Problems and Purpose

Southampton faces significant emissions from personal transport, which accounts for 29% of its carbon footprint [1]. With national targets pressing and local decisions upcoming (e.g., the Local Transport Plan), the council sought informed, inclusive public input on transforming the city’s transport system while addressing climate change. This is because nationally Southampton's transport emissions are not declining as fast as the targets are, and personal transport is a policy area in which the council has some direct control. However as they don’t have as much control over it, the council did not address emissions relating to the seaport, airport and other commercial vehicles. Before the assembly the council arranged 5 civil society events across different parts of the city and online which brought in 75 people [2]. Their purpose was to collect feedback on the remit of the assembly.

Background History and Context

The assembly was Southampton’s first citizens’ assembly, established by the City Council in partnership with the University of Southampton, University of Oxford, and Involve. Prior civil society events and an online platform helped shape the remit. The question was “how do we ensure an accessible, affordable and connected transport system in the city, whilst reducing carbon emissions and meeting climate targets?”[3]. The University of Southampton was the main funder of the assembly, and concocted research looking at; door knocking of households who received an invitation letter in order to evaluate if it had boosted recruitment, different kinds of expertise (Lay speakers who had been differently affected by transport decisions were included to evaluate a more inclusive process of building knowledge), and finally ‘Impact Evaluation’ through the use of surveys and interviews with assembly members in order to understand their opinions and the impact of the assembly. The university also provided some members of the support and facilitation teams for the assembly, with relevant training provided by Involve [4]. The University of Oxfords part in the study was to understand about the ways to increase the impact of citizens assemblies. They evaluated innovative approaches to increase impact, including: holding civil society events to influence the assembly’s remit and question, additional meetings with the council about bringing recommendations forward, briefings on assembly recommendations, and finally a launch event to raise the profile of the assembly and its recommendations with key attendees from the council and across the city. Southampton is one of the largest port cities in the United Kingdom, with over 15,000 jobs [5] depending on the shipping and cruise industries. This means that not only does the city have a large population but also many people travelling in to use these services.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The assembly was commissioned by Southampton City Council with support from the Universities of Southampton and Oxford. Involve designed and facilitated the process. The University of Southampton provided the majority of the funding, with additional support from the University of Oxford through the British Academy Innovation Fellowship [6].

What is a citizens’ assembly? See https://participedia.net/method/4258.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Sortition Foundation sent 8,000 invitations to residents. From 201 expressions of interest, 37 participants were selected to reflect Southampton’s diversity across age, gender, ethnicity, political views, occupation, and climate attitudes. This process, sortition, is widely recognised as the gold standard for recruitment of a group of people to reflect a wider population. In total 130 residents contributed to the assembly.[7] 75 people attended civil society events to inform the assembly's remit and question, 18 people shared their experience of transport through an online platform of which 4 were invited to share their experiences in the assembly, and 37 people were recruited to reflect the local population of Southampton and took part in the assembly itself. The assembly members were given a £340 gift of thanks for their participation in all sessions, this was done in order to make it accessible to all and to recognise their time. Costs such as travel and child care were also taken into account [8].

Methods and Tools Used

Over three weekends, the Southampton Citizens' Climate Assembly members underwent a formalised process of learning, discussion, and decision making to create a shared vision and set of recommendations for the city's future transport system. The assembly was specifically designed to deliver a balanced and fair process which was led by an independent Advisory Panel. This ensured that all that was reported was impartial, representative, and representative of multiple perspectives. Members of the assembly were guided through three key stages: learning, where they heard from experts and locals; deliberation, where they discussed concepts and charted potential directions; and decision-making, where they collaborated to negotiate compromises and reach final recommendations [9].

During the first weekend, hosted in person, the participants began by sharing their personal travel experience and desired future in Southampton. This was followed by a series of presentations by experts in the discipline on climate change, the current transport network, the wider implications and advantages of transport policy, and other transport options. Speakers included academics from universities such as the University of Oxford, Cardiff University, and the University of Southampton, and professionals in the city council and organizations like Sustrans and the Landscape Institute. Among the notable contributors were Wade Holmes and Ruth Magennis from the Southampton City Council, Dr Mathilda Becker and Prof Tim Schwanen from the University of Oxford, and Prof John Preston from the University of Southampton, among others [10].

