Problems and Purpose

At a time when there is growing disillusionment with the institutions of advanced industrial democracies, there is also increasing interest in new ways of involving citizens in the political decision that affect their lives.[1] In December 2024, the public inquiry commission in Strasbourg issued an unfavorable opinion on the Eurometropole’s project to extend the North tramway, a project with an estimated cost of 224 million euros.[2]In response to this setback, the Eurométropole established a Citizen’s Convention for the Northern Tramway project, bringing together 100 randomly selected residents over six session from late April to early October 2025.[3] The residents were brought together to re-examine and deliberate on questions of route, phasing, terminus, and public space development.[4]

Background History and Context

Strasbourg has long been recognised as a leading example of sustainable urban transport in France, particularly through the development of its tramway network since the reintroduction of trams in 1994. The modern tram system was designed to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and connect the city centre with surrounding municipalities. Over the following decades, additional tram lines were introduced, making the network a central feature of Strasbourg’s urban identity.[5] As the metropolitan area continued to grow, attention increasingly turned toward improving transport links with northern suburbs such as Schiltigheim and Bischheim, where population growth and commuter demand placed pressure on existing road infrastructure. The proposal for a North Tram extension emerged as part of wider efforts by the Eurométropole de Strasbourg to expand public transport capacity and encourage more environmentally sustainable mobility. However, the project generated political disagreement and public criticism, particularly over costs, route design, and the impact on public space. These tensions culminated in December 2024 when the public inquiry commission issued an unfavourable opinion on the project.[6] Rather than abandoning the proposal entirely, metropolitan authorities chose to relaunch the process through a deliberative democratic mechanism: a Citizens’ Convention composed of randomly selected residents. This reflected a broader European trend in which governments increasingly use citizens’ assemblies and mini-publics to rebuild trust and improve legitimacy in contested policy areas.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The convention was organized by the Eurométropole de Strasbourg, with President Pia Imbs leading the initiative by announcing meetings and workshops within Strasbourg neighborhoods. The Eurométropole requested the expertise of the Commission National du Debat Public (CNDP), France’s independent administrative authority for public debate, which designated 6 external personalities for a methodological advisory mission.[7] Sessions were animated by Res Publica, a professional facilitation organization,[8] where the provisional budget for the process amounted to 500,000 euros including technical studies, facilitation, communication, and compensation for participants.[9]

As the organisers wanted to engage citizens in reimagining the tramway project, institutional support was crucial. Following the public inquiry commission’s unfavorable opinion in December 2024, the Eurométropole established two parallel structures: a Citizen’s Convention to bring citizen perspectives, and a Committee of Elected Officials. This aimed to broadly involve elected members of the Eurometropolitan council,

particularly mayors of communes concerned by the North Tram project, in a spirit of intercommunal dialogue.[10] Furthermore, a college of independent guarantors was put in place to ensure impartiality and transparency throughout the process.[11]

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Eurométropole employed a lottery-based selection process to assemble a demographically representative panel of 100 citizens.[12] On 24 February 2025, a bailiff supervised a random draw that selected 50,000 residents of the Eurometropolis to receive invitations.[13] Between 17 March and 6 April 2025, these individuals could register their interest in participating after reviewing information about the convention’s objectives and time commitment.[14]

To maintain the neutrality of deliberations, certain categories of people were deemed ineligible: local elected officials, municipal employees, staff of the CTS (Compagnie de Transports Strasbourgeois), and active campaigners on tramway issues.[15]

A second lottery drew the final 100-member panel from the pool of applicants.[16] This selection utilized stratification to mirror the Eurometropolis population across multiple dimensions: age, gender, residential location, and socio-professional background. The process balanced participants based on whether they perceived themselves as directly affected by the tramway project in their everyday mobility.[17]

Methods and Tools Used

The primary method employed in the Strasbourg Citizens’ Convention for the North Tram was a deliberative mini-public, in which a randomly selected group of citizens engaged in structured discussion on a specific public policy issue. This approach draws on established models of citizens’ assemblies, which aim to promote informed and reflective judgement among participants while contributing to public decision-making processes.[18] The convention was organised into six sessions held between April and October 2025, allowing participants to engage with the topic over an extended period.

