Problems and Purpose

The Cumbria Climate Assembly was convened in response to a deeply felt democratic deficit around climate change decision-making. The central problem it sought to address was that many people in Cumbria feel unheard and unable to influence those who make decisions on climate change action. This was not an assumption imposed by organisers, it emerged organically from a series of "problem tree workshops" held between January and April 2024 with a wide range of local stakeholders, who consistently identified the same thread: residents feel excluded from climate decision-making and local democratic systems lack the strength and responsiveness needed to drive meaningful action [1].

Background History and Context

Cumbria is a large and diverse county in the Northwest of England, bordered by Scotland to the north and the Irish Sea to the west. It encompasses extensive areas of protected and culturally significant landscapes, including two national parks, the Lake District National Park, which lies entirely within the county and is designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and part of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The county also contains three Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. With a population of just under half a million, Cumbria is one of England's most sparsely populated counties, characterised by large rural areas punctuated by a few key urban centres [2].

In 2023, Cumbria underwent a major local government restructuring, with the former county and district councils replaced by two new unitary authorities. Cumberland Council covers the north and west of the county, including Carlisle, Allerdale, and Copeland, while Westmorland and Furness Council encompass Barrow-in-Furness, Eden, and South Lakeland [3]. This restructuring is relevant because it means the institutional landscape for climate decision-making was itself relatively new and still being established when the Assembly convened.

Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The Assembly was commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership (ZCCP), which served as the primary organising body behind the initiative. The ZCCP is a broad coalition of over 80 organisations working together to help Cumbria reach net zero carbon emissions by 2037 [4]. The partnership brings together local authorities, businesses, community groups, educational institutions, and environmental organisations, and coordinates county-wide action on climate through shared planning, public engagement, and sector-specific working groups focused on areas such as transport, buildings, land use, and waste. It was the ZCCP and its partners who undertook the collaborative process to determine the Assembly question, running problem tree workshops with multiple stakeholder groups before settling on the final framing [5].

The Assembly was funded through the National Lottery Climate Action Fund, which supported the ZCCP's broader programme of work. This funding source is significant because it meant the Assembly was not funded directly by the local councils whose decisions it would scrutinise, helping to maintain a degree of independence and credibility [6]. The National Lottery funding enabled the organisers to offer £360 in vouchers plus expenses to each participant, a crucial measure for ensuring that people who might not typically be able to afford the time commitment, particularly those on lower incomes, with caring responsibilities, or in precarious employment, could take part without financial penalty [7].

The process was independently designed and facilitated by Shared Future CIC, a community interest company based in the UK that specialises in deliberative democracy and participatory engagement. Shared Future has extensive experience running citizens' juries and assemblies and was responsible for the entire design of the process, from recruitment through to the final voting session [8]. Their team of experienced practitioners managed the facilitation of all six sessions, the design of exercises and activities, the management of commentator presentations, the theming and grouping of participant ideas, and the drafting process for principles and recommendations. The report itself was written by Rowan Harris and Pete Bryant of Shared Future, with the Assembly's recommendations reproduced in the Assembly's own words [9].

The Sortition Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation with expertise in the use of stratified random selection for decision-making, was responsible for the participant recruitment and selection process. They determined all potential addresses in Cumbria using the Royal Mail address database and managed the random selection of 10,000 households to receive invitation letters, followed by the stratified random selection of 44 participants from the 106 who responded [10].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Cumbria Climate Assembly was recruited through sortition to ensure democratic legitimacy, which is the same principle behind legal juries. The process used random stratified sampling to combine randomness (preventing bias) with stratification (ensuring demographic diversity). The Sortition Foundation identified all residential addresses in Cumbria via the Royal Mail database, then randomly selected 10,000 households to receive invitation letters [11]. These letters explained the purpose and workings of the Assembly, included frequently asked questions, and emphasised that lived experience mattered more than specialist climate knowledge, and offered £360 in vouchers plus expenses to ensure participation wasn't restricted to those who could afford to volunteer unpaid [12].

