top of page

Deliverable 3.4:  

Civic participation in just sustainability transition initiatives: Scope, depth and determining factors

This report provides a synthesis of the research carried out under Work Packages 2 and 3 (WP2 and WP3) of the DUST project. The common objective of WP2 and WP3 was to identify and explore variables that condition the participation of less engaged communities in the deliberative governance of sustainable transition initiatives. This was based on the assumption that deliberative democracy – understood as how a range of communities, citizens, and other stakeholders can make collective decisions that impact matters of common concern – strengthens representation, constructive dialogue, informed decision-making, and transparency, all of which are crucial to the outcomes of sustainable transition measures and processes. WP2 and WP3 worked in tandem in the multiple case study research, generating complementary insights and facilitating the cross-validation and triangulation of findings from different perspectives and using different research methods. The case study research combined tool-based documentary analysis, quantitative methods, and qualitative methods to produce data that could be integrated to address the basic research objectives. The research tasks of WP2 and WP3 were coordinated to enhance the understanding of the intensity of participation in sustainability transition policies and the factors explaining variation in this in the eight case study regions in Bulgaria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. These case study regions are subject to transition processes related to the phase-out of the mining or extraction activities of natural resources and the substitution of fossil fuels used in carbon-intensive industries, which are concentrated in these territories. 

The research assessed the depth and inclusivity of participatory processes in selected sustainable transition policies in the case study regions. It found that participatory processes based on partnership (with genuine co-creation and co-production of outputs for sustainable transition measures between citizens, stakeholders, and public authorities) were limited in the case studies. These processes are relatively novel and they require substantial commitments of capacity, time, and resources from all parties involved. However, a number of important examples could be identified. Although these processes differ in terms of form and content, they share some key characteristics. They represent the culmination of various preceding participatory processes (e.g. consultation and dialogue), and they exhibit clear links with tangible outcomes (informing objectives to be realised in strategies and plans and identifying specific projects to be supported). Some participatory practices used interactive tools to facilitate participation, including foresight and visioning methods. The application of these tools has been productive in diagnosing the current state of regional development or understanding current perceptions and in identifying potentials, transformation pathways, and a common future vision for the region. 

Participatory processes were particularly evident at the initial stages of policymaking, but these often focused on organisations representing established sectoral interests rather than communities and citizens. The identification and targeting of specific communities were more apparent at the implementation stage when specific policy projects or investments were being launched (i.e. when key decisions on strategic objectives and action plans had already been made). In a limited number of cases, policies used new participatory arenas that facilitated the involvement of least engaged communities (LECs), and these had the potential to create new democratic spaces. These were mostly created as part of domestically run, as opposed to EU-funded, measures. Ensuring sufficient capacity for inclusive participation was challenging for policymakers and communities. Guaranteeing direct links between bottom-up participatory processes and higher-level policymaking was very difficult. The research found that a clear need emerged for structured, accessible, and inclusive deliberative participatory mechanisms that bridged the gap between policy formulations and their practical implications ‘on the ground’. 

In assessing the factors that impacted the depth and inclusivity of participatory processes, especially from the perspective of less engaged communities, the research identified sets of context, policy, and community factors. In terms of context, the research found that geography shaped both challenges to and opportunities for community participation, influencing not only access to resources and decision-making processes but also the internal dynamics of local communities. Moreover, the economic dependence on specific fossil-based industries varied across the case study regions, affecting the nature and scale of the required industrial transformations and the resulting policy challenges. The uncertainty surrounding the scope, implications, and timelines of transitions influenced communities’ perceptions of the relevance of sustainability transitions, affected their trust in government institutions, and impacted their willingness to participate in transition policies. The extent of contestation and competing interpretations of transition rationales, potentials, and risks regarding sustainability transitions was also a notable contextual factor, with media narratives playing a prominent role. Another relevant contextual factor comprised the varied traditions of civic engagement and social lives across the case study regions. In some areas, there was a lack of associations that engaged specific groups. In other cases, associations served as platforms for community members with common interests (e.g. the youth, workers, or ethnic minorities), but these might exclude other community members or limit the representation of broader community needs.  

Policy factors also had a substantial impact on the participation of less engaged communities. Technical, sectoral framing of the transition challenge posed a barrier to the direct participation of citizens and communities, including LECs. Interpretations of the transition challenge prioritised sectoral, expert input over communities’ knowledge of local contexts. In a limited number of cases, policies defined with more flexibility regarding societal or territorial dimensions created more space for participation. In addition, the research explored the importance of place-based principles for the governance of sustainability measures and their utility in supporting participatory processes. It identified examples in which multi-level governance (MLG) systems facilitated bottom-up participation but substantial governance barriers were apparent: governance tasks concentrated at the national level focused on narrow sectoral issues; limited resources and tools were available for local authorities to support participation; and there were coordination challenges across sectors – governmental, private (market), and community arenas – that created a complex and disjointed framework for participatory processes. The selected policies applied different principles to target specific territories and communities, including regulatory, socio-economic, and territorial criteria. Policymakers frequently made a distinction between targeting communities through the policy and mobilising them for participation in its design and delivery. There was often a preference for commissioned studies or engagement with institutional stakeholders in participation, compounded by limited efforts to mobilise the participation of LECs beyond stressing inclusivity in general participatory processes. Communities and citizens tended to be targeted indirectly, although there were a few notable examples in which LECs’ direct input was sought as part of the process of designing interventions and making strategic or investment choices. The attention paid to engaging with LECs increased as policies moved from centralised decision-making and formulation to decentralised implementation and as the needs of specific communities and territories became increasingly apparent.  

bottom of page