This was a joint project completed for the class ‘Reinventing Democracy: Innovation, Participation and Power’ 2023 at the University of Southampton, by Lucie Fairgrieve, Tess De Souza, Jasmine Verma.

Problems and Purpose

Climate change and the climate emergency is an issue that has been a popular debate in recent years. The advent of climate scientists and data being released surrounding the decimation of the environment by both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic causes is an issue that needs to be solved. Encouraging deliberative civic participation is a promising course of action in mitigating the problem [1]. The Citizens’ Jury was commissioned and funded by Southwark Council to provide support in achieving the Council’s goal of mitigating the climate emergency and to achieve net-zero by 2030 [2].

A Citizens’ Jury is a democratic innovation and a form of deliberative democracy. Democratic innovations aim to, ‘increase and deepen citizen participation in the political decision making process’ [3]. The Citizens’ Jury made use of random stratified sampling of participants to ensure the Jury was characteristic of the wider population of Southwark [4][5]. Citizens’ Juries aim to bring together a small group, usually between 12 and 25, of random, ordinary, people to deliberate on a chosen issue [6]. Participants listen to views from expert witnesses, and, with the help of moderators, are able to cross-examine these witnesses and use the information presented to them to help devise solutions and recommendations to the issue(s) [7].

In an effort to gauge public opinion and solutions on the issue of climate change within the London Borough of Southwark, the Citizens’ Jury was a deliberative process to attempt to resolve these issues. The reach the target of the borough becoming net-zero. The Citizens’ Jury aimed to answer the question proposed by the Oversight Panel: ‘What needs to change in Southwark to tackle the emergency of climate change fairly and effectively for people and nature?’ [2].

Background History and Context

Southwark is a borough in South London on the bank of the river Thames, with a total population of 314,000 at the time of the Citizens’ Jury in 2021-22 [8]. The southeast of the borough is incorporated into central London and borders the boroughs of Lambeth and Lewisham [8]. Citizens’ Juries have been increasingly used to ensure citizens are at the centre of local government in establishing solutions and responses to the issue of the climate emergency [9]. The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change takes lessons learned from other Citizens’ Juries held in the UK, such as Leeds and Lancaster, to ensure the processes held are fair and effective [8].

In order to help mitigate the climate emergency, international treaties such as the Paris Agreement have been signed. The Paris Agreement gained support from 196 signatories at COP21 in Paris, and came into effect on the 4th November 2016 [10]. However, the Paris Agreement, among other legally binding treaties, have proved to be ineffective in adequately mitigating the effects of climate change, mainly due to signatories’ inability, or unwillingness, to reach the set goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above industrial levels, with the eventual goal of limiting this increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above industrial levels [10] [11]. Due to this, the implementation of civic participation through democratic innovations such as a Citizens’ Jury is essential in helping to tackle the issue of climate change.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Despite Southwark Council funding the jury to achieve their climate goals, the Council had no direct involvement in the process [2]. This was instead regulated under the supervision of Shared Future, who has previous experience in designing and managing successful juries and assemblies across the country [2]. 

Shared Future created an impartial Oversight Panel to ensure the process would be just and unbiased. The effectiveness of the process relied heavily on citizen participation in the discussion of the climate emergency in Southwark. The discussions were scrutinised by the Oversight Panel. This was to ensure a transparent relationship occurred between the decision-makers and the citizens of Southwark, and that the recommendations produced by the participants were not influenced by those in power. It must be acknowledged that the Oversight Panel consisted of members from various professional backgrounds including the local authority, private sector, academia, the voluntary sector, and environmental groups [2]. The aim was to establish a panel of diverse experts, whose duty was to create an impartial process that would meaningfully engage all the participants. 

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Random stratified sampling was used by The Sortition Foundation (experts in this type of decision-making) to pick the participants for the jury. Participants were randomly selected using the Royal Mail database, aiming to represent the diversity of Southwark [5]. Because of the desire for a variety of opinions, it was open to all citizens between the ages of 16-70. Refer to the table below (Figure 1) to see the diversity within the jury. 

Further requirements needed for the individuals to be eligible to partake in the discussion included their accessibility to a computer screen and their willingness to devote thirty hours of the next three months to this process (between November 2021 and February 2022) [2]. This was essential to allow meaningful discussions to take place which would address how the climate emergency should be tackled in Southwark. 