A range of deliberative tools were used to facilitate discussion and ensure balanced participation. These included expert presentations, question-and-answer sessions, small group deliberation, and plenary discussions. Expert input was particularly important in providing participants with factual and technical knowledge related to urban planning, transport infrastructure, and environmental considerations.[19]

Professional facilitation played a key role in guiding deliberation and maintaining inclusivity. Facilitators ensured that discussions remained respectful, that all participants had the opportunity to contribute, and that no single perspective dominated the conversation. Oversight mechanisms were also in place to support transparency and procedural fairness.[20] The convention ultimately aimed to produce a collective set of recommendations, which were compiled into a final report intended to inform future policy decisions.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The Strasbourg Citizens’ Convention on the North Tram took place over six sessions between April and October 2025, structured as a multi-stage deliberative process involving learning, discussion, and collective decision-making.[21] In the early stages, participants focused on gathering information through expert hearings, technical briefings, and engagement with stakeholders. This phase enabled citizens to develop an informed understanding of the project’s complexities, including transport planning, urban integration, and environmental considerations.

As the process progressed, the convention shifted towards collective deliberation and the development of concrete proposals. Participants worked in both small groups and plenary sessions, allowing for detailed discussion as well as broader exchange of perspectives. The process was iterative, with intersession work and additional meetings enabling participants to refine their ideas over time.[22] Interaction was further supported through the digital platform “Jenparle,” where participants could submit questions and receive responses, ensuring continuity between sessions and extending participation beyond in-person meetings.[23]

A key feature of the process was the structured development and adoption of the final citizen report. During the later sessions, participants collaboratively drafted the document, with each section discussed, amended, and subject to informal and formal voting procedures. Amendments required support from multiple participants, encouraging collective ownership of proposals.[24] In the final session, each paragraph of the report was voted on using electronic voting devices, with a qualified majority threshold of 70% required for adoption. The final report was approved with over 91% support, indicating a high level of agreement among participants.[25]

Participation throughout the convention was characterised by active engagement, diversity of viewpoints, and sustained involvement. Evidence from participant feedback suggests that the process enabled meaningful deliberation, with a majority of participants reporting opportunities to express their views, engage with differing perspectives, and learn from the discussions.[26] The structured facilitation and design of the process supported respectful interaction and the circulation of ideas, contributing to the overall quality of deliberation.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The Strasbourg Citizens’ Convention produced both immediate procedural outcomes and broader political effects. The most direct outcome of the process was the publication of the final citizen report, which outlined recommendations regarding route design, public space integration, vegetation, mobility, and conditions for the implementation of the North Tram extension.[27] The report achieved a high degree of internal consensus, with over 91% of participants approving the final text during the concluding session.[28] This level of agreement strengthened the perceived legitimacy of the recommendations and demonstrated the convention’s capacity to generate collective positions on a politically contested infrastructure project.

Beyond the production of recommendations, the convention also influenced the wider political debate surrounding the tram extension. Following the earlier unfavourable opinion issued during the public inquiry process, the convention provided metropolitan authorities with an alternative participatory mechanism through which the project could be reconsidered.[29] The process therefore contributed to reopening dialogue between citizens, elected officials, and public institutions in a context of political disagreement. However, the long-term influence of the convention remains uncertain because its recommendations were advisory rather than legally binding.[30] While the Eurométropole publicly committed itself to examining the proposals, ultimate authority over implementation remained with elected representatives and administrative bodies.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The effectiveness of citizens’ conventions as democratic innovations depends not on whether they perfectly embody a single theoretical ideal, but on their capacity to balance competing democratic values in practice. Graham Smith provides an analytical framework specifically designed for this task, evaluating participatory institutions across six key dimensions: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency, and transferability.[31]

This framework is particularly useful for assessing the Strasbourg Tram Nord convention. Smith argues that democratic innovations should not be judged against the full demands of one theoretical model alone, because no practical institution can satisfy every requirement of any single democratic tradition.[32] Instead, he proposes that institutions should be assessed according to how far they realise a range of desirable democratic ‘goods’, while recognizing that different traditions attach different weight to them.[33] A deliberative democrat, for example, may place greater emphasis on considered judgement and transparency, whereas a participatory democrat is more likely to prioritise popular control and inclusiveness.[34] Smith’s approach is therefore valuable because it achieves a sufficiently persuasive balance overall.[35] This is especially relevant in the Strasbourg case, where the convention can only be properly evaluated by examining both its democratic strength and its institutional limits. The following analysis therefore applies to Smith’s framework to assess whether the Tram Nord convention achieved a compelling combination of democratic goods, or whether its design ultimately constrained its legitimacy and broader significance.

