Who is listening? Comparing 7 cases of citizen participation at different levels of government in the Dutch energy transition

Citizen participation about energy policy is organized for substantive, normative and instrumental reasons. Myriad factors influence how these rationales and goals are shaped and attained. Of these factors the influence of the socio-political context in which participation is organized remains poorly understood, as most approaches to engaging society focus on discrete participatory events. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by providing insights into how the level of government at which participation about the energy transition is organized influences the goals and rationales of politicians, policymakers and citizens. Seven similar cases are compared – all based on the Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) method – in which 28,000 citizens advised their national, regional or local government about the sustainable energy mix. In all cases, most citizens worry about climate change and support sustainable energy objectives. However, different energy mixes are advised, and different values prevail in the motivations participants provided for their advice across multiple levels of government. Evaluative survey questions indicate citizens have more elaborate rationales and higher expectations when engaging in local participatory processes, which are most frequently criticized for their narrow scope. Finally, we observe local governments put most effort into satisfying multiple rationales for conducting participatory processes, based on 6 group discussions and 6 interviews with involved politicians and policymakers. Finally, we discuss the policy implications of the observed gap between citizen and government rationales across multiple levels of governments, arguing there is a need for aligning participatory processes in meaningful and effective participatory repertoires spanning across levels of government. • Compares government and citizen rationales for participation across levels of government. • National governments primarily emphasized substantive rationales for learning. • Local governments emphasized all rationales: substantive, normative and instrumental. • Local cases did not satisfy participants' rationales as much as national cases. • Recommendations for bridging the gap between policy and citizen rationales.