A month prior to the online jury meeting, a parcel was sent to 5,000 households in the area of Southwark. This parcel included an invitation card, a brief letter explaining the purpose of the Citizens’ Jury, and answers to the most frequently asked questions in relation to the process [5]. If the individual wished to participate then they had to reply to the invitation that was included in this parcel. This emphasises the choice the citizens had in being involved. 

There were over 170 responses to this invitation. However, only thirty individuals were chosen, more than the target of twenty-five, to ensure the minimum target would be fulfilled. This was to account for any unforeseeable disruptions that might affect the process, such as participants needing to withdraw due to a change in circumstances from when they first applied [5].

The jury met over eight sessions. Six of these sessions were held on Thursday evenings between the 25th of November and 3rd February, whereas the other two occurred during the day of the 4th December and the 22nd January. The participants were provided lunch and three hundred- and thirty-pounds worth of vouchers to show their participation was noticed [5]. 

It must be acknowledged that randomly selecting the participants reduced the possibility of the participants knowing each other prior to the process. This was important to Southwark Council as it reduced the influence of opinions being swayed. The Council wanted an outcome that would produce unbiased recommendations and would represent the diverse opinions of the individuals in the area.

Methods and Tools Used

Within this Citizens’ Jury, many methods and tools were used to come to the final result of a statement and set of recommendations for the Council. The biggest challenge faced in this particular process was the pandemic that was happening alongside it. To work around this, most sessions took place online, and if necessary, tablets and internet training was provided to ensure anyone in Southwark could participate, helping representation [13]. Throughout the sessions, participants listened and engaged by asking questions with experts and activists on environmental matters through collaboration, which increased considered judgement [14]. Activities such as using a tree structure to identify root causes and making an artistic representation of environmental issues helped participants understand the complexity of the issue, alongside a combination of experts and self-reflection time allowed Jurors to come up with their own views [15]. Furthermore, small group discussions took place in all the sessions which allowed everybody to become comfortable which created an environment where jurors often felt comfortable sharing their opinions with large groups, which again increases considered judgement [14]. Random sampling was also used in recruiting the participants for this case to ensure good representation, aligning with Smith’s proposal of considered judgement [14]. An Oversight Panel was placed in all the sessions to encourage healthy, unbiased discussion by Shared Future to ensure fair and equally representative recommendations were put forward for Southwark [2].

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Shared Future were the designers of the process that took place in the Citizens’ Jury [2]. Most sessions took place online due to coronavirus restrictions, however there were two days where they were able to meet in person [16]. The participants had no information Prior to the Citizen’s Jury, and so came in with a clean slate to come up with authentic recommendations [17].

The first session consisted of an introductory activity where people could bond to feel comfortable throughout the process [13]. In small groups, participants could point out on a map where in Southwark they were from, which later turned into conversations about tackling climate change within the area [13]. Before the next session, guidelines were set out based on the first session, and this was made into a programme and given to all participants [18]. These guidelines included: making use of in person sessions, listening and speaking your opinion, making it clear if you do not understand, the fact that all presentations would be recorded, and speak to anyone you know to bring in more ideas, but do not share the names of people you speak with [18].

In the second session, the first commentators spoke about climate change and its impacts on Southwark [18]. After this, five small groups consisting of random participants were formed to discuss what they thought of the presentation, and questions they had which they could ask commentators [19]. 

Sessions three and four took place in person rather than online and the first activity required dissecting the roots and complexity of environmental issues [19]. In small groups, a tree was drawn where participants could write down what they believed to be the roots. They were further encouraged to answer questions to broaden their thoughts and help panel members to highlight key problems [15]. Each group was then given the opportunity to share their findings where some similarities helped form discussion points, including ‘consumerism/greed, individual action, government and regulation business’ [15]. These were again discussed in small random groups. The next activity consisted of creating a piece of art inspired by ‘this is not a pipe’ to showcase an area of climate change. This exercise, taking only ten minutes, resulted in conversation surrounding the topic of climate change, and how we can interpret things differently to how they may originally appear [20]. The groups then formed again to think about what needed changing and to depict this through the art they had made in the last exercise. They then shared these changes with the full group [20]. The jury also heard from commentator Caoimhe Basketter, a climate activist, and then shared their opinions on this with one another [20]. Finally, in pairs, jurors discussed what they thought would be relevant for the following sessions. These pairs then joined other pairs and gradually formed groups [21]. The ideas were written down and put into categories, and the jury then voted on which categories they wanted to be the topic of future sessions and housing/building, transport and business received the most votes [21]. The jury members also had the opportunity to write down any questions they may have developed throughout the process so far [21].

