Problems and Purpose

The Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality was a response to significant environmental and democratic challenges in the London Borough of Wandsworth. Air pollution has become a public health concern, serving as the most significant environmental threat to health in the UK, annually contributing to tens of thousands of deaths due to long-term exposure. Conditions such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and respiratory disease can all be traced back to air pollution. In Wandsworth, the issue is compounded by the disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups, including children and the elderly. Furthermore, the sources of air pollution are closely linked with sources of carbon emissions, stressing the broader climate emergency concern [1].

Beyond the environmental and health concerns, democratic considerations also loomed over the Council: How could the Council meaningfully involve citizens in the policy-making process?

Previous methods failed to engage a fair representation of the community, thus compromising the engagement objectives of the Council. Thereby, the primary purpose of the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly was to generate actionable and community-driven recommendations to tackle the multifaceted issue of air pollution. Commissioned by Wandsworth Council itself, the assembly was purposefully timed to inform the Borough’s revised Air Quality Action Plan. Through the inclusion of citizens’ voices, the assembly pays respect to the complicated nature of the issue, requiring a broad spectrum of perspectives and considerations. Simultaneously, it restores trust and transparency, paving towards more democratic engagement by serving as a platform for residents to actively contribute to a future vision of Wandsworth. Councillor Judi Gasser highlighted that this was a new approach for the borough, one of listening to citizens and implementing change [1].

As mentioned in the report, the Assembly focuses on the question: “How can we all tackle poor air quality across Wandsworth in a way that improves our health and addresses climate change?”.

Ultimately, the Citizens’ Assembly served as an example of a deliberative democratic process that could create a mandate for politicians to take action that serves citizens and is rooted in legitimacy and reflects the diversity of the local population, placing citizens in the lead of the decision-making process.

Background History and Context

Situated in southwest London, Wandsworth is one of the largest inner boroughs, with a population exceeding 300,000 [2]. Its densely built environment presents substantial environmental challenges, particularly regarding air quality and public health. The entire borough was declared an Air Quality Management Area on the first of January 2001 due to the breaches of the annual mean limit for the polluting chemical nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the 24-hour mean for particulate matter (PM10) [3]. The main source of air pollution in the borough is traced back to road transport, bearing the largest part of London’s nitrogen oxide emissions at around 60%, followed by domestic, industrial and commercial heat and power sources, which collectively account for approximately 32% [4]. The Wandsworth Council carries out extensive air quality monitoring using three main techniques:

1. Continuous monitoring stations,
2. Non-continuous monitoring using NO2 diffusion tubes,
3. Low-cost sensors using Breathe London Nodes.

As of 2023, the borough operated seven continuous monitoring stations, all tracking NO2, with five of those also recording PM10. Additionally, 58 fixed locations were equipped with diffusion tubes to monitor NO2 concentrations in known pollution spots. The Breathe London Nodes were installed in 2021, enhancing real-time data collection of both NO2 and PM10.

Monitoring results showed that 9 sites exceeded the interim World Health Organisation (WHO) targets for NO2, illustrating the severity of the air pollution case in Wandsworth [5]. The council acknowledged the need for a renewed and more inclusive approach to tackling pollution.

Prior to the launch of the 2023-2028 Air Quality Action Plan, the council had already implemented a series of previous plans, following the Borough’s declaration as an Air Quality Management Area in 2001. The Borough was legally obliged to produce such a plan, which states how air quality standards will be achieved and maintained. However, the evolving scientific understanding of pollution’s health impacts revealed that simply meeting statutory minimums was no longer sufficient. A growing recognition emerged that more ambitious health-based targets were needed. This is addressed in the Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality final report by Councillor Judi Gasser, where she mentions how the new action plan, which is advised by the Citizens’ Assembly, will go further than before in tackling air pollution [6]. This is also addressed in further stages of the Citizens’ Assembly, particularly during the commentator presentations.

