Articulating public values in environmental policy development: Report on the Citizens’ Jury on Air Quality for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The full report can be found at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/publications/citizens-jury/index.htm

Introduction

Aims and objectives

This project had two distinct aims. Firstly, to explore public views on air quality in order to inform the development of future policies and strategies to achieve specific policy outcomes. Secondly, the project was intended to trial the use of a Citizens’ Jury approach to supporting policy development.

The project

People Science & Policy Ltd (PSP) designed, managed and delivered a process based on the Citizens’ Jury approach. The project was run in collaboration with Professor John Murlis, as specialist science advisor, Dr Rosemary Day, as specialist advisor on the social aspects of air quality and Midlands-on-View, a market research recruitment and venue service. It comprised a Citizens’ Jury and a literature review.

The jury

Citizens’ Juries® are a trade marked development from the Jefferson Center in the USA. Our Citizens’ Jury was based on this model and took place in Sutton Coldfield. Twenty-two members of the public were recruited from within a 12 mile radius of Sutton Coldfield. They were recruited by telephone as a cross-section of the public but we ensured that individuals with asthma, coronary and pulmonary obstructive diseases were included, as previous research had found these groups to have specific concerns with regard to air quality.

The jury process involved three hearings. The first lasted 2½ hours and took place on the evening of 15 December 2005. This was an introductory hearing at which the science advisor to the project provided an overview of the topic and jurors identified further information they felt they needed. The second hearing took place over the two days of 21/22 January 2006. The bulk of the time was given over to the expert witness presentations and time for the jurors to question these witnesses. The final hearing, held on 28 January, was devoted to enabling the jurors to reach conclusions, draw out their recommendations and present these to Defra.

Literature review

The project included a UK literature review to provide a wider context for the outcomes from the jurors’ deliberations and to inform the recruitment strategy.

Jurors’ Perspectives and Recommendations

Scoping the issue

An initial brainstorming session revealed that air pollution is not a ‘top of mind’ environmental issue. With respect to air quality there was an awareness that quality (measured by smell) varies and that this variation was most likely to be caused by traffic. However, there was no understanding of how air quality is measured scientifically or that action can be taken by individuals to improve it. Neither was there a sense of what would be ‘good’ quality.

Information requirements

To support their deliberations the jurors wanted information on:

  • the causes of poor air quality;
  • the composition of air pollution;
  • the role of the weather in air quality;
  • the relationship, if any, of air quality to global warming; and
  • the impact of poor air quality on health.

Themes

Towards the end of the project, having heard from, and questioned, the witnesses and discussed the topic with each other, the jurors highlighted a number of issues that they felt to be critical. The jurors structured their recommendations around the following headings:

Education

  • Schools
  • Public awareness
  • International and local comparisons

Technology

  • Motor vehicles
  • Domestic energy use
  • Individual awareness
  • Recycling

Transport

  • Domestic traffic
  • Commercial traffic

Industry Regulation

  • Waste
  • Recycling
  • Labelling
  • Vested interests
  • Pollution police

Lifestyle choices

The jurors agreed that individual citizens’ decisions are the main drivers of air pollution. Choosing to buy a product and thereby causing it to be produced and transported, is a polluting process, as is deciding a make a journey. While the jurors appreciated that there are some technological solutions, the focus of discussion was on demand and use and whether this could, or should, be reduced and if so, how.

Conclusions

By the end of the jury process it was agreed that the issue of air quality was more important than any juror had originally thought because of the serious impact on health.

Defra response

Defra will circulate the report widely and consider the recommendations.

Epilogue: Changed perceptions and behaviour

During the telephone conversations to finalise the jurors’ report some jurors mentioned that they had changed their behaviour as well as their attitudes as a result of taking part in the jury.

Literature review

Overall the literature provides a consistent picture of public views in the UK. The findings from the literature review are generally consistent with those from the Citizens’ Jury. However, after the process, the jurors had become empowered to take action and appreciated how their actions could make an impact.

Technical report

Citizens’ Jury

The final project design included the following elements:

  • An advisory committee
  • A literature review of public perspectives on air quality
  • Telephone recruitment of jury
  • Three hearings over 3½ days
  • A charge for the jury to address
  • Witness presentations to the jury
  • Opportunities for jurors to debate the issues
  • Recommendations from the jurors to Defra
  • Report drafted by PSP and agreed with the jurors
  • Publicity for the event and the recommendations
  • Evaluation

The advisory committee

The role of the advisory committee is to ensure that the process is free, fair and balanced and to provide technical expertise and access to expert witnesses. Recruitment can take time and many senior people who will be preferred for this role can find it difficult to be involved at short notice. In order to overcome this, the committee worked by email, meeting only twice, once at the start and once to discuss the final report and its implications.

Evaluation

Of the 18 jurors who went through the whole jury process, none felt excluded or unable to understand the information presented. The jurors generally found the witnesses clear and helpful. The information they provided was highly valued. Formal feedback was not sought from the witnesses but several sent positive feedback by email after their involvement.

Conclusions

Findings

This Citizens’ Jury has shown that members of the general public are quite capable of understanding and questioning information regarding air quality. Given the time to engage with the key issues, easy access to information and perhaps most importantly the incentive to access it, members of the public are able to identify what is important to them regarding air quality and come to informed conclusions about appropriate actions.

The jurors’ values could be summed up as:

  • a desire to minimise adverse health effects;
  • support for ensuring a competitive UK economy that provides jobs; and
  • a belief in the fair treatment of less well-off members of UK society.

Government was expected to take a number of actions, in particular it should:

  • continue to regulate the emission of air pollutants;
  • reward good behaviour as well as punish failure to comply with regulations;
  • raise the understanding of the impact of individual behaviour on air quality; and
  • support investment in cleaner technologies and promote their uptake.

Method

Key lessons learned for future use of deliberative techniques in policy development are:

  • Allow sufficient time to recruit and establish the Advisory Committee
  • Consider inviting more junior people to join the Advisory Committee
  • Allow sufficient time and budget to ensure the best witnesses can take part and are able to fully prepare
  • Ensure resources are available to support witnesses so that they pitch their talk at the right level and cover the required material in the timescale available. Asking for draft presentations will help
  • A fairly long gap between the first and second hearing is acceptable and provides time to finalise witnesses and their presentations in response to jurors’ needs. It is possible to keep the jurors engaged by sending a report on the first session
  • The final hearing should be quite soon after the second to maintain momentum
  • A ‘technical friend’ gave the jurors confidence to ask questions and helped to articulate their questions for the witnesses
  • Breaking the group into small groups for discussion helps less confident jurors to voice their opinions and ask questions
  • Allow adequate time for jurors to deliberate and reach conclusions