According to engagement lead for Shared Future, Rowan Harris, residents could respond by freephone or online. Of the 10,000 letters sent, 106 people responded, from whom 44 were selected through stratified random sampling. The Oversight Panel aimed to overrepresent those "hardest hit" by climate change, young people, ethnic minorities, and those from deprived areas. While ethnic diversity targets were achieved, youth and deprivation targets were not, reflecting a persistent challenge in deliberative democracy: respondents tend to be older, more affluent, and more concerned about the topic than the general population [13].

All 44 members were invited to a one-to-one phone call before the first session, helping establish relationships with facilitators, explain the process, answer questions, and identify support or travel needs. Of the 44 selected, 42 attended all sessions and voted on the final recommendations, a retention rate over 95% across approximately 30 hours of deliberation spanning two months. Members ranged in age from 16 to 76 [14].

Methods and Tools Used

The Assembly used sortition for recruitment: the Sortition Foundation identified all potential addresses via the Royal Mail database, sent 10,000 invitation letters to randomly selected households, and then applied stratified random selection across gender, age, ethnicity, disability, deprivation indices, geography, and climate attitude. 106 people responded and 44 were selected. All members received a 1-to-1 phone call before the first session [15]. The format comprised six sessions (three in-person Saturdays, three online Wednesday evenings between March and April 2025) totalling approximately 30 hours. Specific facilitation methods included: "people bingo" as an icebreaker; "home groups" (four pre-determined diverse groups that members returned to throughout); co-designed "group guidelines" for respectful deliberation; a "human map" where participants physically positioned themselves according to where they lived in Cumbria; a power-mapping exercise using a two-axis grid (power to influence vs. commitment to climate action); freeze frames and drawing as alternative modes of expression; "opinion lines" where members stood along a physical spectrum; a music-based pairing exercise for sharing reflections; and post it note activities for statement drafting [16]. Online sessions used Zoom with breakout rooms (small groups) and Miro boards for collaborative question grouping. Red cards were available if language was too complex. Commentator presentations were followed by small-group Q&A, and unanswered questions were emailed to commentators afterward for written responses [17].

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

As explained by Rowan Harris, of 44 selected members, 42 attended all sessions and voted on the final outputs [18].

Session 1 (1 March, in-person) opened with a pre-recorded introduction from Karen Mitchell of Futureproof Cumbria explaining the Assembly's purpose, followed by Q&A, and then "People bingo", which got members mingling informally. Members then split into four pre-assigned diverse "home groups" they would return to throughout the process. Each participant shared one thing that would make participation easier, forming co-designed group guidelines covering respectful listening, turn-taking, avoiding jargon, and supporting quieter voices, including recognition that some members relied on lip reading. This was then shared via email for the next session. A pre-recorded Dr. Richard Waller delivered a foundational presentation on climate science, after which small groups developed questions. A "human map" activity after lunch had members physically positioning themselves geographically across the room. The afternoon's power-mapping exercise placed decision-makers on a two-axis grid of power versus climate commitment, generating discussion about what participants needed to learn. Members then explored how citizens can make their voices heard through drawing, freeze frames, and ranking exercises, accommodating different learning styles [19]. The session closed with members individually reflecting on what topics they wanted to explore further, which were themed and shared with the Oversight Panel to shape future sessions.

Session 2 (5 March, online) began with tech support to ensure all participants could use Zoom comfortably, then home group check-ins where facilitators reviewed the group guidelines. Councillors Giles Archibald and Bob Kelly presented on how their respective councils, Westmorland and Furness, and Cumberland, were making climate decisions and what public input opportunities existed. Members developed questions in small breakout rooms, which facilitators grouped on a Miro board. After a break, three further commentators presented: David Beeby on the business perspective, Carolyn Otley on the voluntary sector, and Tim Duckmanton on the Lake District National Park Authority. Rather than a standard Q&A, commentators rotated between small groups every 10 minutes, ensuring all members could engage directly with each speaker. Unanswered questions were emailed to commentators for written responses shared before the next session. The session ended with individual quiet reflection, with members writing down key takeaways to bring to Session 3 [20].