The Citizens’ Assembly was held from February 2023 to April 2023, reflecting the higher standards for the upcoming Air Quality Action Plan. Democratic integration has been increasingly adopted both nationally and internationally in cities such as Leeds and Warwick, as well as in neighbouring London boroughs like Southwark. The first Citizens' Assembly on air quality took place in the borough of Kingston upon Thames in 2019. Its initiation aligned closely with the newly elected Labour administration’s manifesto commitment to participatory governance and climate action [7].

Unlike previous efforts to address air pollution, the upcoming action plan represents a substantial departure from the past. For the first time, residents were empowered to directly influence local policy through a process grounded in community perspectives and evidence-based dialogue, offering a stronger foundation for long-term, accountable change.

Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Multiple entities organised, supported, and funded the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly held at Battersea Arts Centre, forming a strong model of collaborative civic engagement. The design and facilitation of the Assembly were led by Shared Future, a community interest company experienced in organising citizens’ assemblies across the UK. The team, which also authored the final report (excluding the recommendations produced by assembly members), guided a diverse group of Wandsworth residents through a structured deliberation process, fostering informed learning about air pollution and promoting overall community empowerment. Shared Future provided a facilitator team, including six facilitators present during the sessions and two present during the intervals [8] [9].

Furthermore, the Assembly was supported by a commentator team comprising 20 speakers and experts who presented a diverse range of perspectives on air quality issues. They provided a platform for assembly members to ask questions and deepen their understanding of the subject matter, covering topics such as public health, transport, and urban planning [10][11]. Various officials, council officers, and organisational representatives also contributed to this collaboration, including Mums for Lungs, The 10,000, and Wandsworth Living Streets [12].

To deliver an unbiased and fair assembly, an independent Oversight Panel was convened. The panel comprised ten members, representing a diverse range of Wandsworth stakeholders. These included the local MP (Fleur Anderson), councillors, academics from Imperial College, environmental organisations, and members of the Trade Union Clean Air Network. The Oversight Panel was responsible for approving the recruitment method, setting the central question of the Assembly, and supporting the selection of expert commentators. The panel also convened to oversee wider borough engagement through the interactive survey [9].

Wandsworth Council commissioned the Assembly and provided a £320 voucher incentive for each participant. The Council also maintained an active, participatory role through Councillor Judi Gasser, the Cabinet Member for Environment, who chaired the Oversight Panel [9]. Council staff from the Air Quality team had also participated as commentators, presenting the Borough’s existing air pollution policies [11].

Alongside all the contributing partners, the Sortition Foundation was engaged to recruit a demographically representative sample of residents, helping to create an inclusive and community-led initiative [13].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The recruitment and selection of participants for the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly was a defining element of its commitment to democratic legitimacy. Through a transparent process of random stratified sampling, the Assembly reflected the Borough’s diversity and gave a voice to a representative cross-section of residents.

The process was led by the Sortition Foundation, experts in the field of stratified random selection for deliberative democratic processes. Initially, 10,600 invitation letters were sent to randomly selected addresses from the Royal Mail address database within Wandsworth. Each invitation pack included a card, a letter, and a set of frequently asked questions. After explaining the assembly’s purpose and reassuring residents that no prior knowledge was necessary, the letters detailed the time and commitment involved, along with a note that participants would receive $320 in vouchers as an incentive, also helping to reduce financial barriers. The letters were thoroughly scrutinised by the Oversight Panel prior to their release, ensuring the contents were reviewed and approved [13].

Interested residents could register by calling a freephone number or through an online platform. From the 311 people who expressed interest, 52 individuals were selected using a rigorous stratified sampling process. The selection of these participants aimed to ensure the final group closely reflected the actual demographics of Wandsworth. The diversity factors considered included:

1. Age, disability, ethnicity, and gender,
2. Relative deprivation of an area and housing tenure,
3. The primary mode of transport used [13].

These criteria helped shape an assembly that represented a microcosm of the borough. The first set of criteria accounted for the diversity of personal backgrounds; the second considered financial circumstances and housing stability; and the third examined daily lived experiences and mobility patterns, particularly relevant as transportation was a key discussion topic requiring a range of perspectives to inform meaningful and well-rounded recommendations. After the dropout of four participants, the final group remained at 48 [1].