To begin with, Smith defines inclusiveness as the extent to which democratic innovations are capable of encouraging participation from citizens across different social groups while also ensuring equality of voice within deliberation[36]. The Strasbourg Citizen’s Convention on the Tram Nord demonstrates several significant strengths in this regard, particularly through its use of stratified random selection and its attempt to ensure demographic diversity among participants.[37]

The convention’s recruitment process demonstrates a relatively sophisticated understanding of representational diversity. An initial pool of 50,000 randomly selected residents from across the Eurométropole was contacted before a second stratified lottery was conducted among volunteers. The scale of this first-stage recruitment reduced the likelihood that participation would be limited to narrow activist networks or highly engaged political minorities. In particular, the inclusion of mobility habits and territorial connection as selection criteria prevented the process from becoming solely dominated by directly affected residents or organised campaign groups.

However, the extent to which the convention genuinely achieved inclusiveness remains uncertain. Although the final panel was demographically stratified, no data was publicly released regarding the composition of the original volunteer pool. This is key because, as Smith argues, self-selection mechanisms frequently reproduce existing inequalities in political participation.[38] Citizens with higher levels of political confidence, education, or civic engagement are generally more likely to volunteer for deliberative process. Without transparency regarding response rates or applicant demographics, it is impossible to determine whether stratified selection genuinely corrected these imbalances or merely concealed them within the final participant body.

More fundamentally, Smith emphasises that inclusiveness cannot be reduced to descriptive representation alone. The presence of diverse participants does not necessarily ensure equality of voice within deliberation.[39] While the Strasbourg convention utilised facilitated discussions, plenary sessions, and small-group work, there is little publicly available evidence regarding how these interactions functioned in practice.[40] The absence of detailed process data makes it difficult to assess whether quieter or less confident participants were able to contribute equally to discussion outcomes.

This limitation becomes particularly important when considered alongside Iris Marion Young’s critique of deliberative democracy, referenced by Smith. Young argues that deliberative forums often privilege rational, articulate, and dispassionate forms of communication while marginalising narrative, emotional, or less formally reasoned contributions.[41] Without evidence regarding facilitation methods, speaking patterns, or group dynamics, there is no way to determine whether the convention avoided reproducing these inequalities internally.

The Strasbourg convention thus shows both the promise and the limitations of deliberative mini-publics for dealing with political inequality. The design indicates an obvious institutional effort to include different demographic groups, but the lack of transparency in the internal deliberations limits the degree to which substantive equality of participation can be ascertained.

Smith’s second dimension of analysis, popular control, requires attention to how far citizens can exercise meaningful influence over different stages of the decision-making process. He proposes a four-stage heuristic for assessing this dimension: problem definition (agenda setting), option analysis (assessing evidence), option selection (making decisions) and implementation (ensuring decisions are acted upon).[42] This framework proves valuable for understanding where citizen influence was strongest and weakest in the Strasbourg case. In terms of problem definition, the conventions remit was relatively open: citizens were asked to respond to the questions such as: ‘according to what modalities and what conditions for success does the tram service to the northern commune seem most appropriate to you with regard to the challenges of fighting climate change and territorial equity?’.[43] This broad framing gave participants meaningful autonomy in identifying priorities, rather than being confined to narrow technical choices predetermined by the administration. Option analysis involved substantial citizen engagement across six sessions held between April and October 2025, during which the 100 randomly selected delegates heard from elected officials, experts, civil society groups, conducted site visits, and deliberated on route options, phasing, traffic plans, public space design, and vegetation.[44]

However, the extent of citizen control during the option analysis stage remained limited in important respects. While participants were exposed to a broad range of technical information and competing perspectives, there is little evidence that citizens themselves applied substantial influence over the selection of experts, the framing of evidence, or the structure of deliberation. This is significant because, as Smith argues, the “balance of evidence” presented with deliberative forums can strongly shape final outcomes and constrain the range of acceptable conclusions.[45] Unlike some deliberative assemblies in which participants progressively gain greater authority over witness selection and agenda formation, the Strasbourg process appears to have remained largely managed by institutional organisers and facilitators.

