The Populytics migration participation process in Sint-Michielsgestel, Netherlands (2025), used Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) to involve residents in migration and asylum reception decision-making through structured policy trade-offs and digital participation.
Problems and Purpose
This case study examines a digitally supported participatory process on migration policy in the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel in the Netherlands, organised through the platform Populytics. The initiative formed part of a broader effort to involve residents in decision-making surrounding the potential establishment of an asylum reception centre, a proposal that generated significant local debate and social tension [1].
The case is situated within a national context in which migration has become one of the most politically salient issues in contemporary Dutch society. While migration flows are diverse and multifaceted, public and political debate often focuses on asylum seekers, particularly in local contexts where their presence is most visible. This dynamic is especially pronounced in smaller municipalities, where even modest demographic changes can generate heightened concerns regarding housing, public services, and social cohesion.
In response to these challenges, policymakers have increasingly turned to participatory and deliberative approaches as a means of improving both the legitimacy and quality of decision-making. The process analysed in this case represents a hybrid form of democratic innovation, combining large-scale digital participation with structured decision-making through the Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) methodology [2]. By placing participants in the role of policymakers and requiring them to engage with realistic policy trade-offs, the initiative aimed to move beyond simple opinion-gathering towards a more substantive form of citizen involvement.
Background History and Context
Migration has become one of the most significant and politically contested issues in the Netherlands in recent years, shaping both national policy and local governance. In 2024, approximately 316,000 immigrants entered the Netherlands, contributing to a net migration increase of around 108,000 people [3]. Migration has therefore become the primary driver of population growth, with natural population change now negative as deaths exceed births [4]. These figures highlight that migration is not a temporary phenomenon, but a structural feature of Dutch society.
The long-term nature of migration is further reflected in the composition of the population. Approximately 16.8% of residents in the Netherlands are foreign-born, with a substantial proportion of second-generation migrants also contributing to the country’s demographic profile [5]. However, despite the diversity of migration flows—including labour, study, and family migration—public and political debate tends to focus disproportionately on asylum seekers.
In 2025, around 24,100 asylum applications were recorded in the Netherlands, alongside approximately 16,500 family reunifications [6]. While these figures represent only a fraction of total migration flows, asylum seekers are often the most visible group at the local level, particularly in relation to the establishment of reception centres. This visibility contributes to heightened public concern, as asylum accommodation is frequently perceived to place pressure on housing availability, infrastructure, and community cohesion.
These dynamics are especially pronounced in smaller municipalities such as Sint-Michielsgestel, where population size and infrastructure capacity are more limited. In such contexts, even relatively modest changes in population composition can generate significant local responses. The report itself highlights that the participatory process was initiated in response to social unrest following the leak of plans for an asylum seekers’ centre. Furthermore, the municipality acknowledged that previous approaches had failed to sufficiently involve residents in decision-making, contributing to a widening gap between local government and the community.
Migration policy involves competing and often conflicting objectives—such as humanitarian protection, economic integration, and the management of host community responses—which are not easily resolved through conventional political mechanisms [7]. As a result, participatory and deliberative approaches have gained traction as potential tools for improving both the quality and legitimacy of decision-making.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The participatory process was designed and implemented by the research agency Populytics on behalf of the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel, forming part of a broader initiative to involve residents in decision-making on migration policy [8]. The process formed one component of a wider “Participation Trajectory Migration” project, which also included group discussions and film-based engagement with residents.
The process was structured using the Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) methodology, an approach developed to simulate real-world policymaking by placing participants in the role of decision-makers [9]. Rather than simply expressing opinions, participants were required to engage with policy options under conditions of constraint, allocating limited resources across competing objectives [9]. This design distinguishes the process from conventional consultation exercises, as it encourages participants to consider trade-offs and reflect on the consequences of different policy choices.
The report also emphasises that the research was conducted independently, with the municipality exercising no substantive influence over the findings. This institutional separation was intended to enhance trust and legitimacy within a politically sensitive environment.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The participatory process involved a total of 2,066 residents of Sint-Michielsgestel, combining both a controlled and an open recruitment strategy [10]. Participation was facilitated through a dual system. First, all households in the municipality were invited by letter to take part in the study using a unique access code, resulting in a “closed” sample of 1,114 participants [11]. In parallel, an “open” version of the survey was made available to all residents without restriction, attracting a further 952 participants [11].
