Data

General Issues
Environment
Health
Energy
Specific Topics
Air Quality
Climate Change
Collections
OECD Project on Representative Deliberative Processes
The POLITICIZE Project on Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield
England
United Kingdom
Scope of Influence
National
Links
Report on the Citizens’ Jury on Air Quality
OECD Project Page for Innovative Citizen Participation
The POLITICIZE Project
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Approach
Consultation
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
22
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Recruit or select participants
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Citizens' Jury
Deliberation
Legality
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Listen/Watch as Spectator
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
General Agreement/Consensus
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Type of Organizer/Manager
For-Profit Business
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
Formal Evaluation
Yes
Evaluation Report Documents
Final Report on the Citizens’ Jury on Air Quality

CASE

UK Citizens' Jury on Air Quality

General Issues
Environment
Health
Energy
Specific Topics
Air Quality
Climate Change
Collections
OECD Project on Representative Deliberative Processes
The POLITICIZE Project on Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield
England
United Kingdom
Scope of Influence
National
Links
Report on the Citizens’ Jury on Air Quality
OECD Project Page for Innovative Citizen Participation
The POLITICIZE Project
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Approach
Consultation
Spectrum of Public Participation
Consult
Total Number of Participants
22
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Recruit or select participants
Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations
Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Citizens' Jury
Deliberation
Legality
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Listen/Watch as Spectator
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
General Agreement/Consensus
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Type of Organizer/Manager
For-Profit Business
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
Formal Evaluation
Yes
Evaluation Report Documents
Final Report on the Citizens’ Jury on Air Quality

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. [1]

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. [1]

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. [1]

Methods and Tools Used

Citizens' Jury

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. [1]

"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. [2]

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Want to contribute an analysis of this initiative? Help us complete this section!

See Also

References

[1] Paulis, Emilien; Pilet, Jean-Benoit; Panel, Sophie; Vittori, Davide; Close, Caroline, 2020, "POLITICIZE Dataset", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z7X6GT, Harvard Dataverse, V1

[2] 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

External Links

Notes

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.