Citizen influence weakened further during the stages of option selection and implementation. Although participants collectively produced recommendations and voted on the final report, these outcomes remained advisory rather than binding.[46] Ultimate decision-making authority continued to rest with the Eurométropole, which retained full discretion regarding whether and to what extent, recommendations would be implemented. Smith identifies this as a common limitation of deliberative mini-publics, arguing that advisory processes are particularly vulnerable to co-option because authorities may selectively adopt recommendations while still claiming democratic legitimacy through citizen participation.[47]

This tension became visible within participant evaluations conducted at the conclusion of the convention. Although many participants expressed satisfaction with the deliberative process itself, confidence regarding whether the Eurométropole would genuinely act upon the convention’s recommendations remained divided.[48] This level of uncertainty highlights a broader weakness within many participatory innovations: while citizens may contribute meaningfully to discussion and consultation, they often remain structurally separated from final decision-making power. In Arnstein’s terms, the Strasbourg convention therefore appears closer to “consultation” rather than genuine “citizen control”, since public authorities ultimately retained authority over implementation and policy outcomes.[49]

The Strasbourg convention therefore illustrates both the strengths and limitations of popular control within deliberative democratic institutions. While participants influenced discussion and recommendation formation, ultimate authority remained with existing governmental structures.

The capacity of citizens to make informed and reflective decisions lies at the heart of deliberative democracy’s challenge to elite models of governance.[50] Considered judgement addresses whether participatory institutions enable citizens to move beyond what Smith terms ‘raw preferences’ towards assessments grounded in technical understanding and appreciation of diverse social perspectives.

Several features of the Strasbourg Citizens’ Convention appear specifically designed to encourage considered judgement. Most significantly, the convention was conducted across six sessions held between April and October 2025, allowing participants extended time for learning, reflection, and deliberation.[51] This contrasts with more traditional forms of public consultation, which Smith criticises for reducing participation to brief and reactive exchanges that provide little opportunity for informed reflection.[52] By extending deliberation over several months, the convention created conditions more favourable to sustained engagement with complex policy issues.

The process also exposed participants to a wide range of technical information and competing perspectives. Citizens could listen to elected officials, experts, civil society actors and technical specialists and participate in site visits and structured discussions on route design, traffic circulation, public space planning and environmental integration.[53] According to Smith, considered judgement requires access to “substantive, comprehensive, balanced and accurate” information that can challenge preferences that are either uninformed or purely self-interested.[54] In this sense the Strasbourg convention seems to have been very close to the principles of deliberative democracy, combining expert knowledge with opportunities for citizen debate and questioning.

The deliberative structure itself also lent itself to reflective reasoning. The participants had both small group and plenary discussions that offered an opportunity to talk not only to the experts, but horizontally to each other. Smith notes that such horizontal communication is especially important because exposure to different social perspectives prompts citizens to question their assumptions and develop what Arendt terms a “enlarged mentality.”[55] Participant evaluations suggest relatively positive deliberative conditions. Majorities reported respectful exchanges, meaningful opportunities to express themselves and exposure to diverse viewpoints throughout the convention.[56]

Smith distinguishes between internal and external transparency when evaluating democratic innovations. Internal transparency concerns whether participants clearly understand the conditions under which they are participating, including how decisions are made and how outputs will be used.[57] External transparency, by contrast, relates to the extent to which information about the process is accessible to the wider public, thereby enabling accountability and public scrutiny.[58] The Strasbourg Citizens’ Convention has some strengths on both counts, but important limitations remain regarding the visibility of deliberative processes and public oversight.

Regarding internal transparency, the convention seems to have provided participants with relatively clear information on procedures. Official documentation outlined the objectives of the process, the timeline of deliberation, and the role of the convention in reconsidering the North Tram project.[59] The presence of an independent committee of guarantors further strengthened procedural legitimacy by monitoring the fairness and sincerity of the process throughout the convention.[60] Participants were also able to submit questions and request additional information through the “Jenparle” platform, suggesting an effort to maintain openness between organisers and citizens. Such mechanisms align with Smith’s argument that transparency is essential for preventing manipulation and ensuring participants understand the institutional context within which deliberation occurs.[61]

External transparency, however, was much more limited. Although final recommendations and official summaries were published online, there is little evidence that the deliberative process itself was extensively opened to wider public scrutiny.

