This project was done by Rene Adebonojo while he was an Participedia intern.

Problems and Purpose

The Climate Assembly was initially created in response to the climate emergency declared by Adur and Worthing Councils in 2019, hoping to seek solutions to tackle climate change from residents [2]. Moreover, it aims to encourage broader participation and deeper engagement in effects from the local community [3]. The use of randomly selected ordinary citizens in the process aims to increase engagement and awareness around the issue of climate change, and ultimately lead to an empowered and engaged community that is willing to take action. Climate change is a pressing issue globally, with the effects of climate change such as the loss of natural habitats, excessive waste, substandard air quality, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events being of particularly great importance to Adur and Worthing as the towns are situated on the seafront. To address this issue, it is essential for local communities to take action and work together to be more environmentally conscious in an effort to reduce their carbon footprint. However, it is challenging to engage and involve all members of the community in this effort.

Background History and Context

Climate change has been a pressing challenge to the globe. Global leaders met to address the climate emergency at the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties in Glasgow in 2021. Thenceforth, the council has been actively addressing different environmental problems and they pledged to achieve carbon neutrality for their controlled emissions by 2030 and net zero carbon across the districts by 2045, striving to ensure that all community members can access green spaces and affordable clean energy and transportation [4].

Acknowledging that some factors caused climate changes, for instance poorly insulated houses, are societal problems as well, effective climate actions require local support and collective involvement. In response to the climate emergency, the Adur and Worthing Council held a Climate Assembly in the Autumn of 2020, hoping to seek solutions to tackle climate change from residents. Moreover, it aims to encourage broader participation and deeper engagement in effects from the local community. The Council has actively promoted civic engagement in the policy making process, such as running their first participatory budget as early as 2010 [5]. The Climate Assembly was the first assembly held by the Council [6].

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Climate Assembly was designed and facilitated by the Democratic Society, an international non-profit association [7]. In addition, The Sortition Foundation, a non-profit company supporting Citizens’ Assemblies with representative participant sampling in [8], were responsible for the recruitment of participants. Technological equipment and training was carried out by OneStop Junction [9] and the Councils distribute service. The design was funded from the Council’s Business Development budget at a cost of £42,000 for Worthing Council and £28,000 for Adur Council [10]. The budget went towards hiring lead experts, guest speakers, facilitators and support team staff to ensure professionalism.

Methods and Tools Used

The process worked in accordance with a standard methodology of a Citizens’ Assembly, however, conducted fully online. The following digital tools were used: Zoom, Miro, Google Docs, Google Jamboard, Google Sites, SurveyMonkey, and Slido [11]. 

Participants were randomly selected to meet, learn about the climate crisis, then discuss and make recommendations on how to improve “the welfare of both planet and people” [12]. A Citizens Assembly was chosen to engage the wider community and promote collective action; both Councils’ agreed that just action taken on their behalf wouldn’t have been enough to evoke real change. An important tool used in this study was an example of small group deliberation, called ‘Micro Groups’ [13]. The assembly occurred during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic; social restrictions meant all proceedings took place online.‘Micro Groups were thus created online to promote integration and closer relationships between participants, with the intention of enabling deeper participation. The Micro Groups consisted of four participants and one facilitator.

Introductory individual questions and education sessions were held to ensure all participants felt comfortable and fully able to use the technology being used during the assembly. The questions about digital proficiency were asked by the Sortition Foundation during the initial selection process; the answers given did not affect an individual's ability to participate. Individual technical training sessions were held by the Democratic Society to support understanding of the online process and tools. New technological equipment such as computers and headphones were provided for the participants in need. The facilitation team reviewed the activities ahead of each session of the assembly to ensure ‘familiarity of use’ room for adjustments embedded throughout. 

An independent advisory group composed of experts on climate change or thriving communities [14] oversaw the citizens assembly to ensure balance and a lack of bias; they also played a critical role in the identification of expert speakers. They met on seven occasions, but took independent work providing support to identify suitable expert speakers and content - and were also allowed to join as overseers. 

