Problems and Purpose

In September 2019, Westminster City Council declared a climate emergency. As one of the central boroughs of London, the increasing carbon emissions, urban heat islands & air pollution spurred public pressure for change. The City of Westminster has set out an obligation to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by the year 2040. Climate change affects everyone, everywhere. Achieving net zero by 2040 in an urban London borough like Westminster presents an ambitious challenge. Westminster’s diverse population, mix of industries and historic conservation areas creates a lack of effective, broad-based community engagement. Additionally, Westminster City Council has faced frequent challenges in citizen education and communication about the climate emergencies, escalating the severity.

Recognizing the complexity of climate issues and acknowledging that the Council alone does not have all the answers, the purpose of the assembly was to harness the collective experiences, ideas, and insights of Westminster residents. “Deliberative mini-publics that bring together randomly-selected people to learn, deliberate and make recommendations on aspects of the climate crisis—are gaining in salience as an innovative approach to enhance democratic governance of the climate crisis” (p183, Boswell et.al, 2022) The assembly aims to Principles for delivering net zero most fairly, empowering communities and businesses to cooperate to build a sustainable, and resilient environment that fosters a healthier and greener way of life. Involving residents in decision-making processes, along with creating visible and accountable community advocates, bridges the gap between policymakers and communities.

Strong community integration is pivotal towards addressing the goals (WCCA, 2023). The assembly served as a platform for education and innovation, where residents could learn about climate issues from the perspectives of experts and each other, collaboratively creating innovative solutions. The wider intent is to maintain engagement with the assembly participants and the wider community, to ensure the community-wide sustainability and effectiveness of implemented policies. The assembly’s success can encourage other boroughs collectively to act, promoting greater council transparency, trust, and action, which could spur a collective London movement to tackle climate issues, from the ground up.

Background History and Context

Particularly in London, the signing of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Paris Agreement has forced significant pressure for change. The London Mayer Sadiq Khan has promised a carbon-neutral city by 2030. Westminster Council has to adapt to reach its net-zero carbon emissions goal by 2040 fast and effectively. Westminster is a diverse London borough with a mixture of residential, commercial and tourist areas, meaning traditional polling and decision-making appear outdated, especially in the face of such complex and ambitious climate challenges. More recently, there has been an increasing emphasis towards improving inclusivity and direct democracy, to enhance a cooperative and community spirit to tackle crucial issues. Westminster Council want to improve citizen participation through more frequent discussions, aiming to create a more equal decision-making process so everyone’s opinions are voiced and included.

Westminster’s diverse socio-economic compositions create a variation in priorities i.e wealthy areas may prioritise aesthetics standards and property values, whereas lower-income areas could focus on affordability and accessibility of sustainable initiatives. Polls fail to reflect a mutual combination, and the use of recommendations is a good foundation for integrating an array of community-focused ideas. The political prominence of Westminster injects a degree of caution, reducing the assembly's propensity for bold actions. Regardless, Westminster’s high-profile and political significance acts as a beacon for citizen assemblies, potentially spurring future nationwide deliberative projects.

Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Westminster Citizens Climate Assembly (WCCA) was organised, supported and funded collectively by local government and non-profit organisations. The main leads were the Sortion Foundation, Involve UK and Westminster City Council. The advisory group ensured the project design evidence and materials were accurate This involved members from Climate Citizens project, Energy for London, Graham Smith from the University of Westminster, & Waltham Forest Council.

Organising Entities

Westminster City Council was the primary organiser as a response to its self-declaration of the climate emergency in 2019. The council continuously oversaw and monitored all operations and frameworks throughout the process. Involve UK ensured diversity, inclusivity and effectiveness of the deliberation project, The charity particularly focused on the participation recruitment, assembly sessions and construction of the final report.

Supporting Entities

The Sortition Foundation is a non-profit organisation specialised in the demographical representation of the citizen assembly. Sortition ensures accurate reflections and across a random selection of participants, crucial for the legitimacy of the Citizen assembly. They incorporated proven software to enhance an accurate participant representation. The array of venues was provided by the University of Westminster. They also enhanced the citizen teaching and deliberation scale by encouraging academic speakers and researchers to contribute their opinions and findings to the assembly.