Session 3 (12 March, online) opened with members sharing their Session 2 reflections in home groups. The facilitation team then conducted an important mid-process check-in, recognising that the Assembly question's complexity needed addressing. Through plenary discussion, facilitators clarified that the purpose was not to prescribe climate policy but to recommend how citizens can better influence those making climate decisions. Members were reminded how the question had been arrived at through the stakeholder workshops. In home groups, facilitators shared statistics from Carnegie UK about public perceptions of influence and tested examples of what might constitute an appropriate recommendation, helping members distinguish between climate policy suggestions and governance recommendations. The session then heard from Jon Alexander on why citizen participation matters and Zoë Wilkins from People Powered on what engaging with decision-makers on climate can look like internationally. A large-group Q&A followed. The session closed with members holding up a word describing their feelings to the camera, creating a shared emotional snapshot of the group's state of mind [21].

Session 4 (22 March, in-person) was the most content-dense day. It opened with pre-recorded presentations from Rory Stewart, and Tim Maiden of Green Small Business. Members were told they could submit written questions, and the Assembly later voted on their top two questions for Stewart to answer on The Rest is Politics podcast. The morning centred on parallel case study groups examining real local decisions. For each, a council representative presented the decision-making process for seven minutes, answered questions for fifteen minutes, then left the room. A voluntary sector representative then entered to offer their perspective on the same process and whether citizens had meaningful input. The first round covered the Kendal North Relief Road (presented by Angela Jones, challenged by Kate Wilshaw of Friends of the Lake District) and the Rockcliffe and Kingmoor incinerators (presented by Colin Cox, challenged by David Mudge of Sustainable Carlisle). A second round examined the Westmorland & Furness Climate Change Action Plan and the Cumberland Climate and Nature Strategy. Before lunch, members chose between three additional small-group commentator conversations on economic strategy, community engagement research, and the proposed Cumbria mayoral authority. After lunch, Hope for the Future facilitated a session on influencing MPs, including a pre-recorded input from MP Markus Campbell Savours. Members broke into eight small groups to discuss what works and what doesn't in MP engagement, with each group summarising in 30 seconds. A music-based pairing exercise followed, where members moved around the room and shared one key takeaway with whoever was nearest when the music stopped. Caroline Taylor-Beswick, of Carlisle Youth Zone, presented online about engaging young people. The day closed with home groups sharing initial ideas for recommendations [22].

Session 5 (5 April, in-person) was devoted to drafting outputs. The session opened with three post-Assembly options: the recommendations launch event, the "Get Heard, Make Change" media project, and working with Hope for the Future to present to MPs. Members then watched Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell's response to the Assembly's questions from The Rest is Politics. The facilitation team had themed Session 4's ideas into groups, and members chose between four principle-drafting groups covering early engagement, accessible information, accountability, and variety of people/ young people, spending half an hour per group with the option to switch. A small group then drafted the Assembly statement using post-it contributions from all members responding to three prompts about their experience, the problem explored, and the call for action. A facilitator wrote an initial draft over lunch. Recommendation writing occupied the afternoon across themed groups: MPs and national politics, businesses, young people, new ways to engage, planning and infrastructure, radical campaigns and protests, and others. An "opinion line" activity between writing rounds had members physically standing along a spectrum in response to questions, with facilitators drawing out reasoning from different positions. Completed recommendations were pinned to walls, and members placed green sticky notes on those they supported and yellow on those needing more work, while facilitators circulated to understand reactions. The statement was read aloud and members raised their hands to signal they could "live with it," with those who didn't suggest specific changes [23].