Oversight of the recruitment process was provided by the ten-member Oversight Panel, which convened to agree upon the recruitment methodology. The panel both scrutinised the approach taken by the Sortition Foundation and approved the methodology, further strengthening the legitimacy and transparency of the recruitment [1].

The resulting group of participants brought forward a wide range of viewpoints, including individuals who might not typically engage in political activities or who had not previously had the opportunity to do so. The financial incentive and stratified sampling significantly reduced barriers, enabling broader participation and ensuring that as many citizens as possible could take part.

Methods and Tools Used

An intentionally selected range of methods and tools was employed to guide the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly, ensuring an inclusive process that prioritised citizen participation and transparency, supported effective deliberation, facilitated information gathering, and led to the development of actionable recommendations.

The assembly’s foundation was laid across four full-day sessions, each focusing on a distinct phase of the process, progressing from education to deliberation and ending with the decisive formulation of recommendations [10]. This structure ensured participants were well-prepared before entering the final stage, which was crucial to maintaining a smooth flow throughout the assembly, allowing sufficient time to address outstanding questions and ensure that all perspectives were meaningfully considered. Participants engaged in various settings, where they shared their experiences and thoughts on air quality. A combination of small group discussions, idea clustering, and interactive methods such as power mapping, where participants identified key influencers on air quality, formed the facilitation techniques implemented by the Shared Future team [14]. Tools such as maps and sticky notes were provided to enhance dialogue and allow for the collection of ideas [14]. By combining structured learning with participatory activities, the process is built upon individual understanding and collective consensus, strengthening the coherence of the Assembly.

Presentations by commentators were integrated into the education stage to enrich participants' knowledge and broaden the discussion. They delivered presentations either in plenary sessions or through “lightning talks”, brief, five-minute slots followed by interactive Q&A sessions. All presentations were recorded and made publicly available for the sake of transparency. Additionally, commentators made themselves available for follow-up conversations via phone or email [14].

A crucial tool for the wider involvement of Wandsworth residents was the digital engagement platform “Polis”, an online interactive survey designed to crowdsource public opinion on the topics discussed at the Assembly and identify patterns. Implemented between the third and fourth sessions, the draft statements from the assembly members were uploaded to the platform, where over 568 participants could vote on them. The voting system allowed respondents to either agree, disagree, or pass on each statement. Besides voting, participants had the opportunity to submit new statements, thereby adding to the discussion and reaching an even broader level of inclusivity. To ensure wide participation in the survey, online publicity and poster displays were used across the borough to engage a broad cross-section of residents. Polis used machine learning to cluster the voters with similar views and identify areas of high consensus. The data was presented in the final session of the assembly and included a bee swarm chart, illustrating agreement levels with the draft statements. This data was also organised into themed stations, where recommendations were grouped under categories such as public transport, active travel and green spaces. Facilitators supported the participants in their interpretation of the data and the refinement of the final recommendations accordingly. This had a crucial role in producing informed recommendations, since assembly members received valuable feedback on their work [15] [16].

An additional tool was implemented to ensure each member had the opportunity to reflect individually on the recommendations and foster further legitimacy. Using a voting booklet, members were asked to indicate their level of support for each recommendation and provide comments. Each recommendation was then ranked in the final report to showcase the support behind each one [17].

To capture feedback on the assembly, an evaluation survey was conducted among members to assess the quality of facilitation, participants' experiences, and overall perceptions. The insights gathered were intended to enhance future Shared Future activities and contribute to broader field-wide learning [18].

Through a systematic methodology and skilled facilitation, the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly employed a diverse set of methods to engage the public with the issue. The use of digital feedback and consultation tools further strengthened the legitimacy and inclusivity of the overall process.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Over four distinct Saturday sessions held between February and April 2023, the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly identified strategies and actions to improve air quality in the Borough. Session 1 focused on learning; Session 2 blended learning with early ideation; Session 3 shifted toward co-creation; and Session 4 refined and prioritised recommendations. Each session blended expert input with interactive, participatory methods and peer discussion, enabling participants to meaningfully engage with the themes and contribute actionable recommendations [10].