Funding Entities

Westminster City Council primarily funded the project, however, additional grants and sponsorships contributed to the project implementation by NGOs and Involve UK.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Sortition Foundation carry out effective stratified random sampling. This method involves dividing the population into subgroups based on various demographic criteria and then randomly selecting participants from each subgroup. The demographic criteria included variables such as ethnicity, age, gender, education, income, and geography. This increased accuracies, mitigates sample error, and improves comparability and inclusivity, crucial for Westminster’s diverse urban community. Stratified random sampling is a robust method for forming deliberative assemblies in diverse communities. It ensures that all voices are heard, not just the loudest or most accessible, which is essential for making informed and democratic decisions in public policy. A study by ( Gronlund, Herne, & Setala, 2015), indicates not only are a variety of perspectives, concerns and priorities brought to the table, but more in-depth and quality discussions occur, shaping nuanced understandings and improving deliberation outcomes. The foundation ensured no financial & social barriers to participation, grasping the most accurate reflection of society as it was accessible to everyone.

The outreach process initially sent roughly 10,000 invitations randomly to Westminster addresses, containing the outline of the project and its purpose (including compensation). The invitations provided links to register interest via a digital application form. Using the digital participation techniques, interests and responses were quick, accessible, and convenient. After significant responses, following the sortition filtering processes along with prioritising the ‘best’ applications, the initial sample arrived at 51 assembly participants. Sortition followed up by confirming availability and interests through weekly contact messages prior to the event. Four people withdrew before the assembly date, resulting in 47 members in total. This was successful as of the 47 members, there were no withdrawals which meant a 100% retention rate. To encourage participation and to compensate for time, participants received a £360 ‘thank you gift’, deposited into their bank accounts. Additional costs such as transport were provided to encourage inclusivity and to reduce socio-economic barriers like income differences.

Methods and Tools Used

In our dynamic world where democracy has to adapt, Citizen Assemblies have proven to be effective through their collaborative approach, tackling issues from all angles and perspectives, from expert to civilian. The OECD celebrate climate assemblies as the new ‘deliberative wave’ (Boswell , Dean , & Smith, 2022). The setup and methodology follow the widely remarked Ireland citizens assembly (2016-2018), more widely known for its constitutional status on abortion. The success was reflected through an increase in participant integrity, accountability and attitudes. The assembly, with Graham Smith as a pole advisor, and author of the influential ‘Democratic Innovations’ at the University of Westminster, had all the components best suited to address the climate concerns and long-term challenges.

The overarching method employed by the Involve Charity was the deliberative process known as a ‘Mini Public’. Citizens’ assemblies are variants of mini-publics from an academic perspective, renowned as “The most robust and elaborate model of representative deliberative processes” (Escobar & Elstub, 2017). The Climate Assembly’s core methodology originated from Robert Dahl’s ‘Minipopulus’ concept (Dahl, 1989) and was adapted closely to the successful Ireland citizen’s assembly (2016-2018), which the Involve charity also facilitated. A mini-public is “designed to be groups small enough to be genuinely deliberative, and representative enough to be genuinely democratic” (Goodin & Dryzek, 2006),

The Involve charity ensured a wide array of democratic methods and tools were used in the Westminster Citizen Climate Assembly like the Ireland Citizens Assembly in 2016-2018, however, the contexts differ in scale. Ireland’s case tackled societal-wide, national-level legislative changes to social issues, however in Westminster issues were more localised, dealing with municipal-level environmental policies. Therefore, institutions and instruments were tailored to accommodate small and scarce participation levels, with a deeper, personal focus. Tools included Random Stratified Sampling, Pre-Engagement Workshops, Micro-group sessions by skilled facilitators, Expert Presentations, Monitoring & Feedback mechanisms and Robust communication strategies.