Session 6 (23 April, online) was the final refinement session. The Oversight Panel had reviewed all draft principles and recommendations after Session 5, providing written comments of up to 500 characters each in response to the prompt "what might assembly members want to consider when finalising these recommendations." These were emailed to members on 18 April, giving them time to reflect before the session. Members chose between themed groups of principles to suggest improvements across two 15-minute rounds. They then worked through seven themed groups of recommendations, choosing up to four groups with two improvement rounds each. Facilitators reminded members that a comments box on the voting form allowed additional input if discussion time ran short. Members were also told they could add comments on recommendations to be published in the report, Annex X. The session concluded with a celebration activity where each member shared what participating in the Assembly had meant to them and anything they wanted to say to the group [24].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The Assembly produced three categories of output: a statement, 11 principles for good engagement, and 17 recommendations, all voted on using a five-point scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" [25]. The Assembly statement, receiving 92.8% support, declared that people feel powerless and that this must be taken seriously, called for earlier and more diverse community engagement, expressed disappointment that none of Cumbria's six MPs engaged with the process, and affirmed that the Assembly's recommendations could improve how decisions are made [26]. The top-ranked principle was "Engage at an early stage" (76 points, with 34 of 42 voting strongly agreeing and none disagreeing). Other highly ranked principles included making information understandable and accessible, treating people as citizens rather than consumers, prioritising engagement with young people (guided by the Lundy principles), and honesty and transparency from decision-makers. The highest ranked recommendation (70 points, unanimous support) called on MPs to proactively seek constituent views on climate through annual outreach cycles, regular online meetings, attendance at local assemblies, and climate literacy training. The second-ranked recommendation (69 points, also unanimous) addressed Local Plans, calling for aligned timelines across Cumbria's four plans, county-wide engagement, and the power to mandate local climate measures exceeding national guidelines. A recommendation for a standing citizens' assembly on climate with rotating membership ranked 9th (61 points). The recommendation opposing anti-protest laws ranked 11th with 57 points but notably received some disagreement (1 disagree, 1 strongly disagree). The lowest-ranked recommendation (32 points) concerned shareholder activism and received the most opposition. Three post-Assembly pathways were identified: recommendations, launch event for presenting to stakeholders, a "Get Heard, Make Change" media project, and working with Hope for the Future to present recommendations to MPs. The Oversight Panel's role included pushing for implementation [27].

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Several design features contributed to the effectiveness of the Cumbria Climate Assembly. The sortition-based recruitment process gave it democratic legitimacy, ensuring participants were drawn from a broad cross-section of Cumbrian society rather than self-selecting activists. Offering £360 in vouchers plus expenses helped remove financial barriers to participation, enabling people who might otherwise be excluded to attend. The remarkable 95% retention rate, 42 of 44 members completing all six sessions, suggests participants found the process worthwhile and well-supported [28]. The facilitation approach was carefully structured to encourage inclusive participation. Assembly members co-designed their own group guidelines for working together, which research suggests increases adherence to group norms. Multiple modes of expression were used to accommodate different thinking and learning styles, such as drawing and writing. Quieter participants could submit views anonymously to facilitators, and home groups provided a consistent, smaller setting where relationships could develop over time. Additionally, participants were given genuine agency in shaping the agenda. At the end of Session 1, members identified what they wanted to hear more about, and these themes informed which commentators were invited to subsequent sessions. An independent Oversight Panel ensured the process was fair and stood up to scrutiny, while external observers added transparency. As outlined by Rowan Harris, the assembly was so effective that participants stayed in contact with Shared Future 18 months later, sustaining contributions to climate campaigning [29]. However, there were some limitations to the assembly's effectiveness. The recruitment process revealed significant gaps. Despite aiming to overrepresent those hardest hit by climate change, the Assembly could not recruit sufficient young people or people from areas with high deprivation due to low response rates from these groups. The Assembly also skewed rural and heavily towards those already concerned about climate change, 60.5% were "very concerned" compared to 37% in the wider population, while the "not at all concerned" category went entirely unrepresented. The Assembly's statement noted disappointment that none of Cumbria's six MPs prioritised engaging with the process, potentially undermining the recommendations' route to national-level influence. Additionally, the complexity of the overarching question required facilitators to intervene mid-process to check participants' understanding, suggesting the framing may have been initially unclear for some members [30].