Unlike some deliberative assemblies that livestream sessions or publish comprehensive records of proceedings, the Strasbourg convention appears to have operated largely outside continuous public visibility.[62] This creates an important tension identified by Smith: although private deliberation may encourage more open discussion among participants, limited publicity can reduce broader democratic accountability and public understanding of how conclusions were reached.[63]

One of the principal weaknesses of the Strasbourg convention therefore concerns the limited extent of publicity surrounding the deliberative process itself. While official summaries and final recommendations were made publicly available, there was no comparable level of transparency regarding the detailed discussions, facilitation practices, or reasoning processes through which conclusions were reached. Smith argues that publicity is important because it enables what Smith describes as “vicarious deliberation,” whereby wider audiences are able to evaluate both the quality of discussion and the legitimacy of outcomes. Without greater access to deliberative proceedings, the broader public remains dependent upon institutional summaries rather than direct observation of the process itself.

This limitation also creates a potential accountability gap. Because the convention’s recommendations were advisory rather than binding, public visibility becomes especially important in ensuring that authorities cannot selectively interpret or ignore citizen recommendations without scrutiny. Smith notes that deliberative mini-publics often face this difficulty when outputs are filtered through existing political institutions that retain ultimate decision-making authority. At the same time, however, Smith recognises that complete openness may undermine deliberative quality by discouraging candid discussion or encouraging participants to perform for external audiences rather than engage in genuine reflection. The Strasbourg convention therefore illustrates a broader tension within deliberative democracy between protecting the quality of internal deliberation and ensuring sufficient external transparency for democratic legitimacy and accountability.

Smith Defines efficiency in democratic innovations not simply in terms of financial cost, but in relation to the broader balance between the resources required for participation and the democratic benefits produced.[64] Efficiency therefore concerns the extent to which participatory institutions justify the time, organisational capacity, and financial investment they demand from both citizens and public authorities. The Strasbourg Citizen’s Convention involved significant commitments on both sides, reflecting the resource-intensive nature of deliberative mini-publics.

From the perspective of citizen participation, the convention requires substantial investment of time and energy. Participants were expected to engage across six sessions held over several months, in addition to intersession activities and independent reflection.[65] Smith cites that such demands can create barriers to participation, particularly for citizens with work, care, or financial responsibilities.[66] While deliberative democrats often emphasise the civic value of participation, Smith warns against assuming that all citizens experience participation as intrinsically rewarding or equally accessible.[67] The Strasbourg process therefore relied heavily upon participants’ willingness and capacity to sustain long-term engagement with a technically complex policy issue.

Institutionally, the convention also involved considerable organisational and financial costs. The process required large-scale recruitment procedures, professional facilitation, venue organisation, technical expertise, independent oversight by guarantors, and the production of supporting documentation and digital participation infrastructure.[68] However, Smith argues that efficiency should not be assessed purely through immediate financial expenditure.[69] Deliberative processes may create and generate broader democratic benefits by improving policy legitimacy, strengthening public trust, and reducing future political conflict surrounding controversial decisions.

This is particularly relevant in the Strasbourg case given the political controversy that followed the unfavourable public inquiry decision in December 2024. The convention can also be understood as an institutional attempt to restore legitimacy and public confidence in the tram project. From this perspective, the resources spent on deliberation may have contributed to a reduction in political polarisation and an increase in the perceived fairness of subsequent decision-making. But the effectiveness of the process ultimately depends on whether citizen recommendations have a real impact on policy outcomes. When public authorities pick and choose recommendations, the heavy costs of deliberation become harder to justify. The Strasbourg Convention thus exemplifies Smith's wider argument that the efficiency of democratic innovations cannot be separated from their wider political impact and institutional consequences.

Strasbourg shows that citizen conventions are portable, but only under fairly specific conditions. Smith defines transferability as the capacity of a design to operate across different political contexts of scale, political system, and issue type, yet his wider discussion makes clear that transfer is never neutral replication: institutions can be copied in form while losing the conditions that made them effective in practice.[70] On that basis, the Strasbourg convention should be treated less as a universal template than as a context-dependent model whose success rests on manageable scale, administrative capacity, and political willingness to take citizen input seriously.

In terms of scale, the convention suggests that sortition-based mini-publics can work effectively at the metropolitan level. Strasbourg is large enough for the process to carry real strategic significance, but still small enough for organisers to recruit, brief, and facilitate a body of citizens without the logistical burdens that accompany national or transnational exercises. Smith's discussion of mini-publics shows that these designs can in principle travel upwards in scale, as illustrated by large experiments such as Tomorrow's Europe, but the further they travel, the more translation, coordination, and cost threaten the quality of deliberation.[71] Strasbourg therefore demonstrates feasibility at a middle range of governance, not proof that the same model can simply be expanded indefinitely.