Wider engagement was used to include members of society that were not selected to participate; a survey was sent on various websites, social media channels and blogs in an attempt to gauge citizen’s feelings into climate change, what they think is the most important issue and what they are doing as individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. Any material used in the assembly was also made accessible to the participants by an interactive website called ‘Our Space’, which included “any necessary information, support guides and links of other resources” [15]. 

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Learning Phase:

The democratic society designed a supportive and informative learning process which took place during the first two assembly-days and first Micro Group. The first Micro Group session focused on group formation, technical training and making participants feel comfortable. Assembly-day 1 [16] focused on informing participants on the context of climate change with guest speakers and open discussions. Members from the Adur & Worthing Council officers and the advisory group worked as facilitators in order to lead discussions between the participants and ensure discussion was balanced and broadly representative. To follow, the second Micro Group gave members the opportunity to hear from 10 excellent speakers through short videos to help understand the topic of climate change. 

Discussion & Deliberation Phase:

Day 2 of the citizens assembly split members into breakout groups and they were encouraged to explore their thoughts and ask questions based on the Micro Group activities [17]. Discussions were designed against a ‘problem tree’ model during the afternoon of the second day [18], which aimed to keep a tight focus on the problem at hand and allow participants to think about the causes and symptoms of these problems. Facilitators in each group helped build the discussion then final thoughts were expressed during a plenary session with the whole citizen assembly. Micro Group 3 gave the opportunity for members to reflect on their hopes and fears about climate change [19], which were established earlier in the process and this discussion helped members reach conclusions on their final guiding principles. The 3rd assembly day of the citizen assembly consisted of morning activities where they would listen to presentations and then in the afternoon time was allocated to reflect on ideas from the morning and look to understand the impact and feasibility of the guiding principles suggested [20]. Micro group 4, participants voted on the recommendations put forward by the different breakout groups, where the strongest set of recommendations were established [21]. After a lot of discussion on ideas and thought, assembly day 4 focused on translating vision into recommendation and members could communicate with roaming experts to craft strong ideas on how the council could combat climate change [22]. The whole discussion process aimed to explore the thoughts of members and use insight from experts to build off original perception. 

Interaction:

Micro Group five gave the opportunity for participants to come to a conclusion about the citizen assembly, by presenting their 28 recommendations to the group [23]. This created more thorough discussion and debate on the problems with climate change in Adur & Worthing as these guiding principles focused on group interaction and engagement with the local community. Here, they aimed to merge recommendations so everything was consistent and proactive conclusions were reached. Finally, the process assessed the value of speakers, guests and online presentations. Assembly day five offered a chance for feedback to the council and a reflection on the experience [24]. Then to conclude the experience members presented their recommendations to the Joint Strategic Committee of the council [25]. The five day process saw high attendance and inclusion so the community felt valued within this democratic innovation. 

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Participants for the Citizens’ Assembly were randomly selected using a two-stage lottery process carried out by the Sortition Foundation. In the first stage, invitation letters were sent out to 8,000 randomly selected households from the Royal Mail’s address database of the Adur District and Worthing Borough areas. Individuals from selected households were able to register their interest, however, individuals employed by Adur & Worthing Councils, paid staff members of any political party, and elected officials from any level of government were not eligible to apply [26]. In terms of incentives, participants were offered compensation for their commitment and time with £300 in cash or vouchers. The assembly also covered expenses related to purchasing new technical equipment such as headphones or webcams, as well as payment for interpretation or childcare services [27]. 

More than 400 individuals expressed their interest in participating in the citizens’ assembly, and in the second stage, the Sortition Foundation selected 45 participants from the list of interested individuals using stratified random sampling [28]. To ensure a diverse group of participants representative of the population, the 45 individuals were selected from six demographic strata: gender, age, ethnicity, geography, occupation and attitude to climate change. The table below shows the target percentages in the real population compared to the stratified sampling of assembly members. All targets were based on real population percentages except for “geography”, which was modified to ensure an equal representation from Adur and Worthing. It might be worth noting the variance of black and minority ethnic as well as less concerned climate attitudes [see Table 1].