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ON DEMOCRATIC GOODS:

INCLUSIVENESS

Fairness of selection rules and procedures:

The Cumbria Climate Assembly used sortition to ensure democratic legitimacy. The Sortition Foundation randomly selected 10,000 households from the Royal Mail address database to receive invitation letters; 106 responded and 44 were selected through stratified random sampling. Formally, in alignment with Smith (2009), this process is inclusive, giving every household an equal chance of invitation [32]. However, the assembly illustrates how self-selection replicates existing inequalities. The respondent pool skewed towards groups already more likely to engage: rural residents were overrepresented (69% against a 53.5% target) and those very concerned about climate change (60.5% versus 37%). Conversely, urban residents, younger people, and those from more deprived communities remained underrepresented, with the report acknowledging that over-recruitment of these groups was not possible due to low response rates. The Oversight Panel's stratified oversampling attempted to counteract these biases but only partially succeeded, suggesting that while formally fair, the assembly fell short of substantive inclusiveness [33].

Equality of Voice:

The process was designed to ensure the equality of voice, with all participants feeling comfortable to make meaningful contributions. Initially, all participants were offered one-on-one phone calls before the first session to establish a relationship with the facilitation team, ask any questions, and establish any travel requirements. Alongside this, group guidelines were co-designed by those participating to establish provisions that ensured all participate and allow those who are quieter to contribute whilst respecting their right to stay silent, and the idea of red cards were available to participants, which meant they were able to signal when language became too complicated. These measures represent substantive, not merely formal, attempts to ensure all participants could contribute meaningfully [34].

Ensuring fairness in generating outputs:

On generating outputs, the Likert-scale voting system gave each participant equal formal weight in ranking principles and recommendations. However, recommendations were initially drafted in small self-selected groups, raising questions about whether all voices equally shaped the wording before it reached a vote. Written reflections collected throughout sessions partially mitigated this, ensuring individual perspectives fed into the drafting process [35].

In conclusion, despite the fact the assembly ensured the equality of voice amongst participants, and providing a fair opportunity for people to participate within the process, the assembly fell short of substantive inclusiveness, with persistent underrepresentation of younger, urban, and more deprived communities.

POPULAR CONTROL

Influence over stages of decision making and Agenda-setting:

Participants had meaningful influence throughout the process: co-creating group guidelines, shaping subsequent commentator slots by outlining what they wanted to hear more about at the end of session 1, and determining recommendation writing topics in session 5 based on ideas generated in session 4. Crucially, feedback from the Oversight Panel was advisory, with members free to accept or disregard it. This fits Smith's (2009) framework, as members influenced what they focused on and what was drafted as a final report. However, the overarching question was determined through problem tree workshops conducted by Shared Future and local stakeholders without the 44 participants, limiting their agenda-setting power to shaping sub-topics within a pre-set frame rather than defining the fundamental focus [36].

Smith (2009) highlights co-option as a common criticism, where participation has little effect on final decisions [37]. The assembly's recommendations are not binding, yet the Oversight Panel's role includes pushing for implementation, and Westmorland and Furness Council has publicly welcomed the recommendations (Westmorland and Furness Council, 2025), suggesting outputs carry influence over political decisions even without formal mechanisms.

Influence on outputs:

Assembly members had strong control over final outputs. Principles for good engagement and recommendations were directly drafted by members across sessions 5 and 6 through an iterative process: initial ideas in session 4, drafting in session 5, and improvement rounds in session 6. The assembly statement was written by a smaller group with facilitator support but required approval from the full assembly, with proposed changes addressed before finalisation. The Likert-scale voting system gave each member equally weighted votes, ensuring fair influence over which recommendations were prioritised [38].

In conclusion, the Cumbria Climate Assembly demonstrated meaningful popular control over the deliberative process, with members shaping sub-topics, drafting recommendations, and voting on outputs with equal weight. However, their influence was constrained at both ends: the overarching question was set without participant involvement, and recommendations remain advisory despite encouraging early signs of political engagement with the outputs.

CONSIDERED JUDGEMENT

Smith (2009), drawing on Arendt's concept of "enlarged mentality," argues that considered judgement requires citizens to both understand the technical details of an issue and appreciate the perspectives of others with different social experiences [39]. The Cumbria Climate Assembly addressed both dimensions through its design.

