2.1 A Just Transition

A just transition is commonly approached through distributive, recognition, and procedural justice with the addition of a restorative dimension (Schlosberg 2007; McCauley and Heffron 2018; Williams and Doyon 2019). Distributive justice refers to the equitable allocation of benefits and burdens arising from transitions. In the transport context, the pressing distributive concerns revolve around the accessibility and affordability of emerging transportation modes and services from the users' perspective (Mullen and Marsden 2016). Regarding the utilization of forest resources, equitable access to the multiple benefits of forests has been a recurring issue (see, e.g., Satyal et al. 2020; Martinez et al. 2023).

Accounts of distribution in climate transitions typically start with delineating the principles guiding the equitable distribution of transition impacts or responsibility. The principles of the fair distribution of impacts usually emphazise that people should have equal or sufficient opportunities to central goods, such as livelihoods and other resources for well-being. Other distributive principles focus on assigning responsibility for the environmental burdens. The “polluter pays” principle assigns responsibility to those who have caused the burdens, while “beneficiary pays”assigns it to those who have benefitted from causing the burdens, and “ability to pay” assigns it to those who have the capacity to deal with the burdens (Caney 2010; Kortetmäki and Huttunen 2022). In the transport transition, distribution concerns, for instance, car owners' responsibility for emissions. In forestry, the fair allocation of responsibility especially relates to the asymmetry of benefits and burdens: those who are responsible for the activities in the forests and are benefitting from them are often regionally and/or temporally distant from those who experience the burdens (see, e.g., Forsyth and Sikor 2013; Hoang et al. 2019; Satyal et al. 2020).

To measure legitimate distributive impacts, accounts of a just transition also need to specify the metric of the goods subject to the legitimate claims of just distribution. Since the metric should allow comparisons of people's distributive claims, objective metrics—such as basic needs, income, or job opportunities are—usually applied (see, e.g., Anderson 2010). However, in transitions, subjective expectations regarding the continuity of institutional rules and structures can become important. People's expectations about the possibilities of continuing their lifestyles based on, for example, private motoring or livelihoods obtained from fossil fuel production can strongly influence what they regard as just. Thus, expectations may play an important role when people contest transition policies—or when justice is formulated in deliberative processes, the focus of this study.

Despite their subjective nature, some expectations may still ground a legitimate metric for fair distribution. Since people's ability to formulate and pursue long-term life plans is often considered a central component of their good life (see, e.g., Rawls 1999), expectations about pursuing one's life plan can ground legitimate claims for compensation when transition disrupts an expectation based on good epistemic reasons (Meyer and Sanklecha 2014). This brings forward the restorative aspect of justice (McCauley and Heffron 2018). It implies that some of the distributional burdens resulting from transitions justify redistribution or compensation, particularly those that deprive people of their livelihoods and basic needs.

Recognition justice focuses on identifying and understanding sociocultural differences and the associated power disparities among different groups. The same policies can affect demographic groups differently, accentuating the accumulation of vulnerabilities (Fraser 2009) and the varying capacities of individuals to respond to transitions (Tribaldos and Kortetmäki 2022). For instance, ethnicity and gender disparities, as well as the challenges faced by the elderly or disabled, can influence access to transport (Karner et al. 2023). In forestry, the experiences, identities, and values of local communities have often been disregarded, resulting in insufficient recognition of multiple uses of forests beyond timber production (Poe et al. 2013; Morales 2021). Just recognition and inclusion also have an epistemic dimension: current understanding of the effects of transition policies may be insufficiently sensitive to people's lived experiences, historical injustices, and actual capabilities (Schwanen 2021). Therefore, failure in epistemic justice (Fricker 2007)—failure in recognizing the affected people's epistemic status—may undermine other aspects of justice.

Procedural justice concerns public decision-making principles, encompassing transparency, impartiality, accountability, and opportunities for public participation (Kivimaa et al. 2023). By creating spaces that facilitate the meaningful participation of marginalized and previously excluded groups, procedural justice directly relates to recognition and epistemic justice and provides means to enhance distributive justice. Distributional justice problems often stem from the marginalization of local communities in decision-making processes, be it forest management (see, e.g., Satyal et al. 2020; Martinez et al. 2023) or transport policy-making (Haas 2022).

