In 2020, Brighton and Hove City Council commissioned Ipsos Mori to hold a climate assembly focused on reducing carbon emissions from transportation. The overall aim of this is to bring Brighton and Hove closer to meeting their goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.
Problems and Purpose
The purpose of the citizens’ assembly on climate change was for the Brighton and Hove City Council to gain insight into the necessary measures to reach its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030. The assembly was tasked with looking specifically at reducing the carbon footprint of transport in the city. The outcomes of the assembly were to be used to formulate future policies such as the Carbon Neutral programme.[i] This policy is to be set out fully later in 2021.
Background History and Context
In the past decade, Brighton and Hove has become a city that is recognised for its environmentally conscious values and sustainable approach to governing. The voting decisions of the Brighton and Hove electorate best demonstrate these liberal views. From 2011 to 2015, Brighton and Hove were the first Green-led authority in the UK. From 2010 to 2017, Brighton was also home to the only Green party member of Parliament.[ii] This voting behaviour laid the foundations for Brighton and Hove to be the flag-bearer for the UK in the fight against climate change.
In 2013, the city became the world’s first designated, ‘One Planet Living City’. This was the understanding that Brighton would use a sustainable and equitable share of Earth’s resources.[iii] In 2014, the wider city region of Brighton became the world’s first UNESCO Biosphere reserve to encompass a wide area. This formally defined the area as a learning site for sustainable development.[iv] More recently in December 2018, Brighton and Hove city council declared a Climate and Biodiversity Emergency. With this, there was also the broader commitment for the city to become carbon neutral by 2030.[v] In 2019, councillors from both the Green and the Labour parties pledged to create the cities first citizen assembly on the topic of climate change.[vi]
Due to the coronavirus pandemic of 2020, the citizens’ assembly was initially delayed. However, due to the severity of the growing climate crisis, the Brighton and Hove city council felt that it was imperative that Ipsos Mori should overcome the obstacles of COVID-19 and run the assembly as soon as possible. With this, the Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly ran in the later months of 2020, between September and November. Consequently, this was the first citizens’ assembly to run completely online in the UK.[vii]
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
Brighton and Hove city council funded the citizens’ assembly. The council commissioned the organization, Ipsos Mori, to create and run the citizens’ assembly. Ipsos Mori is a global leader in market research and has had previous experience running a similar citizens assembly on climate change in 2019 in Oxford.[viii] From the event, Ipsos Mori has published a technical report and findings report that can be used by Brighton and Hove city council to help guide the formulation of future policy.[ix]
To provide checks and challenges within the event, an advisory board made up of 15 volunteer experts was established. The board consisted of scholars, councillors, activists, and employees of organisations (Involve) that have experience in supporting many deliberative events.[x] They helped with the formulation of the event, suggesting expert speakers and contributing to the planning of materials.[xi] To ensure that the assembly was being managed effectively, the advisory board met five times between July and December of 2020.[xii]
The Sortition Foundation led the recruitment process for participants for the assembly. This was based on the various demographics of the Brighton and Hove population. The Sortition Foundation has been responsible for the recruitment of representative samples for many citizen assemblies across the UK.[xiii]
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The Sortition Foundation completed a process of stratified random sampling to recruit the participants for the assembly. To create a sample that was representative of the Brighton and Hove population, the selection criteria for recruitment was based upon gender, age, ethnicity, long term illness or disability, occupation, car ownership, and the area of the city that an individual lived. On this basis, 10,000 invitations were sent across the city. Of these invitations, 702 applications were received. From these applications, the Sortition Foundation ran a randomised process, selecting 50 people who best fit the demographic quotas.[xiv]
Within the selection process, the assembly oversampled for participants from ethnic minority groups. This was to ensure that their voices were properly heard throughout the event and to guarantee that they felt comfortable enough to make their opinions known. This led to 20% of the assembly being from BAME communities, almost doubling the real population figure of 11% within the Brighton and Hove population.[xv]
For their commitments and time dedicated to the event, each participant was paid £250. This ensured that a more diverse range of people, such as those from low-income backgrounds, could take part in the event.[xvi]
Methods and Tools Used
The method used in this deliberative event was the citizens’ assembly.[xvii] This citizens' assembly involved 50 participants from Brighton and Hove. The motivation behind the event was for the city council of Brighton and Hove to gain an understanding as to how they could make transport services work for everybody in the city, whilst reducing carbon emissions and addressing the climate emergency.[xviii]
Despite the event being moved completely online, Ipsos Mori attempted to run the event in a similar manner that would be expected of a face-to-face citizens assembly like the Climate Assembly UK.[xix] Participants were given relevant information to help guide the discussions of each sessions. They were put into smaller groups where they were encouraged to deliberate further about key issues. The desired outcome of the assembly was to produce policy recommendations that are necessary to effectively begin the fight against climate change in the city. Representatives from Ipsos Mori analysed the output from the sessions to compile a list of key recommendations. To ensure participant involvement in its output, the event ran prioritisation and appraisal exercises for the assembly members to identify which issues were deemed the most impactful and necessary by the participants.[xx]
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly operated through five online sessions between late September and early November. Sessions were three hours long, with each having a theme that drove discussion and deliberation. Before each session, Ipsos Mori provided each assembly member with resource packs. Within them was information that helped to give participants a general understanding of the key issues that would be discussed in the forthcoming session.[xxi]
In each session, participants watched several presentations from expert speakers. Like the resource packs, these were used to help build understanding and to create discussion.[xxii] After the presentations, assembly members would then be split into smaller groups. This was achieved online by using breakout rooms. In each discussion period, ten breakout rooms were formed, consisting of five members each. For each of the five sessions, the makeup of each breakout room changed. As well as this, the groups were made deliberately to vary in terms of age and gender.[xxiii] This ensured a consistent diversity in opinion and discussion.