Out of the 45 individuals recruited by the Sortition Foundation, 43 participants between the ages of 16 and 77 completed the process, with two individuals choosing to withdraw due to personal reasons [29].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

In regards to the participants’ own view of the Climate Assembly, the pre-post survey indicates a positive change in opinions. Before the Climate Assembly took place, 70% of the participants thought the Climate Assembly would lead to positive changes and support their place to thrive, in comparison to 89.5% after the assembly had gathered . In addition, only 58% of the participants thought Adur & Worthing Councils would act on what came out of the Climate Assembly, in comparison to 76% after the Climate Assembly. Finally, only 33% of the participants felt that Adur & Worthing Councils listened to residents, in comparison to 61% after the Assembly. The survey results indicate a remarkable change in attitudes among the participants after the Climate Assembly. Furthermore, 83% of participants reported having more knowledge about climate change and feeling more confidence to talk about climate change with others. 67% of participants also reported that they wanted to get involved in actions to help tackle climate change after the Climate Assembly [30]. 

The Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report suggested that the Councils should focus on three key next steps: 

1. Develop internal and external stakeholder groups to review and progress the recommendations
2. Communicate widely about the recommendations and the work that the Councils and others are already doing
3. Integrating all climate-related work into one action plan for Adur and Worthing under the Sustainable AW10 umbrella, ensuring considerations around a thriving community 

Building on the 18 recommendations from the Climate Assembly, Adur & Worthing Councils launched a shared climate and nature plan for 2021-2023 called ‘SustainableAW’, covering 10 priority areas and outlining 60 actions for the Councils and the community [31]. Progress has already been made by, for example, investing in new solar panels to generate clean energy [32]. The plan will undergo annual reviews and the progress will be reported to the Joint Strategic Committee of the Councils [33]. The Adur & Worthing Councils Sustainability team also organised a webinar for residents during the COP26 summit, in which they provided an update on the progress of the recommendations from the Climate Assembly [4]. For example, they informed residents that the Councils had implemented a more structured approach for increasing biodiversity in local parks, and thus making progress towards the goal outlined by the Climate Assembly to re-nature parks and green spaces. In addition, the Councils have been working with over 200 organisations on different projects in relation to the SustainableAW action plan, as well as creating an internal staff climate champions group [34]. Overall, the Councils have made commendable efforts to act upon the recommendations put forward by the Climate Assembly and made significant progress towards the three key focus areas mentioned above.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Graham Smith’s framework of democratic goods [35] will be used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Climate Assembly. The analysis includes an evaluation of six areas: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency and transferability. 

Inclusiveness 

Overall, the Climate Assembly realised the democratic good of inclusiveness to a great extent. In terms of presence, the ‘near-random’ selection mechanism based on six demographic strata helps to select a diverse group of participants. It also reduces the traditional skewness towards characteristics of politically active citizens that typically engage in consultation processes [36]. As the demo consisted of home addresses and invitations were sent out by postal mail, invitations reached citizens beyond the ‘digital divide’ [37], as opposed to relying on email or phone registers in the initial selection stage. The element of self-selection in the recruitment process might replicate existing inequalities in political participation, however, effective incentives were offered to participants, thus promoting presence across different social groups [38]. 