Obtaining technical knowledge and how it promotes coherent political judgement:

Technical knowledge was built progressively across six sessions, drawing on 23 commentators from local government, the voluntary sector, academia, and business. The first commentator slot provided foundational understanding of climate change, with subsequent sessions layering increasingly specific knowledge on decision-making processes and community engagement. Session 4's case study design was particularly effective: for each case study, a council representative explained the decision-making process before leaving the room, after which a voluntary sector representative offered a contrasting account. This enabled participants to critically assess institutional processes rather than receiving a single narrative. The quality of final outputs demonstrates participants' capacity for coherent political judgement, contrasting Smith's (2009) critiques [40]; members went on to construct recommendations in small groups in sessions 5 and 6 and approve the final statement for the assembly, incorporating technical knowledge on specific policy mechanisms, such as recommendation 9 citing the permanent climate assembly in Paris. However, the commentator programme was curated by the Oversight Panel with no speakers representing sceptical positions on climate policy, limiting the range of perspectives encountered [41].

Incorporating other perspectives and cultivating 'enlarged mentality'

The assembly's design aligns with Arendt's concept of enlarged mentality [42]. Home groups were pre-determined for demographic diversity, exposing members to different circumstances and viewpoints throughout. Interactive activities reinforced this: human maps encouraged recognition of diverse voices, power-mapping exercises compelled participants to negotiate positions across groups, and creative methods including drawing and freeze frames ensured verbal reason-giving was not the only valued form of contribution. The assembly's environment further supported reflective engagement through individual reflection time at the end of sessions 1, 2, and 4, and co-designed group guidelines that explicitly promoted open-mindedness and valuing different backgrounds. Together, these features created conditions favourable to considered judgement by combining structured exposure to diverse perspectives with space for individual reflection [43].

To conclude, the assembly's design fostered considered judgement through progressive knowledge-building and diverse interactive methods, though the curated commentator programme may have limited the breadth of perspectives participants encountered.

TRANSPARENCY

Internal and external transparency:

According to Smith's framework (2009), internal transparency refers to the participants themselves, whether or not they understand the conditions, selection of issues, the organisation conducting the research and the influence of the outcome; whereas external transparency refers to the distribution of information about the research group and the influence of the outcomes on the wider general public [44]. The Cumbria Climate Assembly upholds internal transparency in a strong and thought-out fashion. This is the case as the participants were told and reminded frequently about how the question was arrived at, in order to provide clarity in contrast to possible agenda-setting situations. Furthermore, before the assembly began, a one-to-one phone call took place between the research team and the participants to brief the participants about the functional aspects of the assembly, so they did not arrive unaware of the position that they were entering. In addition, as referred to previously, comments offered by the advisory panel were presented to the participants in an email, which they did not have to engage with in the sessions thereafter. However, the transparency of what happens after the study is shaky; the outcome of the research group had no binding weight on any political decisions or systems. Although some MPs engaged with the study, there was nothing to bind them to the study, which thins the internal transparency. Regarding external transparency, the voting in the assembly was ranked from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with all votes published in this manner, allowing for voting transparency. Furthermore, the publication of the final report and recording of specialist commentators’ inputs to the assembly helps in favour of transparency. The outputs of the assembly also operate in favour of validity, two of the principles for good engagement that were devised were ‘honesty and transparency’ and ‘accountability and feedback’, which is important as it is what we know the participants valued, during and at the conclusion of the assembly [45].

EFFICIENCY

How efficient was the assembly overall?

The Cumbria climate assembly included face-to-face group engagements and team meetings, which both have their positives and negatives, raising the question: how efficient was the assembly overall? In our interview with Rowan, it is made clear that Cumbria encompasses a large area, making the cost to the participants something worth looking at [46]. The researchers gifted each participant up to £360 in vouchers plus expenses, such as for travel to and from the face-to-face activities. The time that these activities encompassed was 30 hours, Smith’s ‘economy of time’ is what we refer to here [47], and looking at the number of sessions the participants engaged with (six) we believe that this makes for a satisfactory time frame to get the activities done, but does not take up too much time. We can see that this cost-benefit balance was acceptable by the standards of the participants, as retention was at 95% of the participants who engaged in the first session. From the institution’s side, the preparation for the assembly was extensive, and the administrative costs to councils had to be paid, but we aren’t at liberty to say that it wasn’t worth it, as it seems, according to the democratic goods, the assembly gave a useful insight. Upon Smith’s efficiency test, we must ask ourselves what the cost would be of the assembly not existing? and to that we would say we would not know the outlook of the citizens on the issues they discussed, although the outcomes borne by the research weren’t bound to have any effect on the issues themselves, only recommendations [48].

