Problems and Purpose

Iceland’s central highlands have for a long time been endangered due to deforestation and continuing soil erosion, partly caused by historical land use practices such as sheep grazing and wood harvesting [1]. While revegetation efforts in the lowlands have been successful, the highlands remain vulnerable [2]. The growing number of stakeholders—farmers, environmental groups, municipalities, and the energy and tourism industries—has created conflicts over land use priorities [3].

The case study’s aim was to develop participatory approaches for more comprehensive policy-making on land use in the highlands. A citizen jury was convened to deliberate on sustainable land reclamation and ecosystem restoration in the highlands, seeking to balance environmental, social, and economic interests. Through a series of five questions, the jury assessed key factors for effective birch forest restoration, community involvement, and land use practices that support conservation and composed a policy recommendation, which were submitted to Land and Forest—Iceland's forestry and soil conservation agency—and to the Prime Minster Office (PMO).

Background History and Context

Every child in Iceland learns the story of how the settlers who arrived on the uninhabited island in the 9th century found a land “grown with forest between mountain and shore.” This phrase comes from a medieval text but does not reflect modern conditions. Until the late 20th century, Iceland lost most of its lowland birch forests and much of its vegetation, particularly in the central highlands. Deforestation and soil erosion have two main causes: the use of birch for heating,sheep grazing and the transformation of land to make it suitable for agriculture [4]. In the first decade of the 20th century, Icelandic authorities regarded erosion as one of the country’s most significant problems. Since then, revegetation and reforestation have been national priorities, achieving considerable success, especially in lower areas [1]. However, the central highlands remain endangered, and with increasing demands for diverse land use, conflicts between stakeholders have further complicated the situation.

For the last 25 years, the national government of Iceland has established public ownership over most of the central highlands based on Act 65/2000 on Public Lands [5]. Public ownership means that the government manages the land, though limited private ownership rights also exist, particularly concerning traditional land use such as sheep grazing. The case study was conducted in cooperation with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), which is currently responsible for public land governance, together with the municipalities. The PMO sought to explore new policy-making approaches with greater public engagement, addressing the general question of land use in the highlands.

The scope of case study looks at Iceland’s central highlands, focusing on the public lands (areas directly governed by the PMO). It seeks to create a policy-making process on land-use and public land governance that respects the roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups and municipalities while at the same time supporting the agenda of revegetation and ecological restoration.

There have been several public engagement experiments in Iceland in recent decades [6] [7]. The largest such process was organized around a constitutional revision effort in 2011-2013 [8]. It involved a national meeting of 950 citizens selected through sortition, an elected constituent assembly – later transformed into a so-called constitutional council which created a draft constitutional bill with considerable input from citizens via social media and direct proposals. The draft which was never completed and ratified came to be internationally known as “the crowdsourced constitution”. Various less high profile engagement and consultations processes have been introduced at the local level, including a small participatory budgeting exercise which the city of Reykjavík has run for one and a half decades.

Although revegetation of the central highlands is not a controversial issue, there are significant disagreements among stakeholders about what this goal should entail and how national and municipal authorities should collaborate to achieve it. The most contentious issue is the continued practice of moving thousands of sheep to vulnerable highland areas for summer grazing [9] [1]. This tradition is deeply embedded in Icelandic culture and plays an important role in the country’s meat production, as lambs grazing in the mountains over the summer produce high-quality meat that is also a source of national pride. Energy production has also transformed parts of the highlands, with the construction of large hydroelectric plants that supply power to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminium production and, more recently, data centres, including cryptocurrency mining [10] [11]. Additionally, Iceland’s growing popularity as a tourist destination has significantly increased human activity in the highlands, leading to pressure from private actors and municipalities to develop more infrastructure for outdoor recreation [12].

The increasing number of stakeholders, along with public expectations and disputes over the profitable use of Iceland’s vast, uninhabited highlands, has created an urgent need for improved policy-making. The challenge lies in balancing economic land use with environmental protection and gradual revegetation. One of the most serious controversies concerns sheep farming, which has been a cornerstone of Icelandic national identity for centuries. Traditional farming practices and the preservation of the unique Icelandic ovine population hold deep cultural significance [13]. Although the economic importance of sheep farming has declined in recent years, farming communities remain influential, and municipalities see it as their duty to protect farmers. This has led to frequent conflicts between farming communities and environmental organizations, both governmental and non-governmental.