Regarding the stratification criteria, certain aspects could limit the realisation of presence and, in turn, other democratic goods. Firstly, the population target for “Geography” was modified to ensure an even representation of participants from Adur and Worthing. However, the real division of the population is 36.67% in Adur and 63.33% in Worthing [39], thus making the presence in the assembly uneven. No explanation is given for this decision, but it might have been aimed at preventing one area’s views from dominating the other. However, it still appears to contradict the purpose of using stratified sampling based on population metrics, as no other strata were adjusted. Secondly, the decision to divide “Ethnicity” into two categories –“White” or “Black and Minority Ethnic”– might have undermined efforts to ensure the realisation of inclusiveness. By grouping all ethnicities other than “White” under one category, there are no criteria for ensuring the presence of other potentially salient ethnic groups. The failure to do so is particularly puzzling considering the second-largest ethnic group in Adur and Worthing is Asian [40], yet their representation is unknown. On one hand, this also undermines the realisation of voice, as diversity is a precondition for ensuring that citizens are able to express their views [41]. It could also affect the assembly’s ability to come to a considered judgement, as diversity proves crucial to understanding different social perspectives [42]. On the other hand, although the individual representation of different ethnic minorities is unknown, they are still overrepresented as a group in comparison to population parameters. Overrepresentation of a minority could promote the realisation of voice and considered judgement as it ensures sufficient numbers to communicate the perspective in the assembly’s different break-out rooms and Micro Groups. However, this logic assumes the group to be homogenous and all represent the same viewpoints, and as already established, there is no insight into the distribution of ethnic minorities [43]. 

Although there are drawbacks in terms of presence, the Climate Assembly’s efforts in terms of online design and facilitation helped realise equality of voice to a high degree. As participants were provided with any digital tools needed and received a technical introduction session, the potential risks of a ‘digital divide’ were minimised. Although variation in technical proficiency can undermine the contributions of some participants, the assembly reported seeing increased digital confidence and access for assembly members. The assembly’s design in terms of size and facilitation was also useful in promoting equality of voice. For example, Micro Groups were conducted consisting of four participants and one facilitator, aiming to foster stronger relationships between assembly members [28]. This could increase the realisation of voice as meeting in smaller groups generally reduces the reluctance of citizens to contribute. The role of an independent facilitator could also decrease the risk of domination by “the skilled and charismatic” [44]. The evaluation survey also showed that 100% of participants thought the Micro Groups were a good place to discuss learning with others [30]. In addition, the participants were asked to create a set of conversation guidelines on the first day. Establishing ground rules about respect and participation encourages the realisation of voice as it sets a standard for acceptable behaviour [45]. Overall, the Climate Assembly realised inclusiveness, both in terms of presence and voice, to a high degree. 

Popular Control 

Due to the nature and general design of mini-publics, the Climate Assembly inherently had limited potential to realise a high degree of popular control. In terms of problem definition and agenda-setting, there was no opportunity for participants to influence the process as all aspects were decided in advance by the Councils. Citizens were simply invited to craft recommendations on two predefined questions in a process designed without their involvement [46]. In addition, popular control was further constrained by the limited power of Adur and Worthing Councils as local authorities. Citizens were thus not able to influence climate policy on a national level or in other regions. In terms of impact on political decisions, the outputs from the Climate Assembly only had recommendatory force and thus no guarantee of implementation or influence on future policies. Indeed, the Recommendations Report states that Assembly Members were only invited to present their recommendations to the Joint Strategic Committee of the Councils in “due course” [47], and no further information can be found as to whether this happened or not. Although the Councils did make notable progress on the Assembly’s recommendations (see section Influence, Outcomes, and Effects), there is still a risk of politicians ‘cherry-picking’ those recommendations in support of their perspectives [48]. These limitations are common weaknesses in mini-publics [49], however, other parts of the Climate Assembly further undermined the realisation of popular control. 

On the 4th and 5th Assembly days, Council officials were directly involved in the deliberation process by helping the participants build their recommendations [51]. Two out of the four ‘expert leads’ available to support members in crafting, developing, and finalising their recommendations were employed at the Council. One of the experts was even in the audience as a representative for the Councils when the Assembly presented their final recommendations. Involving officials from the organising body undermines the legitimacy of the process and raises concerns about bias. Overall, the realisation of popular control is inherently weak due to the nature of mini-publics, however, other aspects of the Climate Assembly further weakened it. 

Considered judgement 

The Climate Assembly overall demonstrated a high level of considered judgement. The methods of providing information and exposing citizens to different perspectives in the Climate Assembly enable participants to realise informed choices and considered judgement. In terms of enabling participants to gain adequate knowledge about the issues, they were provided with resources and information on diverse topics. The learning process included presentations and videos by various experts, as well as the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification from the speakers directly. This was followed by discussions of evidence from other residents, community, experts and the Councils, to recognise the need to act for climate change before directly jumping into the recommendations-making process. 

