Successful transport decision-making - Osmose

Vol 2 - Table of Contents Next Practical information
Who participates and how?
How it works: Steps in running a successful citizen jury
Step 1: Random selection process
The participants of the citizen jury are generally selected at random, though there may be quotas to ensure a wide representation
of interests (e.g. inclusion of disabled person, single mother, ethnic minority groups). This should ensure a social composition of
participants that is reflective of the local population.
Step 2: Financial compensation
The invited citizens are exempt from work and their other daily obligations for the duration of the exercise. Where paid leave from
work is not possible, they are given a daily allowance or can claim expenses.
Step 3: Problem/issue identification
The citizen jury is designed to address a given problem or set of problems/issues. The exercise must be set up in such a way
that it is solvable within a given time period. Much of the time is spent assimilating information, which must be presented in a way
which is understandable to the layperson. This can involve the use of audio-visual aids, information materials setting out 'pros'
and 'cons', and presentations from groups explaining the attitudes and concerns of affected people, plus the local administration,
transport organisations, environmental groups, etc.
Step 4: Group assessment
The statements generated by the citizen jury are the result of a group process. Having heard the evidence, the jury may divide
into smaller groups, to address particular issues in greater depth. The composition of these sub-groups changes, to avoid
dominance by certain individuals, and to enable most people to contribute their ideas to each topic. The selected citizens are
supported by professionals who moderate the whole process; they may help to explain issues, or give further background
information, but they should not influence the discussions or conclusions of the sub-groups.
Step 5: Documentation of the findings
The findings are summarised in a citizens' report, which is presented to the initiator of the exercise. Each participant - laymen as
well as experts - is given a copy of the report, which is often widely publicised in the local media.
Step 6: Evaluation of the implementation of the findings
In order to demonstrate the validity and credibility of the citizen jury process, the initiator of the exercise should carry out a formal
evaluation of how the findings were incorporated into the project decision-making process, and as a consequence what has been
implemented on the ground.
Depending on the subject, the citizen jury should
consist of around fifteen to twenty five persons, in a
small and medium sized city. In a large city, it may be
appropriate to set up a series of neighbourhood or
district juries, that may involve 200 or 300 persons in
total. People should be encouraged to participate
voluntarily in a citizen jury; they usually need to be
exempt from work for three to four days, occasionally
longer.
How much does it cost?
At first glance, a citizen jury can appear to be quite
expensive. The costs will include professional
personnel and time resources, one or more trained
facilitators, and the costs for room hire, working
materials, refreshments. etc. It might also be
necessary to reimburse costs for participants or their
employers. However, this needs to be set in the
context of the total costs of strategic projects and their
implementation, recognising that the citizen jury can
be a very effective way of identifying problems and
possible solutions, and of achieving consensus.
What skills are required?
The individual participants do not need particular
skills, but they should be willing to discuss the topics
with people who might hold different opinions. The
facilitator(s) need to be skilled in moderation, group
work, chairing meetings, etc.
What are the drawbacks?
Citizen juries are less suited to dealing local schemes
than with more strategic issues. They require careful
preparation and are, therefore, very time consuming;
there is a great deal of work for the initiating organisation
to carry out after the jury has met, in terms of writing up
the findings, integrating these into the transport decisionmaking
process, etc. The exercise is also likely to receive
high levels of media coverage, which will highlight any
weaknesses in the process.
T17
123