To navigate this complex situation the Icelandic pilot was designed as a two-layered approach. With the support of the PMO, three large rural municipalities participated in an experiment using a shared consultation platform called the Land Use Game. Citizens were invited to access the platform, where they could interact with an interactive map and game sequence that allowed them to mark their land use preferences. They also had the opportunity to explain their choices and view explanations provided by other participants.

The three municipalities played a key role in shaping the recruitment process for a supporting commission of citizens tasked with exploring ways to ensure broad and inclusive public engagement in shaping future land-use policy for public lands in the Central Highlands, known as the Territorial Commission of Co-Design (TCCD). Due to concerns about open participation—particularly the risk of the process being dominated by activist groups—the municipal boards chose to appoint the TCCD members directly. Although this solution was not optimal, after careful consultation about the nature of the task (the TCCD was to suggest a process, not directly influence policy-making as such) the project team and the municipalities found a common understanding on the task of the representatives appointed. While this approach helped build local trust, it also highlighted ongoing challenges related to inclusion and revealed deeper tensions between rural communities and perceived urban elites.

The Prime Minister, who had been involved personally is discussing and designing the process, resigned before the TCCD completed its task. The new Prime Minister did not share the enthusiasm of his predecessor about the project. Therefore, the team made the decision in the spring of 2024 to scale down the national case-study project and seek cooperation with the University of Iceland (UI) and the Agricultural University of Iceland (AUI) to create a citizen jury. This form of deliberative mini-public that has not been used for policy-making purposes in Iceland before.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Citizen’s Jury was organized by the project team in cooperation with the Departments of Cultural Studies and Geography at the University of Iceland and the Department of Planning at the Agricultural University of Iceland.

The University of Iceland provided academic support, as well as granting additional funding for further development, and offered expert consultation during the consultation phase of the citizen jury process. The Agricultural University of Iceland provided accommodation for the deliberation process and expert consultation as well.

The PMO and Iceland's forestry and soil conservation agency, Land og Skógar, were the receiving institutions of the Citizen’s Jury’s outputs in the form of policy recommendations. Additionally, the PMO, along with three participating municipalities, supported the TCCD. The PMO contributed a three-month, 50% salary to the project team for coordinating work related to the TCCD.

Finally, an advisory board was established, consisting of one member from the TCCD and representatives from the University of Iceland, the Agricultural University of Iceland and Iceland's forestry and soil conservation agency. Their role was to provide guidance on the Citizen Jury process and advise on the topics addressed and knowledge provided to the jury members.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Considering the circumstances, a citizen jury format was developed open to the participation of students from any department at the University of Iceland and the Agricultural University of Iceland. The recruitment of citizen jury members through Icelandic universities was guided by several strengths: universities are among the most trusted institutions in Iceland, and their student populations reflect the broader society in terms of age, gender, and regional background—making them both credible and representative. In addition, universities provide a practical and well-organized setting for coordination, supported by different communication and organization tools. Students also bring diverse academic perspectives and a strong interest in future-oriented issues like land use and conservation. Additionally, their participation supports the core TCCD principle of trust while ensuring that the citizen jury process is inclusive, informed, and future generation orientated.

For the recruitment process the university's course system (the CANVAS course platform) was used, where graduate and undergraduate students were encouraged to register for 3 credits in a month-long project. The group was provided with a list of readings covering relevant issues in biology, ecology, planning, environmental philosophy, land administration, and forestation. Online interviews were conducted with relevant experts.

Participation in the citizen jury was open to all graduate students at the university and undergraduates who had completed 90 ECTS or more. To participate, students signed up for a course through which preparation was conducted, a field trip was organized, and a final deliberative meeting (in person) was held. Students received 3 credits for their participation, but it was up to their departments to decide whether these credits were evaluated in their programs. There was cooperation at the faculty level between the departments of Cultural Studies (UI), Geography (UI), and Planning (AUI). Students who registered came from a wide range of disciplines, including Philosophy and an MA program in Environment and Natural Resources. The jury consisted of 10 participants, with a 50% male/female ratio, ages ranging from 26 to 58, and a residence split of around 2/3 urban and 1/3 rural.

The jury drafted recommendations based on a set of questions created in cooperation with the advisory group. The recommendations included that government policy on highland use should prioritize sustainable practices developed through extensive consultation and cooperation with economic partners. It was emphasized that the land is entrusted to us by future generations and should, therefore, be preserved and returned in an acceptable state. Achieving this goal requires collective cooperation and mutual respect.