In terms of considering different perspectives in forming considered judgement, the discussions with different stakeholders holding diverse social perspectives allow participants to reflect and appreciate different views [51]. As participants came to decisions together, and thus collectively justified their reasoning behind their recommendations, the design inherently promotes considering the public interest rather than participants' self interest. The multi-way interaction, vertical form with expert speakers and horizontal form among participants, incorporated in the design not only provide a comprehensive view to participants but also orientate participants to consider public interest as a whole and avoid personal potential bias [52]. 

Linking back to inclusiveness, making sure that minorities’ voices are heard is also an important factor for participants to form a considered judgement as it exposes them the perspectives of diverse social backgrounds [53]. Nevertheless, as the scale of the Climate Assembly was limited and the representation of different ethnic minorities in the stratified sampling was unknown (see discussion under section Inclusiveness), it is possible that some perspectives from certain minorities were not presented. This could be due to no presence by such minorities, or that their voices were not properly heard in discussions. Despite that facilitators are present to ensure different opinions are heard during discussions, participants might be dominated by mainstream opinion as it restricts the innate defect of the sample size, inevitably affecting the level of considered judgement. However, the Climate Assembly made an effort to accommodate this potential problem, and divided participants into small group discussions in break-out rooms based on demographics, to increase the chance of different perspectives being heard [54]. 

Moreover, two practical features of the Climate Assembly may increase the realisation of considered judgement. Firstly, a clear charge aid participants in making considered judgements [55]. The two questions addressed by the Climate Assembly were clearly presented to participants step by step, from overviewing the issue, forming visions, and translating visions to actual actions with guidance [56]. The clarity of the charge supplementary with proficient background knowledge given in the earlier learning phases would aid the quality of participants’ judgements. Secondly, the Citizen Assembly met over five days in the space of three months. Participants thus have long time to digest and reflect on the issue in an unbiased and deliberative way for a higher decision-making capacity [57]. The positive feedback in the evaluation survey reassured that participants were able to participate with a clear understanding of issues during the learning and deliberation process. 

Transferability 

The inherent design of a Citizen’s Assembly realises a high degree of transferability, but as the Climate Assembly was conducted online it affects the realisation of transferability in different ways. On one hand, it could increase the transferability across higher levels of governance. As participants will be more geographically dispersed in a national or transnational process, an online Citizens’ Assembly could be easily implemented. In addition, an online process could reduce logistical costs, which is a common challenge to transferability of mini-publics [58]. On the other hand, an online process might limit transferability across space and different cultures. As it is dependent on up-to-date technology, a population with low digital proficiency might be unable to access such resources. This could have backlash on inclusiveness and voice, and moreover increase inequalities in the assembly already present in the population. 

The inherent design of a Citizen’s Assembly helps realise transferability as it can tackle a range of different topics and thus be transferred to different institutions [59]. However, one limitation here could be the fiscal restraints although the online process might be helpful in this regard. Projects led by local governments and publicly funded organisations are restricted by their budget and it can therefore be hard to implement in all institutions. The Adur and Worthing climate assembly allocated a total budget of £42,000 for Worthing Council and £28,000 Adur Council [60]. 

Transparency

Due to the nature of Citizen’s Assemblies the realisation of transparency was limited. Although efforts were made to increase internal transparency, external transparency was still low. Participants of this Climate Assembly faced unfamiliar demands, as they were asked to make judgments that could significantly impact public decisions in regard to climate change [61]. As the organisers provided participants with a clear understanding of the conditions under which they were participating and what was expected from them, efforts were made by the Climate Assembly to realise internal transparency. However, the participants were asked to craft recommendations with no clarification of how the council would consider the implementation, which could limit the realisation of internal transparency. Participants thus worked in a process of which they did not know what the outcome would be. 

