Children and Young People’s Participation in Climate Assemblies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Guide by KNOCA: “This guide draws on the experiences and advice of children, young people and adults involved in citizens’ assemblies that have taken place at national, city and community levels across nine countries, highlighting that:

  • Involving children and young people can enrich the intergenerational legitimacy and impact of climate assemblies: adult assembly members are reminded of their responsibilities to younger and future generations, and children and young people feel listened to, valued and taken seriously.
  • Involving children and young people has significant potential to strengthen the future of democracy and climate governance by enhancing democratic and climate literacy within education systems.
  • Children and young people can and should be involved in climate assemblies in different ways. Most importantly, children and young people should be involved from the very beginning of the process to ensure it reflects children and young people’s own ideas.
  • There are practical, ethical and design factors to consider when working with children and young people which can often be positively navigated by taking a child rights-based approach to the conceptualisation, design and delivery of climate assemblies…(More)”.

The Power of Supercitizens

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Brian Klaas: “Lurking among us, there are a group of hidden heroes, people who routinely devote significant amounts of their time, energy, and talent to making our communities better. These are the devoted, do-gooding, elite one percent. Most, but not all, are volunteers.1 All are selfless altruists. They, the supercitizens, provide some of the stickiness in the social glue that holds us together.2

What if I told you that there’s this little trick you can do that makes your community stronger, helps other people, and makes you happier and live longer? Well, it exists, there’s ample evidence it works, and best of all, it’s free.

Recently published research showcases a convincing causal link between these supercitizens—devoted, regular volunteers—and social cohesion. While such an umbrella term means a million different things, these researchers focused on two UK-based surveys that analyzed three facets of social cohesion, measured through eight questions (respondents answered on a five point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). They were:

Neighboring

  • ‘If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in my neighborhood’;
  • ‘I borrow things and exchange favors with my neighbors’; and
  • ‘I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighborhood’

Psychological sense of community

  • ‘I feel like I belong to this neighborhood’;
  • ‘The friendships and associations I have with other people in my neighborhood mean a lot to me’;
  • ‘I would be willing to work together with others on something to improve my neighborhood’; and
  • ‘I think of myself as similar to the people that live in this neighborhood’)

Attraction to the neighborhood

  • ‘I plan to remain a resident of this neighborhood for a number of years’

While these questions only tap into some specific components of social cohesion, high levels of these ingredients are likely to produce a reliable recipe for a healthy local community. (Social cohesion differs from social capital, popularized by Robert Putnam and his book, Bowling Alone. Social capital tends to focus on links between individuals and groups—are you a joiner or more of a loner?—whereas cohesion refers to a more diffuse sense of community, belonging, and neighborliness)…(More)”.

The Power of Volunteers: Remote Mapping Gaza and Strategies in Conflict Areas

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Jessica Pechmann: “…In Gaza, increased conflict since October 2023 has caused a prolonged humanitarian crisis. Understanding the impact of the conflict on buildings has been challenging, since pre-existing datasets from artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models and OSM were not accurate enough to create a full building footprint baseline. The area’s buildings were too dense, and information on the ground was impossible to collect safely. In these hard-to-reach areas, HOT’s remote and crowdsourced mapping methodology was a good fit for collecting detailed information visible on aerial imagery.

In February 2024, after consultation with humanitarian and UN actors working in Gaza, HOT decided to create a pre-conflict dataset of all building footprints in the area in OSM. HOT’s community of OpenStreetMap volunteers did all the data work, coordinating through HOT’s Tasking Manager. The volunteers made meticulous edits to add missing data and to improve existing data. Due to protection and data quality concerns, only expert volunteer teams were assigned to map and validate the area. As in other areas that are hard to reach due to conflict, HOT balanced the data needs with responsible data practices based on the context.

Comparing AI/ML with human-verified OSM building datasets in conflict zones

AI/ML is becoming an increasingly common and quick way to obtain building footprints across large areas. Sources for automated building footprints range from worldwide datasets by Microsoft or Google to smaller-scale open community-managed tools such as HOT’s new application, fAIr.