Each breakout room had a moderator from Ipsos Mori and a professional note-taker. To maintain a healthy and balanced discussion, these moderators used a discussion guide that they used to structure conversations.[xxiv] Many of these breakout rooms also contained an observer. This was somebody who was either staff of the event, a councillor from Brighton and Hove city council, or a member of the advisory board.[xxv] Observers helped to maintain the integrity of the event and the discussions. They did not participate but could later relay feedback to the Ipsos Mori team. To ensure that they caused as little distraction as possible, their camera and microphones were always turned off.[xxvi]
Each session followed a similar structure. Within the discussions of each session, participants were encouraged to think of potential policy recommendations to overcome climate issues. As well as this, assembly members were asked to discuss potential methods to ensure that these recommendations are presented effectively and that they receive a high uptake from the wider population of Brighton and Hove.[xxvii]
The first session of the citizens’ assembly worked as an introduction. In this, participants were introduced to one another and given a detailed explanation as to how the processes of the event will work. This session consisted of four presentations covering the issues of climate change and transport followed by small group discussions.[xxviii]
The second and third sessions were the core learning sessions of the event. These covered the topics of public transport, car use, active travel, accessibility, and inclusion. Again, participants were given four presentations about these respective topics, followed by further discussion.
The fourth and fifth sessions were mostly reflective events that were used to facilitate the creation of formal recommendations for the assembly.
The fourth session consisted of two presentations that focused on behaviour change, followed by a discussion and Q&A session.[xxix] Although ideas of how to change public behaviour had been discussed in previous sessions, this session looked to cement the ideas of the assembly members.
To ensure the behaviour change of the citizens of Brighton and Hove, Ipsos Mori analysed the assembly’s recommendations by using their MAPPS behavioural framework.[xxx] This framework works as a guide to changing human behaviour. Consequently, it was used to enable a more in-depth explanation as to how to reduce personal car use in favour of public transport and active travel.[xxxi] With MAPPS, the Ipsos Mori team have strongly advised the Brighton and Hove council as to how they can gain greater compliance with the assembly’s policy recommendations.