In session five, a facilitator and five jury members grouped together and discussed the main topic of that day, buildings [22]. The conversation was prompted by questions like ‘What stands out to you about housing and buildings in Southwark at the moment?’ [22]. The jurors then listened to a commentator speak on the focus topic which led to discussions about their thoughts in small groups [22]. Participants were then asked to reflect individually on what they would recommend as a solution to the proposed issues surrounding buildings, which they later shared with a few other jurors [22].

The focus topic for session six was transport, and it started with jurors discussing their experiences on this topic [23]. They then listened to a commentator presenting on this topic. After this, three random groups were formed- all of which included facilitators [23]. Commentators visited each group, which encouraged conversation and any questions to be asked. Jurors then individually came up with recommendations for transport, which they then discussed in small groups [23]. The same process was repeated in session seven but instead of transport, the focus topic was business [23].

Sessions eight and nine were in person sessions, although four participants were not able to attend as a result of coronavirus, instead participating through WhatsApp [24]. All participants were sent a collection of all recommendations that were collected by facilitators and given by jurors on the three chosen topics prior to this session [24]. The first exercise that took place was named ‘speed dating’, whereby everybody spoke to a wide range of people to share what recommendations they felt were the most important [24]. There were then four groups which jurors could join: housing and building, transport, business and ‘other’, to start drafting official recommendations [25]. Jurors were also invited to speak with a facilitator separately to write a statement from the Citizen’s Jury to introduce the recommendations that will be put forward [25]. The statement was then shared with a large group, and a system was put in place where everyone could have a say in the final product. While there was a lot of support, individuals wrote their issues on post-it-notes which allowed for there to be alterations to improve it [25]. 

Session ten entailed finalising the recommendations. The recommendations that were decided in previous sessions were sent to the Oversight Panel to help make the overall process clearer before they would be sent off. Jurors were given a draft of this prior to the final session [26]. Jury members were again able to choose the group they felt most comfortable with to further improve recommendations on the focus topics [26]. The whole group then came together to speak about their own priorities and engaged with each other to understand everyone’s views [26]. After the last session, jurors were sent a voting booklet to vote on which recommendations they showed the most support for and why [26]. The results these booklets and the statements produced finalised the report [26].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

To determine the success of the Citizens’ Jury, we must recap what the Council hoped to achieve. This was to seek ways the borough could address the climate emergency and make Southwark a net-zero zone by 2030. 

The hiring of Shared Future and the Sortition Foundation was critical in providing a varied range of perspectives on the subject that would reflect the opinions and concerns of those within the borough. Secondly, it was expected the recommendations produced by the jury would be presented in a meeting to the Cabinet, by which a response would be formulated addressing the points raised by the Citizens’ Jury [27].

Overall, four key recommendations were emphasised by the jury as needing to be prioritised if Southwark was to become a more ecological area (see Figure 2 below).

The degree of support was determined by calculating the percentage of ‘strongly support’/’support’ votes out of the overall number of participants who submitted their voting booklet [28]. 

At the end of the process, the participants published a statement that was presented to the Council which discussed their experience and findings. They expressed how the opportunity to serve on the jury educated them about climate change and the dangers it poses to the community, alongside the gratitude of being able to take an active role in the process- highlighting high levels of internal transparency. They also emphasised their concern that decisive measures must be prioritised if there is to be a future for their borough [30]. 

According to Southwark Council’s website, they claim to have already cut carbon emissions, increased the number of school streets and pedestrian crossings, made streets more bicycle friendly, and planned to plant more trees in the area [31]. However, they dismissed the more radical suggestions including the inability to appropriately advertise the jury process, as well as concealing their response by cross-referencing to other complex policy documents. Furthermore, despite the jury’s assertion that the primary drivers of climate change were national and global systemic factors, their recommendations did not acknowledge this [32]. However, parts of the process were well designed such as sessions three and four (see What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation) which encouraged participants’ involvement. This led to insightful discussions and debates that engaged the participants in the process. As a result, the Citizens’ Jury can be credited to have promoted deliberation and collaboration. 

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The Citizen’s Jury held in Southwark was partially successful in tackling the question: ‘‘what needs to change in Southwark to tackle the emergency of climate change fairly and effectively for people and nature?’ [2]. The Citizens’ Jury was only partially successful because, overall, it did reduce the carbon emissions in Southwark, but the recommendations proposed by the Jury were not implemented by the Council. 