Session 1 (25 February 2023): The introductory session established key guidelines for collaboration and clarified the scope of the assembly. Participants took part in small group discussions using maps to reflect on their experiences and perspectives regarding air quality in the borough. A core interactive element featured presentations from expert commentators, including researcher Dr Iarla Kilbane Dawe, who outlined factors influencing air quality, and Shannon Katiyo, Director of Public Health for Richmond upon Thames, who addressed its public health impacts. Assembly members then formulated questions in small groups to pose during a plenary Q&A session. This was followed by a power mapping exercise to identify key stakeholders capable of influencing air quality in the area. The session concluded with participants reflecting on the Assembly’s guiding question and clustered ideas to help prioritise themes and speakers for the sessions ahead [11][14].

Session 2 (11 March 2023): The second session focused on the relationship between air quality and climate change, with an emphasis on incorporating local perspectives. Participants began by integrating their personal experiences with expert input, recording their reflections on a “wall of ideas” using sticky notes throughout the day. Council officers Maria Vaz and Jason Andrews presented the current Air Quality Action Plan, outlining its successes and challenges. This was followed by a group reflection and Q&A session. Next, a series of five-minute “lightning talks” introduced a range of grassroots voices, including schoolchildren, parent activists, and local climate campaigners, bringing diverse, community-based perspectives into the discussion. In the afternoon, following a brief individual reflection, the focus shifted to transport. Commentators from the council’s transport strategy and energy teams, as well as local active travel organisations such as Wandsworth Living Streets and the cycling campaign, presented their views. The session concluded with small group work to begin shaping initial recommendations. Using interactive role-play techniques, participants tested and refined their ideas through constructive feedback from peers [14].

Session 3 (25 March 2023): This session, held at the Battersea Arts Centre, marked the shift from learning to co-creation. It began with a review of the Assembly’s progress and a presentation from Councillor Judi Gasser, who outlined how the Council would engage with the forthcoming recommendations. A new round of five-minute lightning talks followed, offering varied perspectives on issues such as road closures and the motor industry [10]. Facilitators then introduced 15 draft idea clusters, grouped into six broad themes:

1. Information and awareness
2. Non-car transport
3. Housing
4. Children, community, and environment
5. Business
6. Miscellaneous topics, including energy in homes and buildings

Working in small groups, participants refined draft ideas within these topics, then voted on them using an "agree/pass/disagree" format to gauge initial levels of support [12][19]. The session also introduced Polis, explaining how the tool would gather feedback from the wider community on the assembly’s draft ideas. Finally, participants wrote postcards to themselves summarising key takeaways from the session, which would be read during the final session after a five-week break [20].

Session 4 (29 April 2023): A central focus of this session was the presentation of results from the Polis survey, which had collected over 55,000 votes on statements generated by the Assembly. The findings revealed two primary clusters of opinion: one more sceptical, and the other strongly supportive of change. Despite some divisions, there was a broad consensus on several key issues, including home insulation, electric buses, and transparent governance. Assembly members worked in thematic groups, beginning with transport-related recommendations, followed by non-transport themes, refining wording based on Polis insights to improve clarity and maximise support [16]. Meanwhile, a smaller group of participants collaboratively co-wrote the Assembly’s statement of purpose, a unifying and philosophical introduction to the final recommendations. This statement was nearly unanimously approved by all participants. The session concluded with final reflections, expressions of gratitude, and instructions for the final voting process, which took place after the session via a booklet distributed to members [17].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The immediate output of the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly was a set of 53 ranked recommendations, grouped under key themes including transport, awareness raising, active travel, green spaces, and housing. Each recommendation was assessed through a points-based voting system determined by levels of support (strongly support, support, neither, oppose, strongly oppose), establishing both overall rankings and rankings within their respective themes. Among the top-ranked proposals were:

1. Electrifying all public buses by 2025 (63 points),
2. Incentivising behaviour change by highlighting tangible benefits (60 points),
3. Integrating public transport for seamless, low-pollution travel (59 points),
4. Expanding education on air pollution and its health impacts (59 points),
5. Making public transport more attractive and accessible (58 points),
6. Investing in real-time, local air quality monitoring (55 points),
7. Improving cycling infrastructure (55 points) [22].