In sustainability transitions, the notions of global, intergenerational, and ecological justices are especially relevant. These aspects draw attention to impacts across different nations and geographic locations, on future generations, nonhuman animals, and other environmental considerations arising from transitions (Tribaldos and Kortetmäki 2022; Celermajer et al. 2021). Concerning the above discussion on expectations, these notions of justice can be highly relevant in evaluating the potential legitimacy of expectations. As Meyer and Sanklecha (2014, 385–386) suggested, the legitimacy of people's expectations in climate transitions depends on whether they align, at least to some degree, with general claims of just global and intergenerational distribution: if one accepts that reducing global emissions is necessary to ensure that future generations can live decent lives and that the responsibilities for the reductions need to be distributed so that people today can live decently, then one's legitimate expectations should be within a range that is consistent with these claims. As a part of recognition justice, these expansions underscore the importance of addressing the historical and ongoing exclusion of certain groups, along with the disproportionate impacts experienced by them. This encompasses vulnerable and marginalized communities, future generations, and nonhumans (Williams and Doyon 2019, 148). In the forest sector, it is considered essential to address current social injustices to ensure the fair implementation of carbon policies (Satyal et al. 2020). In the transport sector, global justice concerns relate to electrified transportation and the associated demand for rare minerals (Prause and Dietz 2022). In both sectors, global justice issues related to climate change and the responsibilities for mitigating its effects are highly relevant (Schroeder and McDermott 2014).

Figure 1 illustrates the connections between different dimensions and core issues related to just transition that are used as the theoretical basis in the empirical analysis.

2.2 DMPs as Means to Facilitate Just Transitions

DMPs are forums for citizen participation, characterized by their combination of (stratified) random participant selection and structured deliberation. Examples of DMPs include CJs, citizens' assemblies, and deliberative polls. They all involve a representative subgroup of the population, provide participants with information, and engage them in an open and inclusive exchange of views concerning a given political issue. The process feeds into decision-making and public debate in the form of a statement, a report, or poll results (Curato et al. 2021; Smith and Setälä 2018). DMPs vary in their remit, defined by the DMP's convener, and also in duration and scale. CJs usually consist of 12–30 participants and convene over 2–5 days. Resembling the model of legal juries, CJs typically include expert or advocate testimonies and the scrutiny of evidence regarding the topic at hand. Jurors may also identify gaps in information and ask for further evidence. After weighing the evidence and deliberating, they collectively craft a statement in response to the task given to them (Smith and Setälä 2018; Crosby 1995). While our empirical focus is on CJs, here we discuss DMPs generally as the key design features (and challenges) relevant to our argument are shared across different formats of DMPs.

At a broad level, the mere organization of a DMP can be seen as enhancing procedural and recognition justice because it increases participation opportunities and enables the voicing of citizens' diverse concerns (Ross et al. 2021), though one could also argue that it risks crowding out other participation opportunities (Lafont 2015). Overall, it remains unclear if DMPs can promote more just outcomes—and if so, through which mechanisms they can do so—and how participants perceive justice in different contexts (Daw et al. 2022). According to Dryzek and Tanasoca (2021), the moral work required to apply the theoretical principles of justice in specific policy contexts is best conducted through democratic deliberation. They argue that deliberation is likely to promote justice because it facilitates the due consideration of competing interests and, by enhancing the epistemic competence of participating individuals, enables the identification of the best available solutions (Dryzek and Tanasoca 2021). Ideally, DMPs are valuable tools in advancing recognition and epistemic justice since DMPs aid affected communities in voicing their experiences and concerns (Ross et al. 2021). In DMPs, citizens learn from experts as well as learn the perspectives and values of other participants (Dryzek and Pickering 2019, 133). When DMPs are tasked with weighing various aspects of justice, they enable citizens to exercise formative agency (Dryzek and Tanasoca 2021), that is, to formulate the meaning of fairness within each policy context. In this way, DMPs are “doing” justice.

In the context of climate change, DMPs have increased participants' understanding of the issue, their readiness for action, and their ability to embrace a wider range of policy options (see, e.g., Niemeyer 2013; MacKenzie and Caluwaerts 2021). This suggests there is potential to foster distributive and recognition justice in relation to the burdens of climate change impacts on future generations and nonhuman others (Grönlund et al. 2020; Kulha et al. 2021; Willis et al. 2022). Furthermore, climate assemblies have recognized the needs of different communities and emphasized polluters' responsibility for their emissions (Scotland's Climate Assembly 2021). However, the ability of DMPs to foster intergenerational and global justice remains poorly evidenced (Daw et al. 2022).

Regarding procedural and recognition justice, the protected spaces created by DMPs can mitigate the influence of dominant groups in shaping political agendas (Willis et al. 2022; Daw et al. 2022). However, depending on their design, DMPs can also inadvertently perpetuate existing power imbalances (Pickering et al. 2022; Ross et al. 2021), for instance, by imposing a dominant definition of the common interest or emphasizing rationality in argumentation (Bond 2011). In addition, randomly selected jurors may not bring up the voices of disadvantaged groups; rather, deliberative forums need to be coupled with enclave deliberation for the disempowered (Karpowitz et al. 2009; Abdullah et al. 2016). Thus, the design and execution of deliberative processes strongly shape the outcomes (Chilvers and Longhurst 2016) and are instrumental in determining the DMP's capacity to address justice-related concerns.