The second weekend was conducted online and focused on deepening the assembly's understanding of lived experience and policy concerns. The participants specifically requested to be heard by others with varying needs who travel on public transport. As such, four lay speakers, that is, Katie, Louis, Maggie, and Wendy (with a substitute recording by Charlie), shared their individual experiences traveling on the transport system. Additional expert opinions were provided by Stephen Frost of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), who spoke on transport strategy in other cities, and Southampton City Council and local bus companies, including Richard Tyldsley of Bluestar and Unilink, who responded to members' questions on bus services [11].

The third and last weekend brought the assembly together in person again to collaborate and refine and support their final recommendations. This involved making exchanges and making sure recommendations represented the entire group's priority and concern. Overall over the three weekends, the assembly had 16 speakers and accumulated a respectable 1,165 person-hours of engagement. This lengthy and consultative exercise enabled an informed and community-based set of proposals to drive the transport future of Southampton [12].

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Following the presentations the assembly members took time to discuss what they had learnt and allowed it to influence and form their ideas on how they should tackle transport issues in the city. Once they had developed ideas and deliberated with one another, the participants needed to decide which ideas to give priority to, which required trade offs to be made. This was overseen by an independent Advisory Panel to ensure that the assembly members were given information that was “balanced and impartial” [13]. As previously stated the third and final weekend the assembly members purely worked together to draft and agree their recommendations, there were no external speakers.

Public Interaction came through the use of Lay Speakers was particularly innovative and added a layer of depth which had not existed in previous Citizen Assemblies. It allowed the participants to hear from real people who used the public transport services, therefore influencing their views to more accurately represent what the people of Southampton need [14].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The council committed to using the recommendations in the 2025 Local Transport Plan, engaging stakeholders, and guiding future public engagement. Deputy cabinet member for green city and net zero, Cllr John Savage (Lab), added “The power to shape policies lies within all of our grasp, particularly in the domain of personal transport. The recommendations put forward by the Climate Assembly will inform our objectives to address transport-related emissions and create a safe and accessible transport system for a greener and more sustainable Southampton” [15]. The two ideas that came out as leading suggestions were: taking a small charge per person entering Southampton from cruises (not staff or crew), and an increase in council tax for those who have a second home. This being that the charge falls on the landlord not the tenant. This idea had 100% positive feedback from the assembly. Other ideas that didn’t gather as much support were adding a small charge on football tickets and lorries travelling to and through the docks at ‘peak times’ [16].

Participants developed a vision for a transport system centered on public and active travel. They co-created 10 priority recommendations and several ideas for funding. Discussions included accessibility, affordability, traffic flow, education, and political accountability. 93 additional residents contributed via online platforms and community events [17].

Three full vision statements were created. They are as follows:

Option one: people travel pretty much as they do now, but the vehicles they use should be less polluting. There will likely be at least the same number of cars on the road, potentially more to account for increasing population. However there would be more electric cars as a result of the council dedicating significant funding into providing the charging infrastructure for the vehicles. Buses would also be electric or run on alternative fuels. There are some other improvements to the transport system in line with other recommendations [18].

Option two: Due to an improvement in the choice of travel options people travel around the city in a range of different ways. In this vision less people travel by car and there will be improvements to public transport and ‘active travel’ such as walking and cycling. However, a lot of people will still use cars, but there will be an increase in the number of electric cars as the council will use some of the funding to provide the charging infrastructure needed [19].

Option three: For people to mainly travel by public transport and active travel, such as walking or cycling. For this to happen they would have the council either provide or work with companies to provide much better public transport and active travel routes. This would lead to there being fewer cars on the road and of those the majority would be electric. The council would provide the charging infrastructure for these vehicles and it would not be too costly because there would be fewer cars on the road [20].

Analysis and Lessons Learned

In order to effectively analyse the strengths and limitations of the citizens assembly, the framework on “democratic goods” provided by Graham Smith be utilised to create a clear outline to compare the assembly against. Instead of relying on quantitative success criteria or goals, Smith outlines six key theoretical concepts that can be universally applied to create a clear outline for success. These criteria are; Inclusiveness, Popular control, Considered Judgement , Efficiency, Transparency and Transferability [21].

