How to increase citizen engagement in climate policy

Many people do not feel sufficiently involved and heard in climate policy development, which is why including the perspectives of all groups in policy development is crucial. Researchers from The University of Groningen and SCP investigated how to increase citizen involvement and include all perspectives. These are their most important findings.

Citizen participation is an important addition to representative democracy. By connecting to the values, lived experiences, opportunities, needs and concerns of citizens, it can contribute to better decisions and better policy with greater public support. Involving citizens in climate policy making, especially where policy affects them, is a good thing. Its importance is not only widely recognized, but it is already required by law to some extent.

Many people are in favor of more citizen participation in climate policy. They particularly value the opportunity to adjust and contribute diverse social perspectives, experiences and interests.

But when we seek citizen engagement in practice, it is not easy to achieve the desired representativeness and inclusion of all groups and perspectives. We therefore argue for more attention to be paid to inclusiveness and equity in participation processes by removing barriers and creating space in discussions for values and equity considerations that are important to different (groups of) people in society.

There is often a participation paradox, where citizen participation is dominated by the “usual suspects.” Breaking through this requires not only equal opportunities to participate, but also ensuring that all relevant social groups are adequately heard in the conversations.

Climate Citizen Assembly

The (climate) citizen assembly is an instrument that is used for just that purpose: to increase citizen involvement in policy. There are plans for a national climate citizens’ council in the Netherlands, and there have now been several citizens’ councils at regional (e.g., in Gelderland) and local (e.g., Leiden, Zwolle, and Houten) levels to discuss climate policy and arrive at policy recommendations.

In the Dutch Citizens Energy Assembly in 2023, a group of more than 50 residents from all corners of the Netherlands engaged in discussions about a future sustainable energy system in our country. Together, they presented 19 recommendations to then Minister Rob Jetten for advancing a sustainable and equitable energy system.

"Citizens want to be listened to and taken seriously"

Survey responses during and after this process showed that citizen assembly participants and non-participants alike found it preferable and necessary to involve residents in decision-making about the future energy system. When asked what role resident council opinions should play in policymaking, both participants and non-participants preferred the advisory role. In other words: citizens want to be listened to and taken seriously, even if they do not have to have the decisive role.

Representativeness and inclusiveness

However, not everyone is equally willing and able to participate. Lack of knowledge, interest or available time, for example, can be reasons for people to drop out. There are ways to lessen such barriers, such as by paying people for their time or offering childcare.

To increase representativeness, a lottery is used with quotas for gender, age and place of residence, in some cases supplemented by measures to give more weight to the voices of underrepresented groups or specific target groups. For example, more young people may be entered into the lottery because the impacts of climate change affect them more.

In addition, the accessibility of questions themselves can contribute to representativeness and inclusiveness. When people doubt whether they have the right knowledge to contribute, not only are they less likely to participate, but they are also less likely to dare to speak out.

“An inclusive line of questioning that appeals to different groups can make a difference”

Questioning can also cause certain groups to feel unwelcome, for example because they see climate action as a “hobby” of “green elites.” Inclusive questioning that appeals to different groups can make a difference. For example, what is a person’s own view of their environment? What do they think is important? That’s a more inclusive question than what sustainable measures they want to deploy.

Citizens must feel sufficiently welcome and included to share alternative viewpoints and solution directions. A question and process with a too tightly defined scope can reduce the space people that feel they have to do so.

Participation mix

In addition to paying attention to representativeness and inclusiveness within instruments, a mix of forms of participation can also contribute to more inclusive civic engagement. After all, there is no “one size fits all” and people should be able to participate in a way that suits them. In our research, we see that older people in particular value kitchen table discussions, whereas others groups find online methods more appropriate.

Involving groups that are less well listened to requires extra attention in participatory processes, such as people with less political self-confidence, people who do not like to speak in public, non-native speakers or low-literacy people.

A so-called positive action approach can help increase inclusiveness, for example by organizing participatory processes that exclusively approach these groups, or by giving the voices of these groups more weight in participatory processes. In our research, we see that people are willing to accept affirmative action approaches, but there is no systematic knowledge about practical interpretations of these forms.

Diversity also includes differences in value orientations. Because of the importance of value orientation for behavioral preferences and for support, it is recommended that more attention be paid in participatory processes to accurately representing different value orientations. There are values that have been scientifically proven to correlate with sustainable behavioral intentions and societal support for climate policy: biospheric values (caring about nature and the earth), altruistic values (caring about vulnerable groups and future generations), egoistic values (caring about money and progress), and hedonic values (caring about comfort and pleasure).

Justice

Societal resistance arises when people see climate policy and/or concrete projects (e.g. wind farms) as a threat to their core values, and when they feel that governments do not take their values sufficiently into account in decision-making.

Taking different values into account contributes to better thinking through different consequences of climate policy, from cost and effectiveness to consequences, for nature, different groups in society and future generations. A prominent example is nuclear energy, where it is important to think not only about how much energy it produces, the costs and emission reductions, but also what the risks are for local residents and how to deal with the nuclear waste that will remain for future generations.

Including values in conversations can also increase inclusiveness, because everyone can say something about what they themselves consider important in life. The latter is also important for policy. Policymakers and experts can figure out technical details on their own, but they need citizens to understand what is important to them, viewed from their values.

The Dutch Citizens Energy Assembly took the first step to discuss these values with citizens. This led to the formulation of social conditions for climate policy, such as increased collaboration rather than focusing (only) on individual behavior, approaching citizens positively, and distributing benefits and costs fairly among citizens, businesses and governments. Both citizen councils and other participatory pathways could make more use of VIEWS value orientations.

“Equitable distribution is a prerequisite for citizens to accept climate policy”

Equity considerations (such as procedural justice and distribution of benefits and costs) play a major role in gaining public support, both nationally and for concrete, local projects. Most citizens perceive the distribution of the costs of climate policy as unfair: 80 percent and 76 percent find the distribution between citizens and businesses, and between rich and poor citizens, respectively, unfair. This is a detriment to policy.

Fair distribution is a prerequisite for citizen acceptance of climate policy. Climate policy can magnify existing inequality through distributional effects. It is therefore essential to think through the effects of policy on different groups in society. The inclusion of equity considerations in discussions about broad climate visions is therefore of great value, and can contribute to a fairer and more supported climate policy.

Inclusive citizen engagement requires a well-thought-out approach and substantial effort. When successful, it can contribute to policies that better include different groups of citizens by better reflecting citizens’ values, worlds, capabilities, needs and concerns. In doing so, it can contribute to a more equitable climate policy with greater public support.

This article was written by Goda Perlaviciute (Environmental Psychology department of the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences) and Lorenzo Squintani (Faculty of Law) from the University of Groningen, together with Yvonne de Kluizenaar, researcher at the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP). This article stems from the collaboration between the University of Groningen and the Netherlands Institute for Social Research in the project RESPECT (408.ME.19.400), funded by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.