Methods and Tools Used

This case study employed the Citizens' Jury method based on the Citizens' Jury Handbook by The Jefferson Center [14] and the description of the Citizen Jury process on Participedia [15]. Within the Citizen Jury format the project group integrated a range of engagement tools to ensure an inclusive and well-informed deliberation process. These tools included surveys, relevant literature, expert lectures, participation in the online “Highland Game”, a field trip to a contested are in the highlands which also included interviews with local farmers and activists, and a final full-day group onsite deliberation session. The CJ process aimed to produce a final statement and a set of recommendations for Iceland’s forestry and soil conservation agency.

Several challenges were addressed throughout the process. One major issue was the geographic dispersal of citizen jury participants and experts. To overcome this, all expert information and relevant materials—including literature, audio, and video content—were made available online through the CANVAS platform, ensuring accessibility and structured learning.

Another challenge was the complexity of the case study which was also surrounded by diverse interests and perceptions. To balance these perspectives, a varied panel of experts was included based on recommendations from the advisory group.

To address the complexity of the case study’s issues furthermore, an interactive online platform was designed whereby playing a so-called “Highland Game” participants were able to study a map of highland regions, explore proposals made by other users on land use and make their own proposals [16] [17]. The platform was intended to enhance community participation and to make the participatory experience easy and accessible. Built on an existing citizen engagement framework, it combines gamification elements with deliberative techniques to simulate real-world land use decision-making. Participants can log in or join anonymously, select from a set of land use icons, and “paint” designated areas on an interactive map to propose their preferred land use scenarios. They are encouraged to provide comments and justifications, generating a rich qualitative dataset. The platform also integrates a survey component to capture participants’ environmental values and perceptions. This tool serves as an engaging educational medium while providing planners and policymakers with actionable insights into community priorities and potential land use conflicts.By allowing jurors to experience the consequences of their decisions in a simulated, risk-free environment, the game helped them better understand trade-offs, stakeholder perspectives, and decision-making complexities.

Another key issue in the Icelandic case study is the disconnect between the majority of Icelanders and rural communities affected by conflicting land uses, such as sheep farming and reforestation. To mitigate this, a field visit was conducted to allow jurors to meet and engage directly with opposing parties in their own environments. This direct engagement provided firsthand exposure, increased the understanding of stakeholder concerns, promoting balanced perspectives, and contributed to more informed and credible decision-making among the jurors.

Additionally, within the deliberation phase of the Citizen Jury process a small-scale design was adopted of not more than 12 jurors to create a comfortable setting for participants. During the full day of deliberation, onsite round table discussions were organized to foster open communication, where everyone had an equal opportunity to speak, breaking down hierarchical barriers. This approach promoted a free exchange of ideas, increased engagement, and prevented dominant voices from overshadowing quieter participants. Additionally, the informal setting helped strengthen relationships and trust among jurors.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The citizen jury process largely followed the phases and steps outlined in the original Jefferson Center Citizens’ Jury model handbook [14] and the description on the Participedia website [15].

Phase 1: Preparation and Planning

After the decision was made to convene a citizen jury as a democratic innovation for the Icelandic case study, the Icelandic project group developed a concept for the citizen jury between May and July 2024. The outcome of this process was a draft Citizen Jury proposal that served as an internal guide for the steps to follow in subsequent phases within the case study project's timeframe.

The first step in the process was to assemble a four-member Citizen Jury advisory group. The advisory board was tasked with identifying key interest groups relevant to the citizen jury's topic and highlighting key considerations regarding these groups for jury deliberations. Additionally, they were asked to suggest knowledgeable experts or parties to provide valuable insights and help clarify the most important questions the jury should address. The goal was to gather a balanced collection of information and expertise that could approach the Icelandic case study from multiple perspectives and reflect the availability of diverse interests and knowledge for the jurors.

The project group prepared a series of questions, which were sent to individual advisory board members. The advisory board met as a group only once online, due to logistical reasons, in September 2024.

To organize, store, and communicate the different materials for the citizen jury — such as literature, expert lectures, task descriptions, guidelines, and the agenda — the learning environment platform CANVAS was used. The project group designed a CANVAS case site specifically for the citizen jury. This platform is regularly used by both UI and AI for student courses and was therefore familiar to the jurors. The selected citizen jury members were added to the CANVAS case site and had access to all materials throughout the CJ process. They were also able to communicate with experts and project group members.