The fifth session concluded the event. By using the output of the previous four sessions, Ipsos Mori compiled all the recommendations from the assembly to create a list of ten key recommendations that should be undertaken by the Brighton and Hove City Council. This session ran mostly to consolidate the output of the event, with each breakout group given the responsibility of editing one recommendation so that it better reflected the views of the assembly.[xxxii] To ensure that all members views were taken into account, each participant was also asked to score each recommendation from 1 to 5 in terms of the impact they believed it would have in reducing transport-related carbon emissions. After this, participants were also asked to rank the recommendations in order of importance.[xxxiii]
Using this exercise, the recommendations were then put into an order of importance that best reflected the views of the assembly. However, the assembly stressed that all ten of these recommendations must be taken up together to ensure that Brighton and Hove effectively tackle carbon emissions from transport. Accompanying these recommendations is guidance helping to ensure that these recommendations receive support from the citizens of Brighton and Hove. This output was compiled into the findings report made by the staff of Ipsos Mori.[xxxiv] These findings will then be used to help guide the decision making of the Brighton and Hove city council in future.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
This section of analysis corresponds with the framework of analysis outlined by Graham Smith (2009) in ‘Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation’.[xxxv]
Inclusiveness
An important feature that ensured inclusivity in the Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly was the random stratified sampling method to recruit participants. The citizens’ assembly cannot reach perfect levels of randomisation mostly because citizens have no obligation to participate.[xxxvi] However, it is never the intention of citizen assemblies to have completely random sampling.[xxxvii] Instead, to achieve a higher level of inclusivity, the assembly undertakes stratified sampling to ensure that the voices of marginalised groups are heard.[xxxviii] This was demonstrated by the oversampling of ethnic minorities in this event. This certified that the views of those from BAME communities would not be overlooked in the outcomes of the event. As well as this, it also ensured that they would have the confidence to speak up in an Assembly setting.[xxxix]
A key feature of the Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly, which is also a hallmark of all citizens assemblies, was the use of small group discussion. The use and variance of these groups is vital in motivating discussion and giving participants a greater understanding of different people’s views.[xl]
A potential undermining factor of inclusivity in citizens assemblies is that discussion can be dominated by the ‘skilled and charismatic’.[xli] To overcome this, the Brighton and Hove Citizens Assembly used moderators in all of the breakout rooms to guide a healthy discussion. To maintain that their discussion was also not tainted by bias, each moderator used discussion guides.[xlii] This in turn helped to create a structured environment with clear processes to maintain inclusivity throughout the event and in its outcomes.[xliii]
Popular Control
It is often the case that citizens assemblies lack the authority to shape the political agenda.[xliv] On the contrary, the Brighton and Hove citizens assembly had support from local authorities throughout the event. This was initially shown by the council itself commissioning Ipsos Mori to run the event.[xlv] As well, an open letter sent by the city council to the assembly members highlights the council’s support,[xlvi] demonstrating the clear intent of the Brighton and Hove council to work through the assembly's recommendations.
After the assembly, this level of support continued. This is shown by the Climate Assembly recommendations shaping several policies such as the 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme, the Local Transport Plan, and the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.[xlvii] In turn, it illustrates the clear empowerment of the participants of the citizens’ assembly.
Considered Judgement
Citizens' assemblies are regarded as effective in delivering considered judgement to their participants. This is primarily due to the variance in views that are heard through using small group discussions and random stratified sampling.[xlviii] However, the findings report of the Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly fails to cover whether there were real changes made in the ideas of individuals.[xlix] Despite this, the last two sessions of the event were dedicated to the creation and analysis of recommendations. This exercise in itself highlights a clear attempt for participants to achieve considered judgment.
Transparency
The Brighton and Hove council and Ipsos Mori made efforts to ensure that the processes and outcomes of the citizens’ assembly were transparent. This is shown through the climate assembly homepage on the city council’s website, coupled with the findings and technical reports produced by Ipsos Mori.[l] These sources lay out the proceedings and outcomes of the event with clarity.
However, the impact of these reports on the wider public is unclear. Due to the Citizens' Assembly initiating a local response to climate change, the media coverage of the event has been somewhat limited. This is seen in the fact that the only real media coverage that the assembly received was from local news outlets such as the Argus.[li] This slightly hinders the level of transparency of the event, because it is indistinguishable how many citizens in Brighton and Hove are aware of the assembly and its outcomes. Ultimately, this is a problem because in previous events such as the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, the more people knew about the event, the more likely they were to trust and support its outcomes.[lii]
Efficiency
There is no public information that discloses the total financial cost of the Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly.
In terms of personal costs, the Brighton and Hove citizens assembly is arguably less burdensome than other historic citizens assemblies. The British Columbia Citizens Assembly, for example, took place over the span of a year.[liii] In comparison, the Brighton and Hove assembly took place over five weekends, with three-hour sessions. This suggests that this assembly has been more efficient than those that have taken place before it. However, participation in any citizens' assembly does require time and energy.
Transferability
There is ample evidence to suggest that the processes of the Brighton and Hove climate assembly are greatly transferable. This is demonstrated by Ipsos Mori implementing a similar citizens assembly on climate change in Oxford.[liv] These methods have also been applied on a broader scale. This is shown through the ‘Climate Assembly’ which looked at recommendations for hitting net-zero carbon emissions throughout the entirety of the UK.[lv]
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Within the literature regarding citizens assemblies and deliberative events, there is concern that external actors can influence the opinions of participants. If this occurs, participants can no longer be said to represent the public.[lvi] With the event in Brighton and Hove being completely online, this meant there could be greater control of these potential influences. For example, observers had their microphones and cameras turned off at all times.[lvii] This ensured that they could not influence the proceedings of the event, which is a feature that is unique to online events. With this success, it could be beneficial if future events had some online participation integrated into face-to-face assemblies.