Pre-engagement & Minigroups tools provide a constant platform for deep & continuous participation setting, through education and confidence initiatives, ensuring horizontal communication throughout the process in line with (Smith, 2009). Pre-engagement groups enhanced awareness about the assembly's goals educating individuals effectively before discussion, to understand the concepts and themes in more detail to improve deliberation. They also provided implementation of perspectives from a range of local Voluntary Community Council Partners (VCS) to shape the design of the assembly, ensuring that strong foundations were in place for inclusivity, and the content was relevant for discussion.

Mini-group sessions provided necessary support and guidance to foster deeper interpersonal connections and facilitate continuous and focused deliberation among participants. The setup was particularly aligned to the British Columbia CA in 2004, splitting the assembly into randomised sub-groups with a specific facilitator for each table. Decisions were not just the result of top-down information dissemination but were made through the active and equal participation of all stakeholders involved. (Smith, 2009) suggests the mini-groups break artificial hierarchy barriers that may prevent participants from speaking up, and bolster inclusivity through further soliciting views/opinions towards recommendations, creating a level playing field for discussion. However, the importance of good facilitating and monitoring throughout is crucial to channel engagement. The mini-groups must have the autonomy to self-select discussions focusing on topics they deem most relevant. (Spada, Allegretti , Secchi, & Stortone, 2016) Encouraging free conversation direction and reducing micro-management of opinions are pivotal to the decision-making process, particularly when providing cohesive evaluations with multiple angles. 

The outputs of the deliberation sessions were captured and illustrated by a professional doodler. By visualising discussions and key points, participants could better understand the complex issues of climate change and governance. Visual aids are also encouraged to provide more creative and divergent thinking (Sweller, 2011), perfect for stimulating unique interpretations for solutions, from a range of perspectives

The use of social media, newsletters, and press releases to keep the broader public informed and engaged. Transparency was ensured through a documented YouTube video, that can be accessed, anytime anywhere, to improve the long-term outcome and sustainability of the process.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The Westminster Citizens’ Climate Assembly took place across two weekends (June 24^th- June 25^th & July 15^th – July 16^th), spanning four main days of activities. The first day’s priority was to provide citizens with a foundational understanding of the assembly process and the climate emergency, to create pillars in place for collaboration and conversation. Cllr Matt Noble, Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Professor Dibyesh Anand, Head of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Westminster led the welcome talk, outlining the climate agenda and the process. Participant Identification Activities followed, where experts created groups and established whether individuals were a ‘driver’. ‘analytical’, ‘amiable’, or ‘expressive person’. 2 expert talks followed from leading environmental researchers, which allowed for participant Q/A sessions with all the speakers. Participants also engaged in a "speaker carousel," allowing them to hear from and interact with experts across three themes: My Westminster, My Community and My Home. The participants finished the day listing a range of barriers identified through the carousel, moving around dabbles to view what other groups had identified, drawing connections between them.

Day 2 explored the theme of climate justice, with 4 expert talks centred on recognizing how climate justice is essential to successfully achieving the goals set for climate action in Westminster. This was specifically angled to the My Westminster, My Community and My Home topics from the day before. Reflecting on the talks, mini-participant groups worked with facilitators and experts using a variety of table exercises, to identify the values and principles to achieve net zero by 2024. The day concluded with a ‘visioning’ exercise, which made participants picture the perspectives of a wide range of individuals of different demographics, considering the development of net zero in a sustainable way.

More than a month later, day 3 built on the knowledge gained from the previous weekend, with a purpose for idea generation and recommendation refinement. Minigroups discussed insights from the previous sessions and identified the root causes of issues along with expert input. Each table developed a long list of ideas, narrowing it down to their top five. These ideas were then clustered and refined with the help of table facilitators into prototype recommendations. Reality testing involved external experts providing situational analysis of recommendations. This collaborative approach aimed to ensure the recommendations were grounded in real and community consensus.

Participants were asked to share their levels of support for each prototype and to consider which ones need refinement to achieve an overall 80% level of support. Similar prototypes were combined together, and contradictions were discussed.