The recommendations reflect a resident perspective that tackling air quality requires a multi-faceted approach involving direct citizen involvement. Although some respondents expressed scepticism on whether their proposals would be fully adopted, with one participant noting that they suspected the council would adopt only the recommendations it wanted to, the integrated nature of the list remains a shared vision for how Wandsworth should address air quality from now on [18].

In May 2023, the Assembly’s final report was submitted to Wandsworth Council. Although the recommendations had not yet been implemented at the time of publication, Councillor Judi Gasser affirmed the Council’s commitment to using them in shaping the new Air Quality Action Plan 2023–2028. She also explained to assembly members what the next steps for the Council would be [1][6][10].

The resulting Air Quality Action Plan 2023–2028, approved on 14 September 2023, confirms that it draws heavily on and is directly influenced by the work of the Citizens’ Assembly. According to the plan, it incorporates most of the recommendations that could be delivered by the Council [23] [24].

Specifically, the council pledged to implement 26 of the top 30 deliverable recommendations, with further commitments to working with partners like Transport for London to deliver others, such as ensuring zero-emission buses. The plan also included initiatives inspired by the Assembly, such as launching an Air Quality Ambassadors Programme to support ongoing engagement and monitoring, echoing the Assembly’s sixth recommendation for quarterly emissions updates. This embedding of recommendations into the council’s long-term plans reflects the Assembly’s substantive influence, further reinforced by the involvement of council officers and the Oversight Panel throughout the process. This illustrates how deliberative processes, when well designed and sincerely supported, can serve as a bridge from consultation to action [25].

Touching on the health aspect, which was central to the Assembly’s guiding question, the new plan confirms that the Council will adopt World Health Organisation (WHO) air quality guidelines, deeming the UK legal limits as insufficient. This novel commitment is listed as a top-priority air quality measure [26].

Beyond institutional outcomes, the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality also generated meaningful social impacts, signalling a shift in how residents engage with environmental decision-making. Many participants reported a strong sense of empowerment and increased awareness of the causes and consequences of air pollution. Several described the process as eye-opening, particularly in learning that everyday actions, such as household wood burning, significantly contribute to local pollution. The structured sessions, along with expert presentations, played a key role in shaping this educational experience. Participants also expressed a renewed sense of agency, taking pride in being part of a process where their views were genuinely heard and integrated into policy discussions [18][21].

Overall, the Assembly fulfilled its purpose of deepening civic engagement and generating community-led recommendations to tackle air pollution. Its ultimate success now depends on whether those in power honour the commitments of participatory democracy: to listen, to act, and to be accountable.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

This analysis of the Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly draws on Graham Smith’s democratic goods framework to assess the assembly across six key criteria: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment, transparency, efficiency, and transferability. By applying this framework, the evaluation reaches an alternative to the success-versus-failure approach, offering instead a more ecumenical and systemic perspective integrating different positions in democratic theory [27]. The framework assesses democratic innovations based on the extent to which they realise desirable democratic goods, allowing for a richer understanding of their contribution to participatory governance. The Wandsworth Assembly demonstrates mixed success across the six dimensions, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. These insights will then be applied to distinguish how future citizens' assemblies might be better designed to strengthen democratic practice.

Inclusiveness: In the context of democratic innovations, it refers to ensuring that people from all social groups have equal opportunities to participate and influence outcomes while feeling heard and respected. It involves fair recruitment, support for equal contribution, and efforts to reduce barriers for marginalised individuals [28]. The Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly used random stratified sampling to reflect the borough’s diversity across age, gender, ethnicity, disability, housing tenure, and transport use. The £320 financial incentive further reduced participation barriers, encouraging involvement from groups typically underrepresented in civic processes.

However, while demographic representation was largely achieved, equal voice was more difficult to ensure. Despite the use of facilitation techniques such as small-group discussions to simplify jargon, some participants reported feeling overshadowed or underrepresented. Others expressed a desire for greater inclusivity of perspectives [18]. As Smith [28] notes, even well-designed processes can be undermined by informal hierarchies. While Wandsworth’s Assembly showed commendable thoughtfulness in design, more could have been done to upkeep inclusiveness, such as including one-to-one check-ins with participants midway through the process to address emerging barriers.

