Citizen juries help clarify climate-justice concerns

Huttunen, S., K.Kulha, S.Kyllönen, et al. 2025. “Deliberating Justice in Citizen Jury Processes—Lessons for Just Transitions Governance.” Environmental Policy and Governance35, no. 5: 868–881. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.70010.

Citizen juries are considered an effective way to promote a just transition toward low-carbon societies. However, citizen juries are influenced by many different understandings of the issue, both from outside the juries and from within them. The article therefore examines how participants in a jury understand and deliberate on justice in the context of sustainable development.

The researchers analyse two citizen juries in Finland. First, they examine the Uusimaa Transport Jury, which was organized in 2022. The task of the jury was to assess how road-transport emission reduction measures in the Uusimaa region can be implemented in an effective and just manner. The jury produced a statement for the Regional Council of Uusimaa, in which it assessed which emission reduction measures are most important from citizens’ perspective and how they can be implemented in an acceptable and just way.

The second jury examined was the 2022 Lapland Forest Jury, which explored residents’ views on forest use in Lapland. Its task was to produce recommendations for the Green Transition Committee of the Regional Council of Lapland on what kind of forest use would take climate change into account and be just. In both juries, discussions were first held face-to-face over two days. This was followed by remote hearings of experts, and then, over the final two days, face-to-face discussion sessions were held again, during which the public statement was also drafted.

The researchers analysed the transcribed group discussions and public statements from both juries. They examined how claims about justice developed through deliberation. To do so, they structured justice into four dimensions based on earlier research and looked at whether certain aspects of justice were strengthened while others weakened. The points of comparison were the initial discussions, the main discussions focusing on justice, and the discussions involved in drafting the public statement.

Based on the analysis, both juries helped to structure concerns about justice and to produce practical proposals, although different dimensions of justice were emphasized in each jury. The jury process also strengthened global and intergenerational ways of thinking. Nevertheless, participants’ own wishes and expectations influenced how they understood justice. Deliberation in the Transport Jury was also slightly hindered by its narrow, predefined mandate, which meant that its role was perceived as mainly advisory. In both juries, in-depth consideration of the perspective of vulnerable groups was lacking.

The study shows that participants’ own expectations strongly shape their understanding of justice, which should be considered more in policymaking. The mandate of citizen juries should be defined broadly enough to ensure that deliberation can be as comprehensive and substantively innovative as possible.

Read the study 🔓 (open access)
Read more about the Uusimaa Transport Jury
Read more about the Lapland Forest Jury