The final day involved constructing finalised recommendations ready for council presentation. Mini-groups were presented recommendations and relevant feedback from the afternoon of day 3. Each table was split into small writing groups, each asked to write a finalised version of the recommendations received in line with sustainability criteria. Participants then reviewed these drafts, providing feedback and voting on their support for each recommendation. Recommendations receiving over 80% agreement were classified as majority recommendations, while those below this threshold were noted as minority recommendations. The day culminated with writing groups presenting their final recommendations to the council, represented by key council members including Cllr Adam Hug and Cllr Matt Noble. Participants gained instant feedback and assurance of their impact on Westminster climate policy.

On the 7^th of September, assembly members volunteered to officially present their ideas and recommendations to the cabinet. 2 weeks later at ‘Full council’, the cabinet members put forward a motion, reflecting on the experiences and recommendations that they plan to implement.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

To measure the impact on participants as well as their recommendations, participants were invited to engage in a ‘Have your Say survey’, a post-assembly reflection. While only 41 out of 47 participants engaged, the findings could be subject to some selection bias due to participants with negative opinions being disinterested. However, over 85% of participants engaged suggesting an adequate reflection. Out of the total group, 93% of the participants were happy to take part which remained at 93% proving retention and engagement success.

The Involve team and Westminster City Council were particularly successful with capacity building. The percentage of members who felt well-informed about the climate emergency in Westminster increased by 40%. Also, there was a 50% increase in respondents’ knowledge about the climate emergency and emphasis on net zero initiatives. Overall, 39 respondents rated the Assembly weekend sessions either ‘good’ or ‘very good’ with 38 respondents rating the communication they received before the events ‘good’ or ‘very good’. The presentations during weekend 1 were also very highly rated, showing genuine engagement, which is often challenging when learning new, complex concepts.

Alongside capacity, the project also showed success towards individual empowerment. Initially, 64% of the participants agreed that the climate assembly would lead to positive changes, which then increased to 78% after the process. This could be interpreted by the establishment of stronger connections with the council and its initiatives through the Minigroups. 18 of the assembly members highlighted how welcoming, helpful and friendly facilitators were throughout the process. This greatly enhanced a horizontal deliberation process as individuals felt confident and welcome to speak up, as 20 respondents completely agreed with “I felt able to speak as much, or as little as I wanted to” and “I felt comfortable being myself in the group”. 50% of participants felt confident that contributions would be listened to, which then increased to 60% after the deliberation process. However, multiple assembly members shared that the heat, background noise and frequency and timings of the Zooms call held back full participation. Due to the intensive monitoring, the venue was changed for the second weekend.

On top of this, long-term engagement was promoted, with 71% of respondents answering ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ to whether they would like to stay involved with Westminster City Council beyond the Citizens’ Climate Assembly. A range of opportunities were offered, which many assembly members engaged in months after the climate assembly. All respondents volunteered to participate in future opportunities with the council and 36 assembly members provided contact details with the council to allow for further conversations. Additionally, more than 10 council members contributed directly to the reporting of their recommendations at Westminster City Council Climate Leadership group and full council meetings. This increases the probability of recommendations into action, as the full council can make a greater connection to the assembly and understand the needs of individuals from their own perspectives. Even before this engagement, there was a 25% increase in respondents feeling they can influence council decisions, and a 36% increase in individuals feeling true council representation. However, 6 people feared recommendations would not be implemented by the council, “That it simply will be an event that can be politicised as a positive thing rather than being used to learn and implement change from” (Member of the Assembly, WCCA, 2023). However, the limited use of London wide transparency initiatives contradicts this claim, as marketing materials and engagement were solely directed internally to Westminster.

Eight key recommendations were presented to the council, with the primary focus on enhancing green infrastructure and expanding renewable energy resources throughout Westminster. Notably, over 87% of participants strongly endorsed the initiatives for a community education program and ongoing citizen assembly reviews. This robust support highlights the depth of engagement and commitment among the participants, who are interested in seeing tangible outcomes from their contributions.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

To evaluate how optimal the democratic institutions have been across the citizen’s assembly, I will use the influential framework from (Smith, 2009). Smith uses the evaluation of 6 different democratic goods to determine the effectiveness of a citizen’s assembly. These consist of Inclusivity, Popular control, Considered Judgement, Transparency, Efficiency and Transferability.