Now that HOT volunteers have completely updated and validated all OSM buildings in visible imagery pre-conflict, OSM has 18% more individual buildings in the Gaza strip than Microsoft’s ML buildings dataset (estimated 330,079 buildings vs 280,112 buildings). However, in contexts where there has not been a coordinated update effort in OSM, the numbers may differ. For example, in Sudan where there has not been a large organized editing campaign, there are just under 1,500,000 in OSM, compared to over 5,820,000 buildings in Microsoft’s ML data. It is important to note that the ML datasets have not been human-verified and their accuracy is not known. Google Open Buildings has over 26 million building features in Sudan, but on visual inspection, many of these features are noise in the data that the model incorrectly identified as buildings in the uninhabited desert…(More)”.

Under which conditions can civic monitoring be admitted as a source of evidence in courts?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Anna Berti Suman: “The ‘Sensing for Justice’ (SensJus) research project – running between 2020 and 2023 – explored how people use monitoring technologies or just their senses to gather evidence of environmental issues and claim environmental justice in a variety of fora. Among the other research lines, we looked at successful and failed cases of civic-gathered data introduced in courts. The guiding question was: what are the enabling factors and/or barriers for the introduction of civic evidence in environmental litigation?

Civic environmental monitoring is the use by ordinary people of monitoring devices (e.g., a sensor) or their bare senses (e.g., smell, hearing) to detect environmental issues. It can be regarded as a form of reaction to environmental injustices, a form of political contestation through data and even as a form of collective care. The practice is fast growing, especially thanks to the widespread availability of audio and video-recording devices in the hand of diverse publics, but also due to the increase in public literacy and concern on environmental matters.

Civic monitoring can be a powerful source of evidence for law enforcement, especially when it sheds light on official informational gaps associated with the shortages of public agencies’ resources to detect environmental wrongdoings. Both legal scholars and practitioners as well as civil society organizations and institutional actors should look at the practice and its potential applications with attention.

Among the cases explored for the SensJus project, the Formosa case, Texas, United States, stands out as it sets a key precedent: issued in June 2019, the landmark ruling found a Taiwanese petrochemical company liable for violating the US Clean Water Act, mostly on the basis of citizen-collected evidence involving volunteer observations of plastic contamination over years. The contamination could not be proven through existing data held by competent authorities because the company never filed any record of pollution. Our analysis of the case highlights some key determinants of the case’s success…(More)”.

Civic Monitoring for Environmental Law Enforcement

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Anna Berti Suman: “This book presents a thought-provoking inquiry demonstrating how civic environmental monitoring can support law enforcement. It provides an in-depth analysis of applicable legal frameworks and conventions such as the Aarhus Convention, with an enlightening discussion on the civic right to contribute environmental information.

Civic Monitoring for Environmental Law Enforcement discusses multi- and interdisciplinary research into how civil society uses monitoring techniques to gather evidence of environmental issues. The book argues that civic monitoring is a constructive approach for finding evidence of environmental wrongdoings and for leveraging this evidence in different institutional fora, including judicial proceedings and official reporting for environmental protection agencies. It also reveals the challenges and implications associated with a greater reliance on civic monitoring practices by institutions and society at large.

Adopting original methodological approaches to drive inspiration for further research, this book is an invaluable resource for students and scholars of environmental governance and regulation, environmental law, politics and policy, and science and technology studies. It is also beneficial to civil society actors, civic initiatives, legal practitioners, and policymakers working in institutions engaged in the application of environmental law…(More)”

Visualization for Public Involvement

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: “Visualization methods have long been integral to the public involvement process for transportation planning and project development. From well-established methods such as conceptual sketches or photo simulations to the latest immersive technologies, state departments of transportation (DOTs) recognize that visualizations can significantly increase public understanding of a project’s appearance and physical impacts. Emerging methods such as interactive three-dimensional environments, virtual reality, and augmented reality can dramatically enhance public understanding of transportation options and design concepts…(More)”.