The political context is even more limiting. France already possesses a relatively favourable participatory culture, and Strasbourg's convention emerged within a setting where public authorities were prepared to sponsor a formal citizens' process. That matters because Smith repeatedly warns that democratic innovations fail not only through bad design, but through weak institutional commitment: transfer without political will produces hollow participation.[72] Strasbourg is therefore transferable only in a limited sense. Other authorities may emulate the format, but unless they are willing to share agenda-setting influence, provide resources, and publicly respond to recommendations, the result is likely to be a cosmetic convention rather than a meaningful one.

The type of issue also matters. Tram planning is complex enough to require learning and deliberation, but still focused enough to remain intelligible to non-specialists. That makes it a relatively favourable issue for transfer. Smith argues that mini-publics can address a wide variety of policy questions, and even possess particular value in constitutional matters, but Strasbourg does not by itself prove such broader applicability.[73] Its achievement is narrower: it shows that mini-publics can be transferred successfully to metropolitan infrastructure planning. Whether the model would work equally well on more ideologically polarised or legally binding questions remains uncertain. The real test of transferability, then, is not whether Strasbourg can be imitated once, but whether it becomes institutionalised rather than remaining a one-off democratic showcase.[74]

The Strasbourg Citizens’ Convention demonstrates many of the strengths commonly associated with deliberative mini-publics, particularly in relation to inclusiveness, considered judgement, and structured citizen deliberation. Through stratified sortition, extended deliberative sessions, expert engagement, and facilitated discussion, the convention created meaningful opportunities for ordinary citizens to engage with a complex public policy issue in an informed and reflective manner. In this respect, the process supports Smith’s broader argument that democratic innovations can partially counteract the limitations of purely electoral forms of representation by incorporating citizens more directly into public reasoning and policy discussion.[75]

However, the case also reveals several structural limitations that constrain the democratic potential of such innovations. Most importantly, citizen influence remained largely advisory throughout the process. Although participants were able to formulate recommendations and collectively deliberate on policy options, ultimate authority remained firmly with the Eurométropole. This created a recurring tension visible across multiple democratic goods analysed throughout this paper: while citizens were invited to participate extensively in discussion, they exercised far less control over implementation and final decision-making. The convention therefore risked reproducing what Smith identifies as the “consultative trap,” whereby participation generates legitimacy for institutions without substantially redistributing political authority.[76]

One possible improvement would involve strengthening institutional commitments regarding governmental response to citizen recommendations. Rather than leaving implementation entirely discretionary, authorities could establish formal requirements obliging public bodies to publicly justify any rejection or modification of convention proposals. Such mechanisms would not necessarily make recommendations legally binding, but they could strengthen accountability and reduce the possibility of symbolic participation. Greater transparency regarding deliberative procedures and participant interactions would also improve external scrutiny and democratic legitimacy.

See Also

References

[1]Graham Smith, Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 1–3.

[2] Batinfo, 'In Strasbourg, unfavorable opinion for a 224 million euro tram extension', 11 December 2024, <https://batinfo.com/en/actuality/Strasbourg%253A-Unfavorable-opinion-for-a-224-million-euro-tram-extension_30529>, [accessed 15 May 2026].

[3]Eurométropole de Strasbourg, Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord, 2025, <https://participer.strasbourg.eu/detail-participation/-/entity/id/529414551>, [accessed 15 May 2026].

[4]Commission Nationale du Débat Public, Convention citoyenne sur le projet « Tram Nord » de l'Eurométropole de Strasbourg, 2025, <https://www.debatpublic.fr/convention-citoyenne-sur-le-projet-tram-nord-de-leurometropole-de-strasbourg-7137>, [accessed 15 May 2026].

[5] Railpassion, 'Une convention citoyenne pour sauver le tram nord de Strasbourg', 5 May 2025, <https://www.railpassion.fr/transports-urbains/une-convention-citoyenne-pour-sauver-le-tram-nord-de-strasbourg/\> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[6] Commission d'enquête publique, Rapport et conclusions définitifs: Enquête publique relative au projet « Tram Nord » (Strasbourg: Préfecture du Bas-Rhin, December 2024).