The Brighton and Hove citizens' assembly can also be praised for its decision to offer financial incentives for participation. Historically, financial incentives have been found to prevent a high turnover rate of participants in these deliberative events. This was shown in the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly which paid its members for their participation.[lviii] In contrast, the Irish Citizens' Assembly of 2016 did not offer financial incentives, leading to a high turnover of participants.[lix] The positive results were replicated in the Brighton and Hove citizens assembly, as financial incentives prompted full participation.[lx]
In comparison to other Climate Assemblies, it can be argued that the sampling of the Brighton and Hove assembly failed to take some individual biases into account. This could have led to its recommendations being more extreme. This is highlighted by the Climate Assembly UK. This event had an additional sampling category for participant’s ‘Attitudes to Climate Change’.[lxi] With this, the event ensured that members of the assembly had a diverse set of views regarding the current climate crisis. In contrast, the Brighton and Hove assembly did not sample for these differences between participants. Consequently, there can be concerns that the Brighton and Hove assembly lacked enough diversity in opinion to be able to produce fully representative policy recommendations. Although there is no direct evidence to show this, this could suggest that there was a certain level of bias within the Brighton and Hove assembly. This, in turn, would ultimately lead to more extreme outcomes.
Within the findings report for the assembly, there is no explicit section that communicates participant satisfaction.[lxii] However, after the event, the Ipsos Mori team ran an exercise asking participants to write a letter to themselves, 30 years in the future to discuss the impacts of the Assembly on Brighton and Hove. These can be found within the appendix of the report. For the most part, these letters are positive.[lxiii] Despite this, one letter stands out amongst the rest. This letter comes from an unnamed participant who highlights that they suffer from a disability that makes travelling difficult.[lxiv] In their assessment, they discuss that the impacts of the assembly have been positive in terms of helping the climate, but people with ‘disabilities have been pushed aside and forgotten’.[lxv] Ultimately, despite its efforts to ensure inclusivity, this response suggests that not all of the views within the assembly have been listened to. Instead, it touches upon the assembly’s potential to cause further exclusion of under-represented groups from society.
The participants of the Brighton and Hove citizens assembly placed importance in the messaging of the assembly. In this, they expected Ipsos Mori to highlight what is being gained rather than what is being lost by the recommendations.[lxvi] This would mean to stress a ‘clean air zone’, rather than a ‘car-free city centre’. Despite this, there is evidence to suggest that this messaging has not been successful. In an opinion piece, a Brighton and Hove resident shows concern and apathy over the idea of a ‘car-free city centre’, suggesting that it is a ‘fantasy’.[lxvii] This not only suggests that the messaging of the assembly has failed, but also that the assembly has not been able to change the behaviour of the wider population of Brighton and Hove.
The Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly highlights the changing methodology of citizens' assemblies. Within the literature, the number of participants and the time required to run a citizens’ assembly has differed over time. Setala and Smith categorize a citizens’ assembly as having 99 to 150 participants, taking place over a series of weekends.[lxviii] In contrast to this, Lacelle-Webster and Warren categorize citizens’ assemblies as having 40 or more participants, spanning from two weekends to a year.[lxix] With this, the Brighton and Hove Assembly sits in between the two of these definitions. Consequently, this illustrates how the methodology of citizens assemblies has become somewhat clouded in recent years, with the term ‘citizens’ assembly’ being applied to many more events.
See Also
Oxford Citizens' Assembly on Climate Change
British Columbia Citizens' Assembly
References
[i] Brighton & Hove City Council (2021), ‘2030 Carbon Neutral Programme (DRAFT)’. <https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s163600/2030%20Carbon%20Neutral...>.
[ii] Franziska Ehnert et al. (2018) ‘The Acceleration of Urban Sustainability Transitions: A Comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm’, Sustainability, 10.3, p.5. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612>.
[iii] Franziska Ehnert et al. (2018), p.5.
[iv] Franziska Ehnert et al. (2018), p.5.
[v] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p.6. <https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2021-02/20-000391-01_brighton_assembly_report_public.pdf>.
[vi] Hannah Clare. (2019) ‘New Green Leadership Team Unveil Pledge to the City’, Brighton & Hove Green Party. <https://www.brightonhovegreens.org/2019/05/12/new-green-leadership-team-unveil-pledge-to-the-city%EF%BB%BF/>.
[vii] Paul Carroll and others. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’. Ipsos MORI, p.4.
[viii] Ipsos MORI. (2020) ‘Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change’. <https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/oxford-citizens-assembly-climate-change>.
[ix] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p. 4; Paul Carroll and others. (2020b) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Technical Report’, Ipsos MORI. <https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2021-02/20-000391-01_brighton_assembly_technical_report_public.pdf>.
[x] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p.6.
[xi] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.6.
