy, N., \u0026amp; Barry, J. (2017). Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a \u0026ldquo;just transition\u0026rdquo;. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy, 108\u003c/em\u003e, 451-459.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. P\u0026ouml;rtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegr\u0026iacute;a, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. L\u0026ouml;schke, V. M\u0026ouml;ller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLelieveld, J., Klingm\u0026uuml;ller, K., Pozzer, A., Burnett, R. T., Haines, A., \u0026amp; Ramanathan, V. (2019). Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e116\u003c/em\u003e(15), 7192-7197.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMadsen, P. T., Hansen, D. S., Sperling, K., Houeland, C., \u0026amp; Jenkins, K. E. (2023). Abandoning fossil fuel production: What can be learned from the Danish phase-out of oil and gas?. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 103\u003c/em\u003e, 103211.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNacke, L., Cherp, A., \u0026amp; Jewell, J. (2022). Phases of fossil fuel decline: Diagnostic framework for policy sequencing and feasible transition pathways in resource dependent regions. \u003cem\u003eOxford Open Energy, 1\u003c/em\u003e, oiac002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewell, P., \u0026amp; Mulvaney, D. (2013). The political economy of the \u0026lsquo;just transition\u0026rsquo;. \u003cem\u003eThe Geographical Journal, 179\u003c/em\u003e(2), 132-140.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., \u0026amp; Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. \u003cem\u003eMethods in Ecology and Evolution, 9\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchimpf, C., DeCillia, B., Sleptcov, N., Thomas, M., \u0026amp; Thorlakson, L. (2022). If it ain\u0026rsquo;t broke, don\u0026rsquo;t fix it: how the public\u0026rsquo;s economic confidence in the fossil fuel industry reduces support for a clean energy transition. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Politics, 31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1081-1101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott-Buechler, C., Cain, B., Osman, K., Ardoin, N. M., Fraser, C., Adcox, G., ... \u0026amp; Jackson, R. B. (2024). Communities conditionally support deployment of direct air capture for carbon dioxide removal in the United States. \u003cem\u003eCommunications Earth \u0026amp; Environment, 5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSnyder, B. F. (2018). Vulnerability to decarbonization in hydrocarbon-intensive counties in the United States: A just transition to avoid post-industrial decay. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 42\u003c/em\u003e, 34-43.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSovacool, B. K., Hess, D. J., Amir, S., Geels, F. W., Hirsh, R., Medina, L. R., ... \u0026amp; Yearley, S. (2020). Sociotechnical agendas: Reviewing future directions for energy and climate research. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 70\u003c/em\u003e, 101617.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrist, E. L. (1981). \u003cem\u003eThe evolution of socio-technical systems\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2). Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, X., \u0026amp; Lo, K. (2021). Just transition: A conceptual review. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science, 82\u003c/em\u003e, 102291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Supplementary Materials","content":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Materials are not available with this version.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"direct air capture, just transition, sociotechnical transition, community perceptions","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4438185/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4438185/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThere is growing recognition of the need for just transitions to climate-aligned workforces in communities that have traditionally relied economically on high-emissions sectors like the fossil fuel industry. Direct air capture (DAC) has been proposed as an emergent industry that could help deliver just transitions for energy communities like those in the Gulf Coast region of the United States, where there has been recent private sector interest in DAC deployment. Through focus groups across three sites in the Gulf Coast region, we reveal a complex landscape shaped by the entrenched position of the fossil fuel industry and the need for careful navigation to avoid social and economic upheaval. Community perceptions underscore the dual nature of the fossil fuel industry: providing economic stability but also contributing to environmental and health challenges. DAC emerges as a potential solution, offering shared skill sets with the fossil fuel industry, yet participants express reservations about industry risks and historical lack of community engagement. The study emphasizes the importance of community involvement in decision-making, advocating for cooperative ownership models, community advisory boards, and transparent processes. Results from qualitative focus group discussions and quantitative surveys illustrate a shift in community support for DAC after informed discussions, highlighting the importance of socio-technical considerations over technological features alone.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Complex socio-technical transitions in fossil fuel country: considerations for direct air capture deployment in the U.S. Gulf Coast region","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-05-23 01:44:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4438185/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ca9ff152-d1bc-4764-b605-6f42f1977432","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 23rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-05-23T01:44:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-05-23 01:44:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4438185","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4438185","identity":"rs-4438185","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}