[7]Commission Nationale du Débat Public, Convention citoyenne sur le projet « Tram Nord ».

[8]Ville de Strasbourg, 'L'Eurométropole lance une convention citoyenne pour le tram nord', 2025 <https://www.strasbourg.eu/-/une-convention-citoyenne-pour-le-tram-nord> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[9] Ville de Strasbourg, 'Pour le tram nord, la Convention citoyenne préconise la desserte des centralités', 2025 <https://www.strasbourg.eu/-/pour-le-tram-nord-la-convention-citoyenne-preconise-la-desserte-des-centralites> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[10] Eurométropole de Strasbourg, Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord.

[11] Railpassion, 'Une convention citoyenne pour sauver le tram nord de Strasbourg', 5 May 2025 <https://www.railpassion.fr/transports-urbains/une-convention-citoyenne-pour-sauver-le-tram-nord-de-strasbourg/> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[12]Pokaa, 'Tram Nord 2.0: à Strasbourg, vous allez (peut-être) pouvoir donner votre avis sur le projet', 5 February 2025 <https://pokaa.fr/2025/02/05/tram-nord-2-0-a-strasbourg-vous-allez-peut-etre-pouvoir-donner-votre-avis-sur-le-projet/> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[13]Strasbourg Eurométrople, ‘Convention citoyenne sur le tram nord: mode d'emploi', YouTube video, 2025 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRISIczxbXM> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[14] Strasbourg Eurométrople, ‘Convention citoyenne sur le tram nord: mode d'emploi'.

[15] StrasInfo, 'Tram Nord: Une convention citoyenne pour repenser le projet', 2 February 2025 <https://strasinfo.fr/2025/02/02/tram-nord-une-convention-citoyenne-pour-repenser-le-projet/> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[16]Strasbourg Eurométrople, ‘Convention citoyenne sur le tram nord: mode d'emploi'.

[17]Pokaa, 'Tram Nord 2.0'.

[18]OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020), pp. 24-25.

[19] Eurométropole de Strasbourg, Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord.

[20] Eurométropole de Strasbourg, Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord.

[21] Eurométropole de Strasbourg, Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord.

[22] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es de la Convention citoyenne Tram Nord, 2025 <https://participer.strasbourg.eu/documents/2531722/529414151/Rapport+des+garante%C2%B7s_CC+Tram+Nord_VF.pdf> [accessed 15 May 2026].

[23]Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es.

[24] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es.

[25]Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es.

[26]Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es.

[27] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es de la Convention citoyenne Tram Nord, pp. 12–13.

[28] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es de la Convention citoyenne Tram Nord, p. 13.

[29] Eurométropole de Strasbourg, Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord.

[30] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 15–16.

[31] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 4-5.

[32] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 1–3.

[33] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 5-6.

[34] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 5-6.

[35] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 5-6.

[36] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 5–6.

[37] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es

[38] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 13–15.

[39] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es.

[40] Smith, Democratic Innovations, p. 21.

[41] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 14–15.

[42] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 15–16

[43] Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord', Participer Strasbourg.

[44] Une Convention Citoyenne pour le Tram Nord', Participer Strasbourg.

[45] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 15–16.

[46] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es.

[47]Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 15–16.

[48] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es, p. 13.

[49] Sherry R. Arnstein, 'A Ladder of Citizen Participation', Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, no. 4 (1969), p. 217.

[50] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 17-18.

[51] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es

[52]Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 17–18.

[53] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es,

[54]Smith, Democratic Innovations, p. 18.

[55] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 18–19.

[56] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es, pp. 12–13.

[57]Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 18–19.

[58] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 18–19.

[59] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es,

[60] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es,

[61] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 18–19.

[62] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 18–19.

[63] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 18–19.

[64] Smith, Democratic Innovations, p. 19.

[65] Comité des garant·es, Rapport des garant·es,

[66]Smith, Democratic Innovations, p. 19.

[67] Smith, Democratic Innovations, p. 19.

[68] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 19–20.

[69]Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 19–20.

[70] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 19–20.

[71] Smith, Democratic Innovations, p. 20.

[72] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 19–20.

[73] Smith, Democratic Innovations, p. 20.

[74] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 19–20.

[75] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 4–6.

[76] Smith, Democratic Innovations, pp. 20–21.

External Links

N/A

Notes

N/A

Contributor Positionality Statements

N/A