The Adur and Worthing Climate Assembly acknowledged that limited external transparency could lead to widespread scepticism surrounding the intentions of public authorities regarding climate change [62]. In an attempt to improve their external transparency, the assembly organisers employed strategies to improve publicity and spread awareness to citizens. Strategies, such as passive approaches like publishing documentation through official sources for instance the Council’s Climate Assembly webpage, and proactive engagement through different forms of promotion and media helped increase external transparency. The council also created a YouTube channel where all evidence assembly members were given was uploaded, as well as a blog by sustainability officer Chloe Clarke [63]. The methods of publicity involved to disseminate information about the proceedings to the general public allowed the public to judge the assembly and its outcomes as legitimate.

However, the Climate Assembly can still be considered less active in realising publicity [64]. Despite publishing publicly accessible documents of their proceedings and recommendations, these are rarely marked as of public interest by media outlets, thus public awareness is very low. The council created a YouTube channel with recordings of the assembly, but these were hours long, thus few citizens engaged with them. In addition, like most mini-publics, deliberation took place behind closed doors in intimate settings that only involved the chosen participants, as typically only plenary sessions can be viewed by the public and media. In their efforts to reach the wider public, the survey to involve citizens in the area could be used as an indicator [65]. The Council’s survey only reached 800 citizens, which is hardly a significant amount considering the population of Worthing alone is above 110,000 people. This meant that only a fraction was able to engage with this survey, thus meaning the majority did not have a say in the climate assembly and was not aware of the decisions made in this Climate Assembly. This indicates that the external transparency was limited, with only a small fraction of the population able to access and take part in the climate assembly survey.

Efficiency 

Overall, the Climate Assembly was largely efficient. Participant’s engaged in a total of 35 hours of learning, deliberation and decision making time across the entire process [66], across 5 days. Participants had access to the learning information before and during the five days online, which meant information was not having to be repeated during important times such as discussion periods. This would’ve overall benefitted the efficiency of the process, as discussions were kept concise and informed. Citizens’ Assemblies can be taxing on time and energy ]67], so keeping the entire process to 5 days can improve efficiency for the participants. Also, it was entirely conducted online, and participants, and any outer involvement that occurred were able to contribute from a location that was convenient and easily accessible. This proved efficient in time management and spending; participants can keep informed at a time that suits their needs, increasing the likelihood of involvement, and budget is not needed on printing handouts. 

One of the main factors in efficiency for mini-publics, such as Citizens’ Assemblies, is the financial aspect. Mini-publics tend to require a large budget due to its reliance on independent organisational aspects, such as; engagement of participants and experts, professional facilitators, costs of needed resources during the process [68]. A budget of £48,000 given from Worthing Borough Council, and £28,000 from Adur District Council made the total budget £76,000 [69]. Mini-publics range in budget, anywhere from £16,000 - £200,000; the most expensive Citizens’ Assembly to date being British Columbia with a budget of $5.5million (Canadian) [70]. The cost-benefit for public authorities in this case seems high, as budget was relatively small and involvement was high - over half the participants actively want to get involved to further tackle climate change [71], and provided an extensive set of recommendations for improvement [72] that can be acted upon. For the participants, the short process time and the £300 gift incentivised involvement, without infringing upon their energy to a detrimental degree. Participants felt listened to, hopeful for change and inspired to further tackle climate change. The wider-public had opportunities to be involved from the online survey conducted, and would have then benefitted from the changes to the environment due to a council more conscious of climate change. 



Conclusion 

To conclude, a systematic evaluation of this mini-public shows it to be encouraging. This Climate Assembly realised the potential of inclusiveness through presence and voice, considered judgement through methods of providing information and exposing citizens to different perspectives, transferability through strong channels of communication, and efficiency through engagement. However, it did fail to realise popular control to a high degree due to the inherently weak nature of mini-publics and further weakening from other aspects of the Climate Assembly. Transparency was also rather limited, especially external publicity. Despite the failure to realise popular control and transparency to a high degree, the outcomes of this mini-public are encouraging and promising. 