The closed sample was statistically reweighted to improve representativeness across variables such as age, gender, education, and place of residence [10]. This enabled the report to claim that representative conclusions could be drawn about the municipality as a whole [10]. The open survey, by contrast, prioritised inclusivity and accessibility, allowing all interested residents to participate regardless of whether they had received an invitation code [12].
However, participation remained voluntary, meaning that self-selection bias could not be entirely eliminated. Certain groups, particularly more highly educated and middle-aged individuals, were somewhat overrepresented within the participant pool [10]. The report also acknowledges that open participation formats create a higher risk of selection bias due to the disproportionate participation of individuals with particularly strong interests or opinions on the issue [14].
Methods and Tools Used
The participatory process was conducted through an online platform, DenkMeeOverMigratie.nl, which served as the primary interface for citizen engagement [11]. The platform guided participants through a structured decision-making exercise based on the Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) methodology.
The essence of the PVE model is to place participants “in the chair” of policymakers for approximately twenty minutes within an online environment [9]. Participants were presented with realistic policy options and required to engage with trade-offs under conditions of constraint, replicating key features of real-world political decision-making [9]. The methodology was developed and scientifically validated by researchers, including those associated with Delft University of Technology [9].
Participants were presented with a set of policy goals relating to migration and asylum policy, including issues such as refugee integration, public safety, housing, municipal communication, and the distribution of reception facilities [13]. They were required to allocate 45 points across nine policy goals, meaning that prioritising one objective necessarily reduced the ability to prioritise others [13]. This mechanism introduced scarcity into the decision-making process and encouraged participants to weigh competing priorities rather than simply endorse isolated preferences.
The process also incorporated opportunities for qualitative participation. Participants could justify their decisions through open-ended written responses and explain the reasoning behind their preferences [9]. Additional information buttons provided background context throughout the survey, while a help section explained issues such as the different categories of refugees and the municipality’s legal obligations [13].
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The participatory process took place between 8 September and 5 October 2025, during which residents accessed the online platform and engaged with the PVE exercise [11]. Upon entering the platform, participants were first provided with background information on migration policy and the local context, including the proposed establishment of an asylum reception centre.
Participants were then guided through a structured sequence of questions addressing different aspects of migration policy, including their general attitudes towards refugees, preferences regarding the location and organisation of reception facilities, and perspectives on the responsibilities of both the municipality and asylum seekers [11].
A substantial part of the process focused on identifying the goals residents considered most important regarding migration policy. Participants consistently prioritised four objectives across all attitude groups: that refugees learn Dutch language and culture, that residents are well informed about refugee reception, that refugees and residents feel safe, and that refugees work or participate in education [14]. While residents differed significantly in their broader attitudes toward refugees, these four priorities emerged as common concerns across the municipality.
The process also revealed substantial differences between groups of residents. The report found that residents of Sint-Michielsgestel were more likely to hold negative or slightly negative attitudes towards refugees than national benchmark data [15]. Trust in the municipality was also strongly correlated with attitudes toward refugees, with residents holding more negative attitudes tending to express lower levels of trust in municipal politics and administration [16].
Participants additionally expressed strong preferences regarding the structure of potential reception facilities. Many residents preferred smaller reception centres distributed across multiple villages rather than a single large-scale facility [17]. Concerns regarding safety, social cohesion, and the demographic composition of reception centres appeared frequently in the open-ended responses [18].
Following the structured questions, participants were given the opportunity to provide qualitative responses explaining their reasoning and raising issues not fully addressed within the survey [18]. Approximately 1,200 participants submitted written comments [19]. These responses revealed recurring themes, including opposition to asylum reception centres, concerns regarding municipal communication, demands for stronger integration requirements, and support for stricter enforcement where refugees violated laws or social norms [18].
Although the process primarily relied on individualised online participation, it formed part of a wider participatory trajectory that also included group discussions and film-based engagement. These additional elements created opportunities for collective discussion beyond the survey itself.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The results of the participatory process were compiled into a report and presented as advisory input to the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel to inform future decision-making on migration policy. The outputs included both quantitative findings and qualitative responses, allowing policymakers to identify broader patterns of public opinion as well as the reasoning underlying resident perspectives.
The initiative revealed a politically divided local population, but also demonstrated areas of consensus. Across ideological divisions, residents consistently prioritised safety, communication, integration through language acquisition, and participation in work or education [14]. The process therefore provided policymakers with a more nuanced understanding of public attitudes than would likely emerge through conventional polling alone.