Smith’s framework for analysis proposes that there are four ‘democratic goods’ (inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency), and two institutional goods (efficiency and transferability). The extent to which these four democratic goods and two institutional goods are met, ‘enables us to judge the democratic legitimacy and practical feasibility of innovations’ [3]. Smith proposes that the Citizens’ Jury can be labelled as a successful innovation if they show an overcoming of unequal participation, a demonstration of citizens being empowered in the process of establishing decisions and resolutions, there being an environment structured to allow for informed judgements, and that the proceedings in the jury were available for both participants and observers [34][35].

The stratified random sampling used within the Citizens’ Jury allows for a representative sample of the population to be chosen (shown in figure 1), but also allows for existing inequalities to be eradicated. Wealthy and more educated individuals are more likely to voluntarily participate in democratic processes, and so the combination of the stratified and random sampling allows for both willing participants, but also for participants that are representative of the wider population and demographics of Southwark [36]. However, simply having the presence of a diverse, representative group of people does not guarantee that minorities’ voices will be heard, nor does it guarantee inclusiveness [37]. This is because ‘institutional rules, norms, and expectations can exclude or undermine the contributions of citizens’, especially as 40% of those participants were white British- a group that is not discriminated against [37]. Therefore, the presence of minorities that is representative to the wider population does not change the power dynamics. The splitting of participants into smaller groups reduced the pressure of having to speak in front of a large group of people, increasing the number of people willing to share their opinions. In addition to this, participants were also able to write down any questions they may have, lessening the embarrassment of having to speak or be incorrect in front of the other participants [18].

The citizens did not have previous knowledge about the issue of climate change before the process began. Therefore, they found it difficult to hold the Council accountable regarding the implementation of the recommendations [32]. Smith proposes that considered judgement is the ‘capacity of citizens to make thoughtful and reflective judgements’ whether these judgements are collective or individual [14]. The democratic innovation is unable to ensure considered judgement is achieved, but the Citizens’ Jury could provide information, views and perspectives that were needed for the participants to reach a considered judgement [38]. All jurors listened to the experts on various topics relating to the climate problem, providing them with the knowledge to be able to ask questions. Moreover, there were points in the process where the participants were able to contribute anonymously, also enhancing inclusiveness. This ensured the participants’ backgrounds did not influence the recommendations that were produced.

However, it is not completely clear if the recommendations produced did reflected the discussions. 

The various stages of the process highlight some aspects of popular control occurring. Popular control encompasses the stages of the decision-making process (1-problem definition, 2-option analysis, 3-option selection, and 4-option implementation) [39]. Popular control also concerns agenda-setting: citizens being given control over important parts of the decision-making process [40]. The purpose of the jury was for citizens being able to influence policies, but, in practice, this did not happen, and the Council did not implement the recommendations proposed by the Jury. Stages three and four do imply that there was space for creative control over the process, as jurors picked topics to prioritise, also satisfying problem definition in the acknowledgement of the issue. The group ended the processes by gathering together and reflecting on the discussions and the options they had analysed and then chosen. This allowed for the final statement to be written, which included all the individuals’ opinions representing the diversity of the group.

Smith distinguishes the difference between internal and external transparency. External transparency concerns the public and how much they are aware of and understand the process implemented in the Citizens’ Jury, and internal transparency concerns to what extent the participants in the Citizens’ Jury understood the process based on capacity building, complexity, and the political environment [34]. The Citizens’ Jury partly promoted transparency. The process was not advertised well, making it difficult for the public to follow the activities of the jury. Although the public had access to the documents and videos shown to the Jury, they were not able to receive the education available to the jury as there was no platform for the general population to ask questions or scrutinise. The fact that the jury was not well promoted to the public, as well as there being no scrutiny option, drastically reduces the external transparency. However, internal transparency was successful as the participants were able to engage with the commentators and ask questions in order to have a high understanding on the chosen topics. 

With respect Efficiency [41], the main cost for Southwark Council was a financial cost. This is due to the financial costs incurred for staffing, consultation costs, reimbursement for participants’ travel and accommodation, as well as costs associated with writing up the whole process and recommendation of the Jury- usually totalling somewhere between £16,000- £30,000 [42]. The Council already had a plan in order to improve environmentally friendly policy which was not disclosed to the Jury members. The money spent on the jury was not beneficial due to the fact the Council did not take into account the more radical suggestions that were recommended. The jury had some similar plans to what was already set out by the Council, and these were implemented; however, anything that differed to the already existing plan was not. 