The process demonstrated that representative groups can engage deeply with complex issues and produce informed, practical solutions. The assembly model fostered trust, inclusivity, and transparency. Participants valued being heard and emphasized the importance of continuity across political cycles. In fact, all of the participants rated the experience at least a ⅚, and that all members agreed ‘the assembly was diverse enough to consider all perspectives’.[22]

To further evidence the success of the assembly, the participants of the study had this to say:

“Our recommendations are important because we are representative of our local communities, the changes affect us, our families, everyone that comes to our city. We are part of changes that need to happen. They will improve our quality of living, travelling, working and enjoying our city now and in the future.” - Janine, assembly member [23]

“Taking part in a citizens’ assembly was educational. It gave me a voice. It highlighted the problems we need to fix and showed me the constraints that the council have to work within.”- Assembly member [24]

“Our recommendations are important because the process was fair, equal and inclusive. It's important because everyone made meaningful contributions.”- Blessing, assembly member [25]

“Taking part in a citizens’ assembly was an honour. This experience was a great opportunity, so the council could hear our demands. Instead of complaining we could take part. I had my opportunity as a 17 year old to speak up my demands without being ignored.”- Assembly member [26]

These reflections strongly align with Smith’s emphasis on ‘considered judgement’ and inclusiveness as fundamental democratic goods, demonstrating that participants not only felt heard but were actively contributing to a meaningful, deliberative process.

Inclusiveness

In order to be successful on the front of inclusiveness, Smith argues there are two factors: “presence and voice” [27] . Meaning not only does the people from every walk of life need to be represented, but also ensuring every group is listened to and have their viewpoints considered. Participants represented a broad cross-section of Southampton’s population in terms of demographics, geography, and viewpoints. In fact “young people and people from a Black, African, Caribbean or Black British background were slightly overrepresented at the assembly compared to the city as a whole” [28]. Most notably great care was taken to ensure people who used all varieties of transport were involved, and were able to get their views across. Engagement mechanisms ensure accessibility, including compensation and support for participation costs, allowing viewpoints that would usually go unheard, to come to the forefront of discussions. This is furthered by the format of the assembly because the discussion aspects of the assembly over a period of time fostered a culture of inclusion and allowed participants to develop their confidence over time, ensuring all voices and opinions could be considered. When discussions focus on public transport this becomes particularly poignant as those with physical disabilities are most affected by the policies but often find it difficult to have their views considered to the same extent as the able bodied populace.

Politically, it was difficult to estimate the desired voting make-up of the assembly due to a very low turnout in the most recent local elections [29]. Therefore target percentages of political affiliation was approximated between the local and general elections, leading to a split of: 24% Conservative, 3% Green, 30% Labour, 8% Liberal Democrats, 3% other and 32% non voters. This aligns with Smith's inclusive democratic good as the assembly had a very fair and inclusive number of political party representatives [30].

Popular control

Smith defines popular control as the ability of the group to “influence different aspects of the decision making process” [31]. Wherein both the ability of the group to determine the outcome from the meeting but also how the outcome of the meeting shapes the wider policy. Since the citizens assembly was mainly consultative it put forth recommendations rather than policy changes. Recommendations were entirely shaped and agreed upon by assembly members through a deliberative process resulting in the final outputs reflecting participants' priorities and direct input. This illustrates the power of citizen led decision making. Popular Control played an essential role in the assembly by helping to guide and shape future policy visions of the council across aspects of climate action and public transport. The impact on this was limited because the assembly focused on recommendations going forward rather than directly allowing for the assembly to set policy. Therefore whilst there is an increase in popular control, it is not fully realised due to a focus on vision and recommendations rather than direct policy change.

Considered judgement

In order for considered judgment to be successful, attendees need to develop a strong technical understanding of the issues at play, as well as being able to understand different perspectives [32]. Hence the assembly used structured learning from diverse sources and iterative discussions ensuring that participants were well-informed, balanced decisions. Learning from both experts and other participants, allowing for the widest and deepest opportunities for learning. This is where the democratic innovation of Lay Speakers played a pivotal role as they were able to provide unique unbiased perspectives to the participants. This assembly was particularly effective in improving considered judgement due to the process it used, ensuring both time for individuals to learn and ask questions for experts, as well as prominent discussion time in order to deliberate amongst each other to arrive at truly considered decisions. One of the most prevalent challenges that Citizen Assemblies usually have to face is heightened tensions and people becoming entrenched in their own argument, leading to no real deliberation taking place. Fortunately this was not the case for the Southampton Citizen Assembly, as the participants “had good discussions without it going nuclear” [33].