The findings also highlighted substantial distrust among certain groups of residents towards the municipality and local politics [16]. This distrust was closely linked to more negative attitudes toward refugees and feelings that the municipality “does too little” for people like them [20]. The process therefore exposed not only divisions surrounding migration itself, but also broader tensions concerning political representation and institutional trust.
Importantly, the process did not confer direct decision-making authority on participants. Final authority remained with municipal policymakers, and the outcomes of the process were advisory rather than binding [11]. Nevertheless, the initiative generated a structured body of evidence that could inform subsequent political discussions and policymaking decisions.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Introduction to the Evaluation
The preceding sections have outlined the design, implementation, and outputs of the participatory process. While this provides a clear account of how the initiative was structured, it does not in itself determine its democratic quality or effectiveness. To assess the strengths and limitations of the process, it is necessary to evaluate it against established theoretical criteria. This case is therefore analysed using the framework developed by Graham Smith, which identifies a set of “democratic goods”—including inclusion, considered judgement, popular control, transparency, efficiency, and transferability—that provide a systematic basis for assessing the performance of participatory institutions [21]. Smith argues that democratic innovations should be assessed according to the extent to which they realise these democratic and institutional goods in practice, rather than being evaluated solely through abstract democratic ideals [21]. This framework is particularly useful in the context of migration policymaking, where issues of legitimacy, representation, political trust, and public participation are highly contested.
Inclusion
Inclusion refers to the extent to which a participatory process enables a broad and representative range of citizens to participate in political decision-making. Smith conceptualises inclusion in terms of both “presence” and “voice”, arguing that democratic innovations should not simply allow participation in principle, but should actively address inequalities in who participates and whose perspectives are heard [22].
The Populytics process demonstrates a strong institutional emphasis on inclusion, particularly through its ability to engage a large number of residents across the municipality. A total of 2,066 participants took part in the process [10], a figure that significantly exceeds participation levels commonly associated with many deliberative democratic innovations. The dual recruitment structure further strengthened the inclusivity of the initiative. The “closed” sample, based on invitation letters distributed to all households, aimed to improve demographic representativeness through statistical weighting [10], while the “open” survey allowed unrestricted participation by any interested resident [12]. This hybrid approach reflects an attempt to balance representativeness with accessibility, addressing a common tension within participatory design.
The closed participation model was particularly important in strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the process. Because migration is a highly polarising issue, reliance solely on open participation may have amplified the voices of residents holding especially strong views. The use of a weighted sample therefore represented an effort to ensure that conclusions more accurately reflected the broader population of Sint-Michielsgestel rather than only politically mobilised groups [10].
At the same time, the open participation model provided opportunities for broader civic involvement beyond the representative sample. This is significant because democratic legitimacy cannot always be reduced solely to statistical representativeness; public participation also derives legitimacy from allowing citizens opportunities for engagement and expression. In this respect, the process performs relatively well compared to more restrictive forms of participation that tightly limit public access.
However, important limitations remain. Participation was ultimately voluntary, meaning that self-selection bias could not be fully eliminated [12]. The report itself acknowledges that middle-aged and theoretically educated residents were somewhat overrepresented [10]. Smith argues that open participatory mechanisms often reproduce existing social inequalities because participation depends on factors such as confidence, political efficacy, time, education, and familiarity with institutional processes [22]. As a result, even formally open processes may privilege already empowered groups.
The online structure of the process also introduces additional concerns regarding digital exclusion. Although digital participation significantly increases scalability and convenience, it may simultaneously disadvantage individuals with limited digital access or lower levels of digital literacy. This issue is particularly important in the context of migration policy because the populations most directly affected—such as migrants or asylum seekers themselves—may not be adequately represented within digitally mediated local participation exercises.
Furthermore, while the process included a large number of participants, inclusion should not be assessed solely quantitatively. Smith emphasises that inclusion also concerns whether participants possess relatively equal opportunities to shape discussion and influence outcomes [24]. In this case, although residents could submit qualitative responses, opportunities for sustained interaction between different social groups remained comparatively limited within the online survey component itself.
Overall, the initiative demonstrates relatively high levels of inclusion compared to many democratic innovations, particularly in its ability to combine representative and open participation at large scale. Nevertheless, structural inequalities relating to self-selection, digital access, and unequal political engagement continued to constrain the extent to which participation could be considered fully inclusive.