[xii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.6.
[xiii] Sortition Foundation. (2021) ‘Let’s Do Democracy Differently’. <https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/>.
[xiv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p.6.
[xv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.7.
[xvi] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.7.
[xvii] See Citizens Assembly Method here - https://participedia.net/method/4258
[xviii] Brighton & Hove City Council. (2020) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Report, Response and next Steps’. <https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/brighton-hove-climate-assembly/report-response-and-next-steps>.
[xix] See the case here - https://participedia.net/case/6080.
[xx] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p.48.
[xxi] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.51
[xxii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a).
[xxiii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.8.
[xxiv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.8.
[xxv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.8.
[xxvi] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.8.
[xxvii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), pp.16-41.
[xxviii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.16.
[xxix] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.35.
[xxx] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.51
[xxxi] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.51.
[xxxii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.41.
[xxxiii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.41.
[xxxiv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a).
[xxxv] Graham Smith. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
[xxxvi] Graham Smith. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 78.
[xxxvii] Graham Smith. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 78.
[xxxviii] David M. Farrell and others. (2020) ‘Sortition and Mini-Publics: A Different Kind of Representation’, in The Oxford Handbook of Representation in Liberal Democracies, Oxford, Oxford University Press. <https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198825081.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198825081-e-11>.
[xxxix] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p. 7.
[xl] Graham Smith. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 83.
[xli] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p. 84.
[xlii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020b) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Technical Report’, Ipsos MORI, p. 19.
[xliii] Graham Smith. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 83.
[xliv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.87.
[xlv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p. 4.
[xlvi] Phelim Mac Cafferty, Nancy Platts, and Samer Bagaeen. (2021) ‘An Open Letter to the Members of the Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly’. <https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/open-letter-members-brighton-hove-climate-assembly>.
[xlvii] Brighton & Hove City Council. (2020) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Report, Response and next Steps’; Phelim Mac Cafferty, Nancy Platts, and Samer Bagaeen. (2021) ‘An Open Letter to the Members of the Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly’; Brighton & Hove City Council (2021), ‘2030 Carbon Neutral Programme (DRAFT)’.
[xlviii] Graham Smith. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 91.
[xlix] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI.
[l] Brighton & Hove City Council. (2020b) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - What the Climate Assembly Was’. <https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/brighton-hove-climate-assembly>; Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI; Paul Carroll and others. (2020b) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Technical Report’, Ipsos MORI.
[li] Jody Doherty-Cove. (2021) ‘Brighton and Hove’s Plan to Reduce City’s Carbon Emissions’, The Argus. <https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19162838.brighton-hoves-plan-reduce-citys-carbon-emissions/>.
[lii] Antonin Lacelle-Webster and Mark E. Warren. (2021) ‘Citizens Assemblies and Democracy’, in Oxford Encyclopaedia of Politics, Oxford University Press, p.3. <https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1975>.
[liii] Graham Smith. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
[liv] Ipsos MORI. (2020) ‘Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change’.
[lv] Climate Assembly UK. (2020) ‘The Path to Net Zero’. <https://www.climateassembly.uk/>.
[lvi] Patrick Fournier et al. (2011) ‘Did the Participants Decide for Themselves?’, in When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizens Assemblies on Electoral Reform, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Chapter 6.
[lvii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p.8.
[lviii] Antonin Lacelle-Webster and Mark E. Warren. (2021) ‘Citizens Assemblies and Democracy’, in Oxford Encyclopaedia of Politics, Oxford University Press.
[lix] Antonin Lacelle-Webster and Mark E. Warren. (2021), p.7.
[lx] Antonin Lacelle-Webster and Mark E. Warren. (2021), p.7.
[lxi] Climate Assembly UK. (2020) ‘Who Took Part?’. <https://www.climateassembly.uk/detail/recruitment/>.
[lxii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI.
[lxiii] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a) ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, pp.58-82.
[lxiv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.64.
[lxv] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), p.64.
[lxvi] Paul Carroll et al. (2020a), ‘Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly - Findings Report’, Ipsos MORI, p.35.
[lxvii] Richard J Szypulski. (2021) ‘Brighton City Centre Will Not Be Car-Free’, The Argus, Letters to the Argus edition <https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19007358.brighton-city-centre-will-not-car-free/>.
[lxviii] Maija Setala and Graham Smith. (2018) ‘Mini-Publics and Deliberative Democracy’, in The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. by Andre Bachtiger and others, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 300–344.
[lxix] Antonin Lacelle-Webster and Mark E. Warren. (2021) ‘Citizens Assemblies and Democracy’, in Oxford Encyclopaedia of Politics, Oxford University Press, p.3.