Based on the advice of the Citizen Jury advisory group, a broad set of experts related to the Icelandic case study issue were invited to gather information (e.g., literature, websites, and references) for the jurors. These experts also participated in a series of seven video interviews, where they were asked to shed light on the case study issue based on their expertise during the period of August–September 2024. These interview videos lasted approximately 40–60 minutes and were accompanied by relevant background literature compiled by the experts.

Phase 2: Information collection and dispersal

From the end of September, the jury members enrolled in the CANVAS case site and had from that time access to all the reading, audio and video materials. Furthermore, a series of 5 online meetings every week took place during the end September and October between the project group and the citizen jury to address different aspects of the Citizen Jury process and provide the opportunity for the jury members to ask questions, remarks and provide feedback.

To provide more insight into geographical scale and overlapping land-use interests, the Citizen Jury members participated in the serious game Highland Game, developed in cooperation with the Phoenix partner OneSource, a Portuguese tech company with experience in developing gaming platforms. This game provided the jurors with insight into overlapping land-use preferences, potential conflicts, and synergistic conditions in the Icelandic Highlands.

Furthermore, the jurors participated in a full-day field trip (transect) to the Highlands and adjacent areas guided by members of the project group and one member of the TCCD (image 1). During the field trip, the Citizen Jury members visited the regional headquarters of the Soil Conservation Agency to learn about various reforestation and soil reclamation projects in the Highlands, as well as the different factors and aspects of soil protection in Iceland. Additionally, the jurors visited two sheep farms, where discussions about sheep grazing in the Highlands took place in a "kitchen table" setting with local farmers.

Phase 3: Deliberation

The deliberation session of the citizen jury took place over a full day at the end of October. The onsite deliberation session was hosted by AUI and organized by the Icelandic project team in cooperation with AUI (image 2). The main aim of the deliberation day was to draft a proposal regarding the main criteria for strategic planning for the Icelandic Highlands, based on a set of questions provided to the group and the accompanying discussion framework.

The day was divided into different sessions, including an introduction session, an open discussion with experts, and a series of discussion rounds using various nominal group discussion techniques. At the end of the day, the jurors created a draft proposal, which served as input for a post-deliberation session held online. In this online post-deliberation session, which took place in early November with the project group, the jurors had the opportunity to clarify any uncertainties about the process (but not the content) of the Citizen Jury initiatives and the format in which their proposal should be presented. After an internal review session among the Citizen Jury members, the final proposal was submitted to Iceland’s forestry and soil conservation authorities at the beginning of December.

The Citizen Jury proposal concluded that government policy on land uses in the Icelandic Highland should prioritize sustainable practices developed through extensive consultation and collaboration with key stakeholders. The Highlands are a shared national responsibility, entrusted to us by future generations, and must be preserved and managed to ensure their long-term viability. Achieving this goal requires collective effort, cooperation, and mutual respect among all parties involved.

Citizen Jury (CJ) case timeline 2024

May – July: Developing the concept of CJ for the Icelandic case study

July: Drafting the CJ proposal

August: Establishing the CJ advisory group

August – September: Setting up the CJ platform in CANVAS

August – September: Creating and collecting expert-led case study-related materials for CJ

August – October: Preparing for the onsite CJ field trip (transect) day and deliberation day

September: Advisory group review of expert information and case questions for CJ

September – October: CJ online expert hearings and discussions

October: CJ participation in the serious game (Highland Game)

October: CJ Field Trip (Transect) Day

October: CJ onsite deliberation day

November: Online post-CJ deliberation meeting

December: CJ recommendation document

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The Citizen Jury methodology was chosen for the Iceland Case study due to the way the TCCD process developed, and the insights gained from that experience. It highlighted a deep lack of trust among various communities, stakeholders, and the local and national authorities.

The final outcome of the Citizen Jury was a set of policy recommendations emphasizing that government policy on land use in the Icelandic Highlands should prioritize sustainability, grounded in broad consultation and collaboration with key stakeholders. The jury highlighted the Highlands as a shared national responsibility, entrusted by future generations, and stressed the need for careful stewardship to ensure their long-term health. Achieving this vision, the jury concluded, depends on collective effort, mutual respect, and strong cooperation across all involved groups.