Considered Judgement
Considered judgement refers to the extent to which participants engage thoughtfully, reflectively, and knowledgeably with political issues rather than simply expressing immediate or emotionally driven preferences. Smith argues that democratic legitimacy depends not merely on aggregating “raw preferences”, but on encouraging citizens to critically evaluate competing perspectives and policy consequences [23].
Several aspects of the Populytics process support considered judgement. Before engaging with the main survey, participants were provided with background information regarding migration policy, refugee reception, and the local political context [13]. Additional explanatory information remained accessible throughout the participation process, including information regarding legal obligations, refugee categories, and municipal responsibilities [13]. These informational components aimed to provide participants with a baseline understanding of the policy environment before expressing preferences.
The structure of the Participatory Value Evaluation methodology further strengthened reflective engagement. Participants were required to allocate a limited number of points across competing policy goals [13], meaning that prioritising one objective necessarily reduced the ability to prioritise others. This design encouraged participants to confront trade-offs directly rather than simply endorsing abstract preferences in isolation. In doing so, the process replicated a central feature of real-world policymaking: the need to balance competing social priorities within conditions of constraint.
This constitutes an important strength of the process. Conventional surveys and public consultations often encourage citizens to express preferences without considering trade-offs or resource limitations. By contrast, the PVE structure required participants to think more carefully about the implications of different policy choices. The methodology therefore encouraged a more substantive and policy-oriented form of participation than conventional opinion polling.
The process was additionally strengthened by the inclusion of qualitative response sections. Participants were able to explain their reasoning, articulate concerns, and justify their priorities in their own words [18]. Approximately 1,200 participants submitted written responses [19], generating a substantial body of qualitative data. These responses demonstrated that many residents engaged seriously with issues such as integration, safety, communication, housing pressure, and social cohesion.
Furthermore, the broader participatory trajectory extended beyond the online survey itself. The process also included group discussions and film-based engagement activities, creating opportunities for participants to encounter perspectives and experiences beyond their immediate social or political viewpoints. These additional elements partially addressed one of the principal weaknesses of individualised digital participation: the absence of direct interpersonal deliberation.
Nevertheless, limitations remain regarding the depth of deliberation achieved within the core participation exercise. A substantial proportion of participation occurred through an individualised online format, limiting sustained interaction between participants during the main decision-making process. Smith emphasises that considered judgement is strengthened not only through information provision, but also through exposure to competing perspectives and the opportunity to revise preferences through collective reasoning [23]. While participants engaged reflectively with policy trade-offs, opportunities for direct dialogue and mutual persuasion remained comparatively limited.
This limitation is especially significant given the emotionally charged nature of migration politics. Many participants likely entered the process with strongly pre-existing attitudes regarding asylum seekers and refugee reception. Although the PVE methodology encouraged more reflective engagement than standard consultation exercises, it remains unclear to what extent participation transformed participant attitudes or increased mutual understanding between opposing groups.
Overall, the initiative achieved a moderate to high level of considered judgement. Participants were encouraged to engage seriously with policy complexity, trade-offs, and competing priorities. However, the limited integration of sustained interpersonal deliberation constrained the extent to which the process achieved deeper forms of collective reflection associated with more deliberative democratic innovations.
Popular Control
Popular control concerns the extent to which citizens exercise meaningful influence over political decision-making. Smith argues that democratic participation should not merely allow citizens to express preferences, but should also provide opportunities to shape agendas, influence policy formation, and affect political outcomes [24].
The Populytics process provided residents with structured opportunities to engage substantively with migration policymaking. Participants were not simply responding to isolated survey questions, but were instead required to evaluate competing policy goals and articulate their priorities regarding refugee reception, integration, safety, communication, and social cohesion [13]. The process therefore enabled citizens to contribute more meaningfully to policy discussion than would typically occur through conventional consultation exercises.
The scale of participation also strengthened the democratic legitimacy of the process. Involving more than 2,000 residents [10] allowed policymakers to access a broad body of public opinion and reasoning regarding a politically contentious issue. The inclusion of extensive qualitative responses further enabled participants to communicate concerns and perspectives that extended beyond fixed-choice survey options [18].
However, despite these participatory opportunities, actual citizen control over political decision-making remained limited. The outcomes of the process were advisory rather than binding, meaning that final authority remained with municipal policymakers [11]. Citizens could contribute input and influence political discussion, but they possessed no formal authority to determine outcomes directly.