The CA was partially successful with inclusivity. The sortition foundations approach ensured a demographically representative sample, with over 8 ethnic groups, 50-50 gender split and various ages and geographical locations. Although most mini-publics have sample sizes of 70 participants or less, the sample struggles to truly represent Westminster with statistical significance. I will use (Peixoto & Spada, 2023) analysis to illustrate. The borough of Westminster has a population of roughly 250,000. To estimate a population parameter with a 95% confidence level and a 5% error margin, the assembly would require 384 participants. This is over 8x greater than the assembly size, associating statistical insignificance with results (Dahl, 1989) in his founding concept of mini-publics argued for a minimum sample of 1000 and given the complexity of the net-zero ambition, a higher sample would have been more robust.

The outreach targeting Westminster postcodes (addressing invites to homeowners) unincluded some marginalised groups, however the second stage stratified sampling reduced any sampling bias by ensuring diversity across participant demographics. Targeting participants through postal invites minimalised digital divide effects, as hard copies were delivered to everyone’s doorstep. Applications could be processed online or by letter, opening the process to all preferences. The sampling involved expression of interest as a selection tool. While this aligns with Graham Smith’s emphasis on considered judgement and effective participation through stronger deliberative discussions, the need to actively register and express genuine interest might skew participation towards participants who are already engaged or informed. This excludes the most marginalized or disengaged who might not see themselves as fit for participation, promoting a knowledge bias. Uninformed individuals may feel unqualified or less motivated to respond. This contradicts the assembly’s purpose as it goes against its educational and collaborative aims, and directly compromises the inclusivity Smith advocates for. However, as the process is non-obligatory, due to the assembly’s nature interest bias selection may be the only way to ensure stronger discussions. Additionally, pre-engagement exercises mitigated the variance in information before formal deliberations began, stimulating meaningful discussion regardless of prior understanding, aligning with Smith's ‘Horizontal Playfield’ requirement. However, there were still information disparities. This was illustrated particularly in the reflection survey with time, as individuals stressed the limited time constraint affected their ability to digest the teachings appropriately, hindering deliberative quality.

To promote further engagement the £360 compensation helped lower financial barriers easing participation for people from lower economic backgrounds, including those who might not typically engage in such assemblies. This enhanced the diversity of perspectives and experiences in the deliberative process, a key aspect of Smith's emphasis on inclusivity. However, risk of monetary motivation over genuine can occur, but this is mitigated with the retention 93% retention result in the ‘Have your Say Survey’.

The use of mini-groups was a catalyst for deep deliberation. Women are known to participate more openly and freely when in smaller groups (Smith, 2009), and elderly individuals are less likely to speak up in larger assemblies. Therefore, the use could not be more appropriate. The reflective survey score for the individual comfort and freedom of speech exceeded 92% of participants supporting Smith's emphasis on all having the opportunity to be heard and considered equally in the decision-making process. The structured mini groups, particularly the reality testing exercise, boosted individual empathy and facilitated greater perspective-talking outcomes, essential for fostering considered judgement. Reality testing through confronting various socioeconomic perspectives brought a deeper, lived and emotional connection to their policy externalities. Facilitators provided detailed information on the likely results of different groups, encouraging deeper thought about the community around participants.

However, despite the facilitators playing a crucial role in managing dynamics to prevent dominance by more confident or outspoken members, 78% of participants agreed that facilitators often influenced the group with their own ideas. This creates directional bias and weakens the deliberative outcome as matters discussed were not reflecting the priorities of society. This would reduce the effectiveness of the engagement channel (Spada, Allegretti , Secchi, & Stortone, 2016). Internally, only 40% of participants tended to dominate the discussions, creating minor marinization. Despite potential dominance and directional biases in discussions, the process ensures a balanced distribution of participants across various deliberative groups. This arrangement diminishes the possibility of any single group exerting overarching influence and mitigates the risk of experts unduly steering the discussions. These issues were present in the British Columbia Assembly in 2004, and still were empirically regarded as a pioneering example that facilitates equitable participation from all attendees. Overall, all but 3 participants agreed the mini-groups were extremely valuable to the process.