Popular control: it refers to the extent to which citizens influence different stages of the policy process: problem definition, option analysis, option selection, and implementation [29]. The Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly largely demonstrated a realisation of popular control, showing stronger influence in some stages than others.

Problem definition was managed by an independent Oversight Panel, which set the Assembly’s guiding question. While the panel’s diversity added legitimacy, participants themselves had no role in shaping the agenda, limiting their influence during this foundational stage.

In the option analysis phase, participants were able to prioritise which speakers they wanted to hear from and engaged in evidence-based discussions. They questioned commentators and deliberated on a range of topics, aligning with Smith’s criteria for reflective participation. However, participants should have been able to choose external speakers, not just prioritise pre-determined ones.

Option selection was where participants had the strongest influence, developing and voting on the 50 recommendations, which were later submitted to the Council. Participants had also followed the same process for the assembly statement.

In the implementation phase, however, influence was relatively lower but still sufficient. The Council committed to pursuing the top 26 recommendations, but no binding mechanism guarantees uptake. While the Air Quality Ambassadors may be interpreted as fulfilling such a role, it is an initiative that allows for monitoring, not control over implementation.

Considered judgment: It refers to the capacity of citizens to make informed, reflective decisions and requires exposure to diverse perspectives and deliberation [30]. While it cannot be enforced, it is the responsibility of a citizens’ assembly to create conditions that nurture this capacity. The Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly did so effectively through its thoughtful design. Over the four sessions, participants heard from a range of commentators and engaged in structured discussions, with and without the commentators. They were also encouraged to reflect on each other’s lived experiences, enhancing empathy and perspective-taking.

Activities such as power mapping supported critical thinking and ensured participants were deeply engaged with the concept. Feedback indicated that many participants felt better informed and valued the learning process. While some expressed a desire for a wider range of oppositional views, there was space within the process to raise such points. As Smith notes, considered judgment should emerge through deliberation rather than fixed preferences [30], something exemplified by Wandsworth’s Assembly.

Transparency: as a core democratic good, it ensures that citizens can scrutinise institutions and builds trust in democratic processes. It encompasses both internal clarity, where participants understand how the process functions, and external visibility, allowing the wider public to assess the process’s legitimacy [31].

Internal transparency was well supported in the assembly. Participants were informed about the Assembly’s structure, and a “red card” system was used to flag unclear language. Observers were invited to attend, and recordings of presentations were made publicly available, demonstrating the external aspect of transparency. Additional materials, such as feedback from the Polis survey, were shared and integrated into deliberations, enabling broader public engagement and external visibility.

Transparency was less robust in the aftermath. Participants expressed in the evaluation form that they’re not fully aware of how their recommendations would be implemented. However, initiatives like the Air Quality Ambassadors programme, which monitors progress, present a clearer commitment to reporting back on policy uptake and further strengthen transparency and accountability. Plans for such initiatives could have been communicated to the participants before the Assembly ended, to prevent uncertainty and ensure extensive transparency.

Efficiency: One of Graham Smith’s institutional goods, it concerns whether a democratic innovation delivers meaningful participation without placing excessive burdens, such as time, money, or effort [31]. The Assembly performed well in this regard, designing the process to be accessible and time-efficient. It required only four day-long Saturday sessions and offered a relatively generous £320 voucher, helping to offset opportunity costs. Sessions were well-structured, included breaks, and encouraged active engagement without becoming overwhelming. Smith argues that participation must be realistically compatible with everyday life, avoiding what he terms democratic overload [31].

For organisers, the process involved a more substantial investment. Resources were needed for participant recruitment, facilitation, expert commentators, oversight, and the Polis engagement tool. Nonetheless, the workload was shared across teams, and the production of 50 recommendations suggests a high return on investment, striking a balance between quality and feasibility.

Transferability: being the second institutional good in Smith’s framework, it refers to whether a democratic innovation can be effectively adapted across different contexts, such as varying political systems, cultures, or levels of governance, without losing its effectiveness [32]. The Assembly once again demonstrates a high degree of success, both in its design and method. The mini-public model of recruitment and expert input integration can be readily applied in other assemblies. This is exemplified by Shared Future’s similar work on climate change in Southwark, which followed comparable processes [7].