The Citizen's Jury initiative did not culminate in a finalized policy-making process due in part to the political shift within the PMO which negatively impacted the support of the PMO towards the Iceland Case study and its outcomes. Despite this set back, the experience has significantly contributed to the ongoing exploration and, hopefully, the eventual implementation of more inclusive public engagement processes.

Following the political shift within the PMO the team in Iceland increased its working partnership with the Forestry and Soil Conservation Agency to gain further insights into pathways for on-the-ground trust building within the communities and groups working on this issue. The premise of the CJ was based broadly on points of interest relevant to the mission of the Forestry and Soil Conservation Agency. Therefore, the outcomes of the CJ were directly linked to the ongoing work within the agency.

Building on the lessons learned and insights gained from the CJ, the second version of the land use game is being distributed more widely, allowing for a broader base of participation. The PHOENIX Iceland team is now preparing for a second citizen jury in the fall of 2025, using the experiences, formats, and organizational structure from past citizen juries to enhance the process.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The PHOENIX case study for Iceland combined a “Land‑Use Game” and a university‑hosted Citizen Jury to co‑design ecological restoration policy with the Prime Minister’s Office, municipalities and students. It exposed tensions between inclusiveness and legitimacy, underscored rural–urban divides, and demonstrated resilience by anchoring deliberation within academic institutions. Key take‑aways include the need for stable institutional support, transparent participant selection and robust, representative engagement.

To analyse and identify lessons learned from the entire case study it is necessary to look at its different components, including the work with three municipalities referred to here as pre-pilot study, the phase that preceded the establishment of the Citizen Jury. The preparation, preliminary work and the case study itself presented a unique opportunity for various stakeholders in the case study - the PMO, involved municipalities, TCCD members, and the group of students who participated in the Citizen Jury - to design and test methods that had not been previously applied in any systematic way in policy-making or policy design in Iceland. However, it should also be noted that the local novelty of these approaches created challenges that needed to be overcome, and any successes should be understood in that context.

TCCD recruitment and consultation

Balancing inclusiveness with legitimacy proved challenging during TCCD recruitment. The TCCD recruitment was conducted in close consultation with the municipalities involved in the pre-pilot. It was made clear early in the collaboration when the first version of the Land Use Game was introduced, that the municipal governments did not like the idea of a fully open participation in the Land Use Game, and concern was immediately expressed that it could lead to an unfortunate hijacking of the process itself.

The solution to have the municipal boards appoint members for the TCCD was not optimal, but after careful consultation about the nature of the task (the TCCD was to suggest a process, not directly influence policy-making as such) both the PHOENIX team and the municipalities felt reasonably comfortable about the appointments. Inclusion however remained a problem, since some of the TCCD members clearly felt that whatever process would be chosen, it was essential to design it in such way that activist groups – who were seen as mostly sharing strong environmentalist concerns – would not dominate the discussion. This was a major challenge and to some extent unexpected, that their similar concerns would be expressed toward activist groups as to the government itself.

The recruitment process for the TCCD offered valuable insights into the importance of balancing inclusiveness with trust and legitimacy. This important experience shows the trade-offs that may be necessary in a collaborative process to maintain trust but also ensure inclusion and legitimacy to the extent possible. The rural/urban divide in Iceland where activist groups may be seen as representing educated elites, resonates with common causes of distrust which show the need to start a dialogue with local stakeholders (local elites) as early as possible in the process and expand connections from there.

The results of the TCCD consultations also presented an extremely complicated challenge to the case study, since the TCCD in essence did not commit to an open democratic process such as a Citizen assembly to outline a national policy for ecological restoration in the Icelandic highlands. Instead, the TCCD formulated a criticism of current governmental approaches. This partly resulted from simultaneous developments in which the government issued a directive which increased the demands on farming communities to show that their use of the highland areas open for sheep in the summer followed by sustainability regulations. It was not possible to draw a clear line between what the government was actually doing and the task assigned to the TCCD. This meant that the methodological discussion in the TCCD was under constant influence from current events. One possibility is to encourage partisan approach – taking things in one ‘s own hands – but the feasibility of antagonistic thought and action entirely depends on available imaginaries, and whether the TCCD is articulate enough to address critical issues in its recommendations.