When evaluating the impact on Considered judgement, we find that the survey highlights significant increases in participants’ understanding of climate issues. Pre- and Post-surveys structured questions to measure the participant’s responses indicated that sessions demonstrated an over 50% increase in knowledge on broad and Westminster-related climate issues. The assembly’s approach included diverse expert presentations covering scientific, socio-economic, and ethical aspects of climate action. This broad perspective enhanced participants to deepen their overall understanding and deliberative capacity. The wide understanding of several factors affecting Westminster’s climate enhanced foundations for greater critical thinking and applications towards their lived experiences and perspectives, enabling creativity and freedom across the deliberation process. As expected, facilitators reported outcomes and discussion ideas to council representatives. This fuelled a sense of empowerment across the assembly, stimulating further action and engagement. This notion was supported by the rise in the percentage of participants who felt they could influence council decisions from 27% to 63%.

The Policy Stage model suggests while there was a robust agenda in place and detailed policy formulation in line with council experts, the direct influence remained limited. The Climate Assembly’s focus was to implement popular control through a list of climate policy recommendations to the council. Currently, at the time of writing, there is no official update on their implementation. There were no direct opportunities to influence policy decisions, however, several members did have the opportunity to speak directly to the full council to present the assembly outcomes. Regardless, the assembly process had an appropriate agenda. The design allowed participants to gain understanding and then creatively implement their knowledge into action. This was formed through the knowledge-intensive sessions in the first weekend, and then reflective and critical exercises in the second, allowing for sufficient time to digest and creatively form policies. Participants’ recommendations were completely independent after talks and were visualised graphically by professional artists to illustrate collective thoughts and themes. These illustrations helped bring everyone on board, and diversified learning outcomes, with more interactive and engaging ways of information transfer, enhancing more collective outcomes (hence most recommendations were 85%+ agreed upon.

In terms of internal transparency created, the project excelled on all fronts. The detailed briefing package played a pivotal role in setting a transparent agenda, ensuring all participants were on the same page and aware of objectives before the assembly. The use of recorded sessions and a well-curated library of digital resources allowed participants and the broader community continuous access to the assembly. This fosters democratic engagement ensuring the resources will not fade, and that participants can refer to discussions on an ongoing basis, supporting participants with learning difficulties. This also promotes accountability for action, as members’ views and policies will not fade with time, which can be referred back to if council action doesn’t take place. Moreover, the constant monitoring and feedback mechanisms, such as the ability to ask experts questions after talks and the ability for individuals to shape the content learned enhanced adequate levels of trust which is essential for CA legitimacy (Smith, 2009). External transparency was available through various channels, social media updates and a designated council website. This was crucial for a collective representation and engagement across the 2016-2018 Ireland CA (Farrell, Suiter, & Harris, 2019), which was closely mirrored by Involve, UK in the WWCA. Despite the correct framework, internal transparency measures depend on the participants’ perceptions of their adequacy. After feedback, many participants felt overwhelmed by the information and found the process complex and challenging, suggesting a greater knowledge divide among participants. Potentially, the process could benefit from outreach to participants struggling with content digestion over the break period between the two sessions, with more simplified materials and support.

While there is no specific breakdown of the specific financial costs involved, the project spent roughly £17,000 on individual engagement through compensation. Despite receiving a 100% retention rate suggesting members’ time and engagement were worthwhile, the figure raises concerns about the sustainability of such expenditures for future assemblies. In the long run, other events could come at a significant cost as participants may be expecting a reimbursement for their time in the future. Uniquely, many of the administrative, operational and facilitation costs were borne by charities, such as Involve, the sortition foundations, and expert volunteers and guest speakers. Additionally, the University of Westminster provided state-of-the-art meeting venues at no charge to the council. Moving forward, considering strategies to manage public funds more stringently, and exploring tiered- or need-based compensation models to allocate financial resources effectively, although this may hurt inclusivity. The biggest lowlight of the ‘Have Your Say Survey’ was centred around time. Individuals stress a lack of adequate time for deliberation and information processing, due to the ambitious educational goals. Over-digestion of content and confusion damaged the process’s capacity-building efficiency. Striking a balance between comprehensive engagement and practical constraints of time management is needed for future climate assemblies with challenging educational criteria to be successful. Intense prior assembly planning, with a deeper monitoring focus after the pre-engagement groups, could strengthen the deliberation efficiency.