TRANSFERABILITY

Scale of the Assembly:

Transferability relates to, according to Smith, three factors: scale, political system and type of issue [49]. The scale at which the Cumbria Climate Assembly is conducted is that of a county scale. Relating this to a similarly sized county in the same nation was how we decided to present this issue, as we could also say that then the type of political system the area endures is the same as that of Cumbria. In the interview, we decided to ask Rowan this question of transferability about how the outcomes that they reached could be applied to, say, the county of Devon or Dorset in the south east [50]. The answer he began with was that he thought it would be similar, then proceeded to explain how the assembly has an effect on people, which was not an answer we were expecting. The reason why he thought so was that the people who were engaged with the assembly had not been heard before on political issues in a way that mattered in their past. Their exposure to the climate assembly made them feel as though their opinions on the issue mattered, followed by the claim that some of the participants vied for a local assembly in Cumbria to give them more power over their own decisions. Furthermore, those who participated in the assembly were often, possibly as a result, active in the local political system after the climate assembly concluded [51].

Transferability of methods:

Some of the methods used in the Cumbria climate assembly could be transferable to other studies that could be conducted. Firstly, the selection method of random stratified sampling with an overemphasising inclusion of groups the foundation thought were the ‘hardest hit’ by the relevant issues, isn’t itself specific to Cumbria; joining this with the independent oversight panel observing the research to make sure that the design was fair, is an accountability system that can be replicated universally [52]. Secondly, the methods used in group meetings seem to be highly replicable, such as the red card system, the human map, opinion lines and participant agenda setting could all be replicated if the study was conducted elsewhere [53]. Lastly, the outcomes were delivered according to what the majority of participants wanted; in this case, the methods allowed for a recommendation to be approved that more than 80% of the group supported [54]. In addition, the oversight panel were allowed to make suggestions at one stage, but the participants weren’t bound to act on them and could ignore them if they wanted [55].

See Also

References

1. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
2. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
3. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
4. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
5. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
6. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
7. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
8. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
9. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
10. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
11. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
12. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
13. Rowan Harris, Interview; The Cumbria Climate Assembly, Online Video Call, May 2026
14. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
15. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
16. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
17. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
18. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
19. Rowan Harris, Interview; The Cumbria Climate Assembly, Online Video Call, May 2026
20. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
21. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
22. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
23. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
24. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
25. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
26. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
27. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
28. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
29. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
30. Rowan Harris, Interview; The Cumbria Climate Assembly, Online Video Call, May 2026
31. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
32. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
33. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
34. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
35. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
36. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
37. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
38. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
39. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
40. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
41. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
42. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
43. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
44. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
45. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
46. Rowan Harris, Interview; The Cumbria Climate Assembly, Online Video Call, May 2026
47. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
48. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
49. Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’
50. Rowan Harris, Interview; The Cumbria Climate Assembly, Online Video Call, May 2026
51. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
52. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
53. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
54. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33
55. Harris, Rowan; Bryant, Pete (2025-06-07) "The Cumbria Climate Assembly", by Shared Future, commissioned by the Zero Carbon Cumbria Partnership, 1-33

Bibliography:

Smith, G. (2009) ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework’, in Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Theories of Institutional Design), pp. 8–29.

Westmorland and Furness Council (2025). Council Welcomes the Voices of Cumbrian Citizens in Tackling Climate Change | Westmorland and Furness Council. [online] Westmorlandandfurness.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.westmorlandandfurness.gov.uk/news/2025/council-welcomes-voices-cumbrian-citizens-tackling-climate-change [Accessed 11 May 2026].

External Links

Notes