This reflects a broader limitation common to many democratic innovations operating within representative political systems. Smith notes that participatory institutions often function as consultative supplements to representative government rather than mechanisms of direct democratic control [24]. As a result, citizen influence may remain indirect and dependent on the willingness of political authorities to incorporate participatory outputs into decision-making processes.
The structure of the process also constrained popular control at the agenda-setting stage. Participants engaged with predefined policy goals and institutional frameworks established by organisers [13]. While they could express preferences within these parameters, they did not exercise meaningful control over how the policy problem itself was initially framed. This is significant because Smith identifies agenda-setting and problem definition as crucial dimensions of democratic control [24]. Public authorities retained substantial influence over which issues were included, how questions were structured, and which trade-offs participants were asked to evaluate.
Nevertheless, the process still achieved a moderate degree of popular control compared to more conventional public consultations. Citizens were encouraged to engage substantively with policymaking constraints and contribute detailed reasoning rather than merely express symbolic preferences. In this respect, the initiative moved beyond purely procedural participation toward more meaningful forms of public engagement.
Overall, however, the process remained fundamentally consultative. While it expanded opportunities for citizen input and political expression, ultimate authority over migration policymaking remained firmly within representative institutions.
Transparency
Transparency refers to the openness, visibility, and comprehensibility of a participatory process. Smith argues that democratic innovations should allow participants and the wider public to understand how participation is organised, how decisions are made, and how citizen input will influence political outcomes [25].
The Populytics initiative demonstrates relatively strong levels of procedural transparency. Participants were provided with detailed explanations regarding the structure and purpose of the survey, the methodology used, and the constraints under which policy decisions were being evaluated [9]. The process also clearly explained the functioning of the point allocation system and the rationale behind the PVE methodology [13]. These elements increased the accessibility and intelligibility of participation for residents.
Transparency was further strengthened through the publication of the final report, which openly documented participant demographics, methodological limitations, statistical weighting procedures, and substantive findings [10]. The report also acknowledged limitations relating to representativeness and self-selection bias [12], which contributes positively to the credibility of the research.
The inclusion of extensive qualitative responses additionally enhanced transparency by demonstrating how residents justified their preferences rather than simply reporting aggregate numerical outcomes [18]. This allowed the broader public to understand the reasoning underlying participant perspectives and the diversity of views within the municipality.
However, limitations remain regarding political transparency after the participation process itself. Although the initiative generated substantial public input, the extent to which policymakers would ultimately incorporate participant preferences into concrete political decisions remained less clear. Because the process was advisory rather than binding [11], residents possessed limited certainty regarding how their participation would affect actual policy outcomes.
Smith argues that democratic legitimacy requires not only transparent procedures within participatory institutions themselves, but also clarity regarding how those institutions interact with broader systems of political power [25]. In this case, while the process itself was relatively transparent, the relationship between citizen input and final policymaking authority remained more ambiguous.
Overall, the initiative demonstrates relatively strong procedural transparency while revealing ongoing tensions regarding the transparency of participatory influence within representative political systems.
Efficiency
Efficiency concerns whether democratic innovations generate meaningful outcomes without imposing excessive organisational, financial, or participatory burdens. Smith notes that participatory institutions must be assessed not only according to democratic ideals, but also according to their institutional feasibility and practical sustainability [26].
The digital structure of the Populytics process produced substantial efficiencies. More than 2,000 residents participated within a relatively short timeframe [11], demonstrating the scalability of online participation compared to more resource-intensive face-to-face deliberative processes. The digital format also enabled organisers to collect both quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously, generating a substantial evidence base while reducing many logistical barriers associated with physical meetings.
Participation itself was relatively accessible and time-efficient for residents. The PVE exercise was designed to place citizens “in the chair” of policymakers for approximately twenty minutes [9], allowing individuals to participate flexibly within their own schedules. This likely increased participation rates and reduced barriers associated with travel, childcare, or time commitments.
The process also generated a large amount of policy-relevant information in a structured format. Quantitative data identified broad trends and priorities, while qualitative responses provided insight into the reasoning behind participant views [18]. This combination enhanced the practical usefulness of the process for policymakers.
However, these efficiencies involved important trade-offs. The prioritisation of scalability and accessibility limited opportunities for sustained collective deliberation and interpersonal discussion. Face-to-face deliberative forums may produce deeper reflection and stronger interpersonal understanding, but they are also substantially more resource-intensive and difficult to scale.
The process therefore reflects a broader institutional trade-off frequently identified within democratic innovations: increasing inclusion and efficiency may reduce deliberative depth. In this case, the municipality prioritised broad participation and large-scale engagement over more intensive forms of collective discussion.