The WCCA detailed report has stimulated significant transferability for other projects. As discussed by (Boswell , Dean , & Smith, 2022), climate assemblies are the leading deliberative process across Western Europe, due to their practicality in building community development alongside crucial actions over a topic with unprecedented importance. The selection process implemented by the sortition foundation is textbook and can be transferred to any context, using identical software. Pre-engagement workshops can be integrated with ease, although they be costly with low retention levels if pre-interest is not factored in the initial selection. A good option is the use of Zoom calls, which was implemented later in the WCCA to increase engagement. Expert facilitators should be accessible, if not at least virtually on the relevant assembly topics. The difficulty comes with combining a strong advisory team with deliberative scholars, as many are unable to attend in person to thoroughly ensure requirements are met, especially for more local-level assemblies. Much of the success was due to Graham Smith’s advisory of the process, which was more in-depth than ever due to his connection through the University of Westminster. Finally, the use of mini-groups and reality-testing exercises can be mirrored effectively across many examples. 

Difficulty comes with finding adequate amounts of facilitators with specialist knowledge on the topic of choice and deliberation. Also, the financial cost of £17,000 for participant reimbursement was a significant factor driving retention, inclusivity, and engagement throughout the project. Assemblies with limited funds and logistical resources may struggle to receive outcomes like the WCCA. The specific focus towards climate was tailored to Winchester, a less volatile area which may not compare to other extreme contexts, making the adaptability of deliberations harder, due to the scale frequency of climate events. The WCCA provide both a blueprint for success and a cautionary tale about the challenges of applying this model universally.

The Westminster Citizens' Climate blends diverse voices in a creative crucible to forge innovative, sustainable solutions for crucial climate challenges alongside reforming community and purpose in a diverse urban borough of London. This assembly not only enriched community engagement but paved the way for global cities striving for inclusivity and actionable change in governance.

References

Gronlund, K., Herne, K., & Setala, M. (2015). Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions? Polit Behav, 995-1020.

Boswell , J., Dean , R., & Smith, G. (2022). Integrating citizen deliberation into climate governance: Lessons on robust design from six climate assemblies. Southampton, UK: Wiley.

Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its Critics . Yale University Press.

Escobar, O., & Elstub, S. (2017). Forms of mini-publics: An introduction to deliberative innovations in democratic practice. Edinburgh: newDemocracy Foundation.

Farrell, D., Suiter, J., & Harris, C. (2019). ‘Systematizing’ constitutional deliberation: the 2016–18 citizens’ assembly in Ireland. Irish Political Studies, Vol 34, 113-123.

Goodin, R., & Dryzek, J. (2006). Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics. Politics and Society, Volume 34, Issue 2, 131-304.

Peixoto, T., & Spada, P. (2023, 02 22). Reflections on the representativeness of citizens’ assemblies and similar innovations. Retrieved from DemocracySpot: https://democracyspot.net/2023/02/22/reflections-on-the-representativeness-of-citizens-assemblies-and-similar-innovations/

Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press.

Spada, P., Allegretti , G., Secchi, M., & Stortone, S. (2016). Integrating Multiple Channels of Engagement: from Multichannel Marketing to Democratic Innovations. Southampton.

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol 55, 37-76.

WCCA. (2023). Westminster Citizens’ Climate Assembly. Westminster, London: Westminster City Council.

External Links

https://www.westminster.gov.uk/tackling-climate-change-westminster/residents-communities-and-climate-action/climate-assembly