The collaboration with the municipalities created a trust relationship between the PHOENIX team and the local communities which was expressed in a continued interest in using the Land Use Game created by the project. However, due to the Prime minister's resignation in February and the results reached by the TCCD the project was faced with a lack of resources and political will to move on to design and put in place a new democratic policy progress, highlighting the vulnerability of participatory processes to changes in political will and institutional support. In this situation the project team, in consultation with the Icelandic land and forestry agency and the PMO decided to seek a new approach and sought collaboration with several faculties at the University of Iceland and the Agricultural University of Iceland. This shift underlines the importance of flexible process design and the ability to re-anchor participatory efforts within trusted and stable institutions when political conditions change.

Citizen Jury Integration

The use of a Citizen Jury offered both an interesting and innovative approach to address complex land-use policy issues. By integrating the process into academic courses and enabling students to participate for credit, the case study successfully combined education with democratic engagement – demonstrating a scalable and practical model for future initiatives. The development of an improved, user-friendly version of the Land Use Game [17] (now called the Highland Game) also demonstrated how digital tools can support broader and more inclusive participation. Importantly, leveraging university platforms (representing more than 85% of all university students in Iceland) was not a compromise, but a strategic choice that allowed the project to reach out to a diverse group of people who could engage in the project on different grounds. The cross-disciplinary course, entitled Environmental planning and Democracy in the highlands, open to all undergraduates and graduate students, further enabled meaningful engagement across study field and levels.

Political Context & Institutional Resilience

In the progress of implementing the pre-pilot, the TCCD collaboration and the case study itself the PHOENIX team faced some difficult and common difficulties of inclusive democratic policy process design which are central to future development of inclusive policy making. Firstly, it is often assumed that resistance to inclusion comes from governmental agencies or stakeholders [18]. The TCCD – as the discussions with the municipality heads had suggested – showed that the picture was more complex and included distrust towards outside organizations which were even sometimes seen as inimical to local communities or to traditional agriculture more generally. Secondly, the collaboration revealed an aspect of rural-urban relationship which clearly undermines the creation of a national platform to deal with ecological restoration and revegetation issues. The municipalities see the territories that are now a part of public lands but traditionally the open space of summer grazing as their land, rather than common space. This requires a deeper discussion on land use than previously envisaged prior to the institution of new inclusive policy processes.

Key impact lessons

The case study generated several important insights with long-term values for inclusive policymaking in Iceland. The main impact lessons of the case study are the following:

1) (Inclusiveness) The case study let to a better understanding of how to design more inclusive methods. The PMO and the Land and Forest Agency can benefit considerably from the lessons learned, as this project reveals some of the main hurdles of inclusion. The PMO and/or the Ministry of Environment and Resources are expected to be able to build on the PHOENIX experience and research – given a continued future interest in inclusive policy-making.

2) (Popular control) The highlands remain a contested area, even with the current legislation on public lands. While it emerges most clearly in the fraught relationship between national government and local authorities, it is about popular control and raises difficult questions about inclusion which must be addressed in a comprehensive manner before an inclusive process can be enacted nationally.

3) (Considered Judgement) The political context requires a careful approach to creating mini-publics and assemblies that can contribute positively to the search for more inclusive and participatory deliberative processes. The choice to use a citizen jury – hosted within trusted academic institutions - proved to be a very fruitful approach. The resulting policy document has been received well by the PMO and the Land and forest agency and is expected to impact both policies and approaches to policy making.

4) (Transparency) The process has made it clear that considerable work is required to increase transparency of policy processes, especially regarding the fair consideration of different opinions. One of the notable achievements of the Citizen Jury was it balanced consideration to both scientific opinion and farmers’ views, acknowledging for example that the intimate experience that the farming community has in the highland areas must also be seen from an epistemic point of view.

Impacts on the six Phoenix challenges

The approach taken by the PHOENIX team to use a citizen jury for the policy proposals resulted partly from the lack of trust between PMO and municipalities. This mistrust let the TCCD to recommend focusing first on trust building measures before an inclusive democratic policy making process would be put in place. It also reflected insights gained through the work of the TCCD, suggesting the value of beginning with a more focused and manageable process that could be viewed favourably from different stakeholders. The pre-pilot, the TCCD consultations and the case study helped clarify what is at stake in designing inclusive democratic processes that will increase the scope of the innovative processes and serve to increase inclusion. Making such processes accessible for all citizens and at the same time staying perceptive to the vulnerability of especially local groups whose e.g. precarious economic situation may be a continuous distrust is central to future democratic success.