Transparency

“Transparency centres reflection on the openness of proceedings to both participants and the wider public” [34]. The citizens assembly took several measures to ensure transparency, accountability and the removal of bias. Selection of the candidates was done through independent sortion groups. Meetings for councillors took place beforehand on how it was operated to prevent such bias, but this was poorly attended by parties who opposed the assembly “a window isn’t transparent if you choose not to look through it” [35]. The people who attended the assembly felt as though the process was very transparent, and they knew where their information was going and what was being done about it. This was further helped by the follow up meeting two months afterwards in which the results were displayed and discussed with not just the participants, but also other councillors and people who had taken an interest in the results. Not only was it successfully transparent in the process of the assembly, but participants also felt as though they gained an insight into how local government works, regarding the likes of parking, public transport and council spending. Members of the assembly learned that the council has limited funds from which it can’t be overdrawn, unlike the national government councils are required to not fall into debt. This helped increase overall transparency between locals and their council. Overall,transparency within the council and the assembly was very strong. However, Transparency between the assembly and the wider coverage was limited. This was due to time frame and budget restrictions as it was “too efficient” [36] in its time frame and costs to grab hold of the public’s attention. This became most notable when the BBC filmed aspects of the assembly for local news but chose not to air it, leading to reduced public awareness, as the news section “never came out” [37].

Efficiency

“Efficiency demands that we attend to the costs that participation can place on both citizens and public authorities” [38]. The assembly afforded £340 for each of its members to ensure that they were able to prioritise their attendance, allowing the assembly to be conducted in an streamlined fashion. Overall, the assembly was highly efficient and was able to produce detailed recommendations at a low cost and a short amount of time.

The process involved 1,165 person-hours over three weekends. Despite its short duration, participants produced a detailed, actionable set of recommendations with strong consensus. Part of this success was due to the structure of the assembly, with the second weekend online allowing for people to better fit the assembly around their schedule. However, this high level of efficiency may have come at a cost to the ambitiousness of the assembly because it was “too efficient if anything” [39].The short time frame and cost efficiency, prevented the assembly from reaching the widest audience possible and that if there was more time, the scale could have been further increased.

Transferability

Transferability discusses how models for democratic innovations can be applied to other circumstances and scale [40]. This model would transfer well to political circumstances which are seen as controversial. This is because this model of citizen assembly focuses on facilitating discussion, in a way that reduces tension, allowing for better discussion “unlike a pub conversation” [41]. The lay speaker innovation is also rather transferrable, any time an assembly is done that discusses people’s lived experiences, lay speakers could be deployed as a tool to further enhance other assemblies, to help those partaking to understand how the issues being discussed impact people’s lives.

The model can be replicated for other complex local policy challenges. It demonstrates how structured, inclusive deliberation can inform democratic decision-making and policy development. The high level of efficiency further enhances the transferability of the assembly, as short time scale and tight budget, makes it easier and more accessible for smaller institutions to adopt. The success of the transferability of the assembly is demonstrated by how its model has been used to teach “other councillors, in other areas” on how they can use these democratic innovations in their areas [42].

See Also

https://participedia.net/method/4258.

References

1. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p.12
2. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p.12
3. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p.13
4. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p.11
5. Freightos. (2024). The Biggest Ports in the UK | Freightos. [online] Available at: https://www.freightos.com/freight-resources/biggest-ports-in-uk/.
6. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p.14
7. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p.15
8. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p.15
9. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 23
10. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 23
11. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 23
12. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 21
13. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://lengage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 22
14. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 23
15. Bitternepark.info. (2024). Public transport and active travel the way forward — Citizens’ Climate Assembly. [online] Available at: https://bitternepark.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12879:public-transport-and-active-travel-the-way-forward-citizens-climate-assembly&catid=166&Itemid=92. [Accessed 16 May 2025].
16. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025‌ p. 46
17. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025 p. 6
18. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 55
19. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 56
20. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 57
21. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.12
22. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 49
23. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 50
24. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 51
25. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 52
26. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025]. p. 53
27. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 12
28. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025] p. 17
29. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025] p. 17
30. Allan et. Al Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly Final report. (2024). Available at: https://engage-southampton.ac.uk/scca/resource/final_report.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2025] p. 18
31. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 12
32. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 12
33. Savage, J (2025). Reinventing Democracy manual transcript.
34. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 12
35. Savage, J (2025). Reinventing Democracy manual transcript.
36. Savage, J (2025). Reinventing Democracy manual transcript.
37. Savage, J (2025). Reinventing Democracy manual transcript.
38. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 13
39. Savage, J (2025). Reinventing Democracy manual transcript.
40. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations : Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press p. 13
41. Savage, J (2025). Reinventing Democracy manual transcript.
42. Savage, J (2025). Reinventing Democracy manual transcript.

External Links

Notes