Across three hearings from December 2005 to January 2006, the 22 members of the Citizens' Jury on Air Quality—which was established by Defra—investigated public views on air quality.
Problems and Purpose
The Department of Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) established a citizens' jury to investigate public views on air quality. Twenty-two jurors from a 12-mile radius of Sutton Coldfield were randomly recruited by telephone to criteria set out in a recruitment questionnaire. The recommendations were designed to inform the Department of Food and Rural Affairs’ clean air policy. 
Background History and Context
Know what events led up to this initiative? Help us complete this section!
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The citizens’ jury was managed, designed and delivered by People Science & Policy Ltd, closely following the method designed by the Jefferson Center. 
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Twenty-two jurors from a 12 mile radius of Sutton Coldfield were randomly recruited by telephone, selected according to criteria set out in a recruitment questionnaire. It was ensured that individuals with asthma, coronary and pulmonary obstructive diseases were included. Car use was also a selection criteria as well as ethnicity. 
Methods and Tools Used
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Know how people participated or what public interaction looked like? Help us complete this section!
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
At the end of the final day, the jury nominated a representative to present their recommendations and conclusions to the Defra project manager, who responded briefly. A report was also written by People Science & Policy Ltd and circulated to the jurors for comment. Defra wanted to gain an understanding of public values, as well as to receive the jurors’ final conclusions. In addition, Defra wanted to gain an understanding of how and why views change. Hence the report includes sections that discuss these issues using a qualitative research framework. Nevertheless, the final recommendations are clearly recognizable as the jurors’ and not the interpretation of the facilitators. 
"The Defra representative responded that she was pleased to receive such a comprehensive set of ideas and that all would be considered. She did however, make the point that there could be no guarantees that all the ideas would be taken forward by Defra. For example, some may be impractical following further thought and development. Others may fall outside Defra’s remit, although the Department would pass on relevant ideas to other responsible organisations. She confirmed that part of her role was to ensure that the recommendations and final report were widely circulated within Defra to ensure that they were considered by the appropriate people." The report indicates that the government did not pursue the recommendations or follow their logic. 
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Want to contribute an analysis of this initiative? Help us complete this section!
 Paulis, Emilien; Pilet, Jean-Benoit; Panel, Sophie; Vittori, Davide; Close, Caroline, 2020, "POLITICIZE Dataset", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z7X6GT, Harvard Dataverse, V1
 People Science & Policy Ltd. (2006). Articulating public values in environmental policy development: Report on the Citizens’ Jury on Air Quality. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/0711011358_citizensjury-finalreport.pdf, p. 22
This entry is based on:
- Paulis, Emilien; Pilet, Jean-Benoit; Panel, Sophie; Vittori, Davide; Close, Caroline, 2020, "POLITICIZE Dataset", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z7X6GT, Harvard Dataverse, V1
- Pilet J-B, Paulis E, Panel S., Vitori D & Close C. 202X The POLITICIZE Dataset: an inventory of Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe. European Political Science.
- Data was sourced from OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.