Overall, the initiative performed strongly in terms of efficiency. It enabled widespread citizen participation and generated substantial policy-relevant data within a manageable and scalable institutional framework.
Transferability
Transferability refers to the extent to which a democratic innovation can function effectively across different political, institutional, and social contexts. Smith argues that democratic innovations should be evaluated not only within their original setting, but also according to whether their design can be adapted elsewhere [27].
The Populytics process demonstrates several characteristics that support transferability. The digital structure of the participation model is highly scalable and can be adapted relatively easily to different municipalities, policy areas, or political contexts. The PVE methodology itself is also flexible, allowing organisers to modify policy scenarios, constraints, and objectives depending on the issue under consideration [9].
Importantly, the methodology has already been applied in multiple Dutch municipalities [9], suggesting that it possesses practical adaptability beyond the specific context of Sint-Michielsgestel. This strengthens the argument that the initiative represents a transferable model of digitally supported democratic participation rather than a purely context-specific experiment.
The process may also be particularly useful for highly contentious policy issues where governments seek large-scale citizen engagement while maintaining structured decision-making frameworks. Migration policy involves complex trade-offs and emotionally charged public debate, making it well suited to participation models that encourage reflection under conditions of constraint.
Nevertheless, contextual limitations remain important. Migration was already an exceptionally salient political issue within Sint-Michielsgestel due to controversy surrounding the proposed asylum reception centre. This likely increased participation levels and public engagement beyond what might occur under less politically contentious circumstances.
Furthermore, the success of similar initiatives elsewhere may depend heavily on institutional trust, political culture, digital infrastructure, and the willingness of authorities to genuinely engage with participatory outputs. In contexts characterised by lower trust or weaker administrative capacity, comparable processes may struggle to achieve similar levels of legitimacy or participation.
Overall, the initiative demonstrates a relatively high degree of methodological transferability while also illustrating the importance of political and social context in shaping participatory outcome.
Lessons Learned
The Populytics migration participation process demonstrates both the strengths and limitations of digitally supported democratic innovations. The initiative successfully combined large-scale participation with structured policymaking engagement, encouraging citizens to engage with policy complexity rather than simply express isolated preferences.
At the same time, the case highlights several central tensions within participatory governance. Efforts to maximise inclusion and efficiency constrained opportunities for deeper collective deliberation, while the advisory nature of the process limited direct citizen control over final policy outcomes. The initiative therefore reflects broader institutional trade-offs frequently identified within democratic innovation literature.
Nevertheless, the process demonstrates that digital participation can contribute meaningfully to policymaking on highly contentious issues such as migration, particularly when participation is structured around realistic policy trade-offs rather than symbolic consultation alone. By generating both quantitative and qualitative evidence regarding public priorities, concerns, and reasoning, the initiative provided policymakers with a more nuanced understanding of local attitudes than would likely emerge through conventional public consultation methods.
Overall, the Populytics initiative can be understood as a relatively successful democratic innovation that expanded opportunities for public participation within representative democratic systems while also revealing the institutional and practical limits that continue to shape citizen influence over migration policymaking.
See Also
References
[1] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 5.
[2] Mouter, N., de Geest, A. and Doorn, N. (2021) Participatory Value Evaluation: A method for involving citizens in decision-making. Transport Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1834527
[3] CBS – Immigration statistics.
[4] CBS – Dutch population growth data.
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2026/06/population-growth-slows-for-third-consecutive-year
[5] CBS – Population origin statistics.
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/visualisations/dashboard-population/origin
[6] CBS – Asylum application statistics.
[7] Quinn, S. (2022) Forced Migration: Evidence and Policy Challenges. Oxford Review of Economic Policy.
https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article/38/3/403/6701695
[8] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 2.
[9] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 11.
[10] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 12
[11] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 9.
[12] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 13.
[13] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, pp. 27–29.
[14] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, pp. 29–30.
[15] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 16.
[16] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, pp. 17–18.
[17] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 7.
[18] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, pp. 23–24.
[19mn] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, p. 25.
[20] Populytics, Results of a Survey Among Residents on the Broad Theme of Migration, pp. 19–20.
[21] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press, pp. 12–13.
[22] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press, pp. 20–22.
[23] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press, pp. 24–25.
[24] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press, pp. 22–24.
[25] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–26.
[26] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. p. 26.
[27] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. pp. 26–27.