However, some elements may be less easily transferred. The Polis survey, which facilitated wider public engagement, might be harder to implement in less technologically developed contexts or with older populations unfamiliar with digital tools. Nevertheless, its underlying concept can be adapted through more traditional means, such as postal surveys.

Institutional support is another key factor. While Wandsworth Council showed strong political will, other local authorities may be less receptive or lack the necessary resources. Thus, while the model is transferable, certain enabling conditions must be met for successful implementation.

The Wandsworth Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality offers several valuable lessons for future democratic innovations. Learning was supported through presentations, structured debate, and clearly presented materials, which helped participants engage with the complex topic. While some felt that additional expert input could have been useful, the overall design successfully promoted understanding, forming the main strength of the assembly. Additionally, facilitation was also widely praised for fostering confidence and inclusive dialogue.

Future assemblies could benefit from a more visionary approach, keeping participants engaged beyond the sessions, such as through mailing lists or annual follow-up events, to sustain trust in democratic processes. Extending the timeline or adjusting the format, for example by holding shorter sessions twice a week (including online options), could allow more space for reflection and an enduring impact.

Finally, the success of the session heavily lies in framing the issue through local relevance, increasing participant investment and making discussions more meaningful. This highlights the importance of grounding deliberative democratic processes in the specific experiences and needs of the community to enhance their legitimacy, inclusivity, and potent impact.

See Also

References

1. [1] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 2-3. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
2. [2] Wandsworth Council (2023). Wandsworth Borough Profile: Population Overview. Retrieved from: https://www.datawand.info/population/#/view-report/63aeddf1d7fc44b8b4dffcd868e84eac/___iaFirstFeature/G3
3. [3] Wandsworth Council (2023). Air Quality Annual Status Report for 2023. p. 59. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/mzhcezpy/air_quality_progress_report_2023.pdf
4. [4] Wandsworth Council (2023). Air Quality Annual Status Report for 2023. p. 59. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/mzhcezpy/air_quality_progress_report_2023.pdf
5. [5] Wandsworth Council (2023). Air Quality Annual Status Report for 2023. p. 7-9. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/mzhcezpy/air_quality_progress_report_2023.pdf
6. [6] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 4. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
7. [7] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 5. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
8. [8] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 2. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
9. [9] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 6-7. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
10. [10] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 14. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
11. [11] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 10-11. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
12. [12] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 16. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
13. [13] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 8. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
14. [14] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 12-13. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
15. [15] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 18-19. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
16. [16] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 21-22. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
17. [17] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 23. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
18. [18] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Evaluation Report. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/13719/aqca_evaluation.pdf
19. [19] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 15. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
20. [20] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 17. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
21. [21] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 24. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
22. [22] Wandsworth Council (2023). Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality: Final Report. p. 25-26. Retrieved from: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
23. [23] Wandsworth Council (2023). Air Quality Action Plan 2023–2028. p. 28-29. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/3c3naao3/air_quality_action_plan.pdf.
24. [24] Wandsworth Council (2023). Air Quality Action Plan 2023–2028. p. 33. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/3c3naao3/air_quality_action_plan.pdf.
25. [25] Wandsworth Council (2023). Air Quality Action Plan 2023–2028. p. 4-5. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/3c3naao3/air_quality_action_plan.pdf.
26. [26] Wandsworth Council (2023). Air Quality Action Plan 2023–2028. p. 35. Retrieved from: https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/3c3naao3/air_quality_action_plan.pdf
27. [27] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Chapter 1, pp. 12-13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. [28] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Chapter 1, pp. 20-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. [29] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Chapter 1, pp. 22-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. [30] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Chapter 1, pp. 24-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. [31] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Chapter 1, pp. 25-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. [32] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Chapter 1, pp. 26-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

External Links

1. https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Air-Quality-climate-assembly-Wandsworth-2023.pdf
2. https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/media/3c3naao3/air_quality_action_plan.pdf

Notes