References

[1] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 8) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[2] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 2) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[3] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (pp. 18) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[4] Take climate action in Adur and Worthing. Adur & Worthing Councils. (2023). Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/climate-action/#why-take-climate-action 

[5] Gakhal, J. (2019). “Pot of Gold”: Participatory Budget in Adur District, England [web log]. Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://participedia.net/case/1383. 

[6] Lodewijckx , I. (2020). [web log]. Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.citizenlab.co/blog/neighborhoods-community-development/citizens-assemblies-deliberation/ 

[7] The Democratic Society. (n.d.) https://www.demsoc.org/

[8] Sortition Foundation. (n.d.). https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/ 

[9] OneStop. (n.d.) https://onestopjunction.org.uk/

[10] Adur and Worthing Councils. (2020, January 6). Item 8 - A climate assembly for Adur & Worthing. https://democracy.adur-worthing.gov.uk/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=2254&Opt=3

[11] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (pp. 21) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[12] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 8) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[13] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 27) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[14] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 22) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[15] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 23) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[16] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (pp. 29-30) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf 

[17] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 31) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[18] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 32) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[19] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 33) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[20] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 36) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[21] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 38) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[22] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 32) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[23] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 39) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[24] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 40) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[25] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 41) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[26] Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly. ADUR & WORTHING councils. (2021, March 16). https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/climate-assembly/ 

[27] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 19) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[28] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 19) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[29] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 20) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[30] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (pp. 13-14) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[31] Adur and Worthing Councils. (2023, April 19). Sustainableaw. ADUR & WORTHING councils. https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/sustainable-aw/ 

[32] Green, D. (2021, November 21). Historic Theatre, social housing and cricket pavilion to get solar panels. The Argus. https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19731139.adur-worthing-cut-emissions-new-solar-panels/ 

[33] Adur and Worthing Councils, 2023, Sustainableaw - A shared vision

[34] Adur and Worthing Councils. (2021,November 5). #ClimateActionAW Webinar | Adur & Worthing Councils. Timestamp: 37:22. United Kingdom. Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZizQawziess&t=2242s. 

[35] Smith, G. (2011). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press. 

[36] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 83). essay, Cambridge University Press.

[37] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 148). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[38] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (pp. 20-21). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[39] Adur and Worthing Councils, & Census 2021. (2021, March 21). Census data. ADUR & WORTHING councils. https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/about-the-councils/facts-and-figures/census/ Calculated percentage from population growth data. 

[40] Adur and Worthing Councils, & Census 2021. (2021, March 21). Census data - Ethnic Groups. ADUR & WORTHING councils. https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/about-the-councils/facts-and-figures/census/ Calculated percentage from population growth data. 

[41] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 84). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[42] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 109). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[43] Warren, M., Pearse, H., & James, M. R. (2008). In Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ assembly (pp. 120–123). Cambridge University Press. 

[44] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 85). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[45] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 86). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[46] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 89). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[47] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report . https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf, p41

[48] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 93). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[49] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 110). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[50] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 40) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[51] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 94). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[52] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 94). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[53] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 99). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[54] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 27) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[55] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 97). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[56] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 97). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[57] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 95-96). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[58] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 108-109). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[59] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 108). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[60] Adur and Worthing Councils. (2020, January 6). Item 8 - A climate assembly for Adur & Worthing. https://democracy.adur-worthing.gov.uk/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=2254&Opt=3

[61] Smith, G. (2011). In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (p. 25). essay, Cambridge University Press. 

[62] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 10) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[63] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 25) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[64] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 25) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[65] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 23) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[66] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 27) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[67] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 107) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[68] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 105) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[69] Adur and Worthing Councils. (2020, January 6). Item 8 - A climate assembly for Adur & Worthing. https://democracy.adur-worthing.gov.uk/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=2254&Opt=3

[70] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 108) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf,

[71] Adur and Worthing Councils, & The Democratic Society. (2021). Adur & Worthing Climate Assembly Recommendations Report - Full Report. (p. 108) Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.demsoc.org/uploads/store/mediaupload/431/file/AdurWorthingFullReport.pdf

[72] The Democratic Society (2020), Adur & Worthing Climate assembly, Appendix: Strongest Supported Ideas