Citizens should be asked to do more

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Martin Wolf: “In an excellent “Citizens’ White Paper”, in partnership with participation charity Involve, Demos describes the needed revolution as follows, “We don’t just need new policies for these challenging times. We need new ways to tackle the policy challenges we face — from national missions to everyday policymaking. We need new ways to understand and negotiate what the public will tolerate. We need new ways to build back trust in politicians”. In sum, it states, “if government wants to be trusted by the people, it must itself start to trust the people.”

Bar chart of agreement that public should be involved in decision making on these issues (%) showing the public has clear ideas on where it should be most involved

The fundamental aim is to change the perception of government from something that politicians and bureaucrats do to us into an activity that involves not everyone, which is impossible, but ordinary people selected by lot. This, as I have noted, would be the principle of the jury imported into public life.

How might this work? The idea is to select representative groups of ordinary people affected by policies into official discussion on problems and solutions. This could be at the level of central, devolved or local government. The participants would not just be asked for opinions, but be actively engaged in considering issues and shaping (though not making) decisions upon them. The paper details a number of different approaches — panels, assemblies, juries, workshops and wider community conversations. Which would be appropriate would depend on the task…(More)”.

Governance of deliberative mini-publics: emerging consensus and divergent views

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Lucy J. Parry, , Nicole Curato, and , and John S. Dryzek: “Deliberative mini-publics are forums for citizen deliberation composed of randomly selected citizens convened to yield policy recommendations. These forums have proliferated in recent years but there are no generally accepted standards to govern their practice. Should there be? We answer this question by bringing the scholarly literature on citizen deliberation into dialogue with the lived experience of the people who study, design and implement mini-publics. We use Q methodology to locate five distinct perspectives on the integrity of mini-publics, and map the structure of agreement and dispute across them. We find that, across the five viewpoints, there is emerging consensus as well as divergence on integrity issues, with disagreement over what might be gained or lost by adapting common standards of practice, and possible sources of integrity risks. This article provides an empirical foundation for further discussion on integrity standards in the future…(More)”.

Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Citizens’ Assemblies: Benefits, Concerns and Future Pathways

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sammy McKinney: “Interest in how Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be used within citizens’ assemblies (CAs) is emerging amongst scholars and practitioners alike. In this paper, I make four contributions at the intersection of these burgeoning fields. First, I propose an analytical framework to guide evaluations of the benefits and limitations of AI applications in CAs. Second, I map out eleven ways that AI, especially large language models (LLMs), could be used across a CAs full lifecycle. This introduces novel ideas for AI integration into the literature and synthesises existing proposals to provide the most detailed analytical breakdown of AI applications in CAs to date. Third, drawing on relevant literature, four key informant interviews, and the Global Assembly on the Ecological and Climate crisis as a case study, I apply my analytical framework to assess the desirability of each application. This provides insight into how AI could be deployed to address existing  challenges facing CAs today as well as the concerns that arise with AI integration. Fourth, bringing my analyses together, I argue that AI integration into CAs brings the potential to enhance their democratic quality and institutional capacity, but realising this requires the deliberative community to proceed cautiously, effectively navigate challenging trade-offs, and mitigate important concerns that arise with AI integration. Ultimately, this paper provides a foundation that can guide future research concerning AI integration into CAs and other forms of democratic innovation…(More)”.

Democracy online: technologies for democratic deliberation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Adam Meylan-Stevenson, Ben Hawes, and Matt Ryan: “This paper explores the use of online tools to improve democratic participation and deliberation. These tools offer new opportunities for inclusive communication and networking, specifically targeting the participation of diverse groups in decision-making processes. It summarises recent research and published reports by users of these tools and categorises the tools according to functions and objectives. It also draws on testimony and experiences recorded in interviews with some users of these tools in public sector and civil society organisations internationally.


The objective is to introduce online deliberation tools to a wider audience, including benefits, limitations and potential disadvantages, in the immediate context of research on democratic deliberation. We identify limitations of tools and of the context and markets in which online deliberation tools are currently being developed. The paper suggests that fostering a collaborative approach among technology developers and democratic practitioners, might improve opportunities for funding and continual optimisation that have been used successfully in other online application sectors…(More)”.