While climate change affects everybody on a global scale, the implementation of Citizens' Juries to design and implement environmentally friendly policy is not easily transferable across time, space, and culture. This is because there is a wealth distribution, meaning not everyone can put money into climate change mitigation. The individuals did not have a complete, comprehensive knowledge of the issue therefore, limited the jury’s transferability as they did not have the ability to scrutinise the government's role in this area. This makes it difficult to apply to a larger scale. In addition to this, throughout time the conditions surrounding climate change in Southwark may change- for better or for worse. This reduces the transferability of the recommendations as they would be outdated and not able to be implemented.

In principle, the idea of the Citizens’ Jury appears to motivate participation. However, in practice, it proved to be complex. Most of the democratic and institutional goods were at least partially met, but they did not fully achieve their aim. The implementation of policy did not accurately reflect the views of Southwark as many suggestions from the Jury were ignored, implying that the process was unnecessary.

See Also

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury

References

[1] Willis, Rebecca, et al. “Deliberative Democracy and the Climate Crisis.” WIREs Climate Change, vol. 13, no. 2, Jan. 2022, p. 10, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.759. Wiley. Accessed 17 May 2023.

[2] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 3, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[3] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[4] Local Government Association. “Citizens’ Assemblies and Citizens Juries | Local Government Association.” Www.local.gov.uk, LGA, 2023, www.local.gov.uk/topics/devolution/devolution-online-hub/public-service-reform-tools/engaging-citizens-devolution-3. Accessed 20 May 2023.

[5] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 8, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[6] Smith, Graham, and Corinne Wales. “Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies, vol. 48, no. 1, Mar. 2000, p. 60, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00250. Wiley. Accessed 17 May 2023.

[7] Smith, Graham, and Corinne Wales. “Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies, vol. 48, no. 1, Mar. 2000, p. 55, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00250. Wiley. Accessed 17 May 2023.

[8] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 5, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[9] Shared Future. “Our Guide to Climate Assemblies and Juries.” Shared Future CIC, Shared Future, 15 Aug. 2020, sharedfuturecic.org.uk/climate-assemblies-and-juries-guide/). Accessed 19 May 2023.

[10] UNFCCC. “The Paris Agreement.” UNFCCC, UNFCCC, 2015, unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement. Accessed 20 May 2023.

[11] Willis, Rebecca, et al. “Deliberative Democracy and the Climate Crisis.” WIREs Climate Change, vol. 13, no. 2, Jan. 2022, p. 2, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.759. Wiley. Accessed 17 May 2023.

[12] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 9, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[13] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 11, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[14] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 24, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[15] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 15, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[16] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 6, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[17] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 4, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[18] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 13, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[19] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 14, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[20] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 16, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[21] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 17, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[22] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 18, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[23] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p. 19, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[24] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p.21, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[25] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p.22, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[26] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p.23, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[27] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p.24, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[28] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p.25, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[29] Southwark Council, and Shared Future. “The Southwark Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, Feb. 2022, p.26, www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/our-work/your-citizens-jury. Accessed 16 May 2023.

[30] Shared Future. “The Southwark Climate Change Citizens’ Jury.” Shared Future CIC, Shared Future, 10 Mar. 2022, sharedfuturecic.org.uk/southwark-climate-citizens-jury/. Accessed 20 May 2023.

[31] Southwark Council. “Climate Jury’s Recommendations Add Strength to Southwark Council’s Ambitious Climate Strategy.” Southwark Council, Southwark Council, 3 Mar. 2022, www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2022/mar/climate-jury-s-recommendations-add-strength-to-southwark-council-s-ambitious-climate-strategy. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[32] Extinction Rebellion Southwark. “CITIZEN’S ASSEMBLIES: REFLECTING on OUR THIRD DEMAND from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE - XR Southwark.” Extinction Rebellion Southwark, Extinction Rebellion Southwark, 30 Oct. 2022, xrsouthwark.earth/citizens-assemblies-how-participating-in-one-changed-our-perspective. Accessed 19 May 2023. 

[33] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 6, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[34] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 27, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[35] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 28, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[36] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 14, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[37] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 21, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[38] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 25, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[39] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 23, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[40] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 22, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[41] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 13, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[42] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 105, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

[43] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 1st ed., vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 26, www-cambridge-org.soton.idm.oclc.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4. Accessed 19 May 2023.

External Links

Notes