The Case study has been very successful in increasing stakeholder communication, particularly between municipalities, public agencies and the national government. The mutual understanding that this creates is a necessary condition of the successful implementation of democratic innovation. It should be put clearly that the case study faced important challenges, which made it clear to everyone involved first how important it is to address conflicts and contestation democratically and second how carefully questions on inclusion and power sharing need to be approached. The local communities experience themselves a lacking power and being constantly undermined by groups who either fail to understand or appreciate their approach to revegetating and using land in responsible and sustainable way. While actual land use decisions must be approached critically and based on sound scientific knowledge, it is also very important to use the ways possible to acknowledge and respect local experiences and knowledge.

Embedding mini‑publics in trusted universities can safeguard participatory processes against political turnover. To build on this model, future initiatives should formalise liaison structures, clarify selection criteria and track both participation metrics and qualitative impacts.

See Also

References

[1] Crofts, R. (2011). Healing the land-the story of land reclamation and soil conservation in Iceland, published by SCSI. Oddi Ecolabelled Printing Company, Iceland.

[2] Arnalds, Ó., Marteinsdóttir, B., Brink, S. H., & Þórsson, J. (2023). A framework model for current land condition in Iceland. PloS one, 18(7), e0287764.

[3] Bishop, M. V., Ólafsdóttir, R., & Árnason, Þ. (2022). Tourism, recreation and wilderness: Public perceptions of conservation and access in the Central Highland of Iceland. Land, 11(2), 242.

[4] Blöndal, S. (1993). Socioeconomic importance of forests in Iceland. In J. N. Alden, J. Louise Mastrantonio and S. Ødum (Eds.) Forest development in cold climates (pp. 1-13). Boston, MA: Springer US.

[5] Alþingi (1998). Lög um þjóðlendur [Act on the National Lands]. Act 58/1998. Retrieved from https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1998058.html.

[6] Landemore, H. (2020). When public participation matters: The 2010–2013 Icelandic constitutional process. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 18(1), 179-205.

[7] Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (2020). Betri Reykjavík. Retrieved from https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/better-reykjavik/.

[8] Fillmore-Patrick, H. (2013). The Iceland experiment (2009-2013): a participatory approach to constitutional reform. DPC Policy Note, 2, 1-17.

[9] Mager, A. (2019). Sheep in the Land of Fire and Ice-Socio-economic aspects of sheep grazing on highland rangelands in Iceland (Doctoral dissertation). Reykjavik, Agricultural University of Iceland.

[10] Sæþórsdóttir, A. D., & Saarinen, J. (2016). Challenges due to changing ideas of natural resources: tourism and power plant development in the Icelandic wilderness. Polar Record, 52(1), 82-91.

[11] Upham, P., K Sovacool, B., & G Monyei, C. (2023). Imaginaries on ice: Sociotechnical futures of data centre development in Norway and Iceland. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 6(3), 1905-1922.

[12] Sæþórsdóttir, A. D., Wendt, M., & Ólafsdóttir, R. (2022). Tourism industry attitudes towards national parks and wilderness: A case study from the Icelandic Central Highlands. Land, 11(11), 2066.

[13] Lally, A. E. (2020). Extending terroir: Icelandic lamb production and the taste of land (rights). Anthropology of food, (S14). https://doi.org/10.4000/aof.10647

[14] Jefferson Centre (2004). Citizens Jury Handbook. Jefferson Centre. Retrieved from https://pria-academy.org/pluginfile.php/398/mod_resource/content/1/m4-6-addl-Citizen%20Jury%20Handbook.pdf

[15] Participedia (2025). Citizen Jury method. Participedia. Retrieved from https://participedia.net/method/citizens-jury

[16] Citizens Foundation (2024). Land use Game. https://github.com/CitizensFoundation/your-priorities-app/tree/master/webApps/land_use_game.

[17] Hennig, B. D., Roberts, B. F., Welling, J. T., Pinal, M., & Ólafsson, J. (2025). Playing for the Planet? A Serious Game Approach to Land Use Planning with Students in Rural Iceland. Societies, 15(1), 14.

[18] Ansell, C., Doberstein, C., Henderson, H., Siddiki, S., & ‘t Hart, P. (2020). Understanding inclusion in collaborative governance: a mixed methods approach. Policy and society, 39(4), 570-591.

External Links

Notes