The addressing of justice in DMPs faces similar design-related issues as those faced by DMPs in general. In particular, the framing of the task has been identified as central in affecting the deliberative quality, as well as the outcome, of DMPs. According to Bryant and Stone (2020), tight framing of the task can provide clear policy recommendations, but it may limit genuine citizen engagement by restricting citizens to preprepared options and a more consultative role, which can then contribute to problems such as perpetuating power imbalances. Thus, the framing of the task should be sufficiently wide-ranging to enable deliberative quality and a variety of potential recommendations (Niemeyer et al. 2024), but there is a trade-off between breadth and depth that also involves other factors, such as time, the resources provided, and the complexity of the issue (Wells et al. 2021; Elstub et al. 2021). In relation to promoting justice, DMPs with broad mandates have been identified as being promising for transcending conventional assumptions. They have the potential to generate novel insights into complex issues and stimulate innovative thinking, all while ensuring a more inclusive representation of marginalized perspectives (Daw et al. 2022). Thus, a broad task could enable deliberation on priorities and the general direction of climate policies (Wells et al. 2021) in a manner particularly useful regarding justice. However, citizens' formative agency in doing justice in policy contexts might benefit from a more specific task (Dryzek and Tanasoca 2021). Torney's (2021) analysis of climate assemblies in Ireland and France illustrates that, despite distinct tasks and designs, both assemblies clearly recommended the enhancement of climate policies. This suggests that the role of framing might be less important, but no previous studies empirically analyze justice dimensions in the deliberation process.

In our analysis, we approach the juries as forums for doing justice in the transport and forest policy contexts. We ask: (1) Which aspects of justice are relevant for the jurors? (2) What becomes of justice when it is deliberated in a CJ process and what role do expectations play in this?, and (3) How does the framing of the task of the jury influence the doing of justice in CJs?

3.1 The Organized Juries

3.2 Data and Analysis

We analyzed the recorded and transcribed group discussions and the final statements of both juries (Table 1) using theory-guided content analysis. First, we identified the justice claims related to the dimensions of justice. We focused on understanding how the participants interpreted these dimensions in the specific policy contexts. Using the framework outlined in Figure 1, we discerned the justice-related claims put forward by the jurors and examined how these claims evolved during deliberation. Specifically, we investigated whether certain justice issues became more prominent while others were downplayed. To monitor the development of justice claims, we followed the jury design and analyzed the three distinct phases of the juries: initial discussions, discussions with an explicit focus on justice, and discussions related to working with the statement (Table 1). We identified the justice claims relevant to each of these stages, paying attention to how frequently the same claims were reiterated and whether they gained support among the participants or were mentioned only once. The jurors raised justice issues throughout the discussions. The focused justice discussion functioned as a prompt to consider broader justice aspects, elaborating the justice perspectives compared with the initial discussions. In the analysis, we included all kinds of justice-related claims, regardless of whether the jurors explicitly used words like justice, fairness, or equality. We considered this approach appropriate given the broader task of the juries to provide recommendations on how to enact climate policies in a just manner.

The initial analysis was carried out collectively by all the authors, with each taking responsibility for a part of the data. Subsequently, two authors assumed responsibility for the analysis, ensuring consistency in the identified justice issues and analyzing how the arguments evolved across the different phases. The interpretations were discussed with the other authors to ensure consistency. Based on this analysis, we identified the core justice-related themes and storylines, as well as aspects of justice that were less considered in the discussions. These are reported in the following section. As we analyzed the jurors' verbalized justice concerns and their translation into the final statements, we aimed to avoid giving emphasis on cheap talk about justice that fails to impact on the “realization” of justice in the statement.

4.1 The Transport Jury

The transport jury assessed a set of policy measures that aimed to reduce carbon emissions from private cars—such as congestion fees, parking restrictions, and emission fees—and measures that promote public transport, cycling, and walking, and the electrification of road transport (Saarikoski et al. 2023). Despite the focus on specific policy measures, the jury members also envisioned more comprehensive changes that would enable car-free lifestyles.

4.2 The Forest Jury

The forest jury was provided with no predefined policy measures, but it had an open task to craft recommendations for forest use in Lapland, related to three themes: the current state of forest use, the related key problems, and the just use of forests. The LRC hoped to receive constructive suggestions on how to balance diverse forest-use interests. The analysis below highlights the main remarks on justice expressed in these discussions and describes their evolution throughout the jury process.

5.1 Doing Justice in Deliberation

The results support the assumption that deliberation can foster the consideration of interests extending beyond individual and immediate economic concerns (Grönlund et al. 2020; MacKenzie and Caluwaerts 2021; Willis et al. 2022). In the transport jury, the jurors endorsed the need for reducing transport emissions and justified this with concern for future generations and global responsibility. The arguments that carbon emissions should be tackled elsewhere, put forward in the first jury sessions, did not make their way to the final recommendations, suggesting that the jurors assumed more responsibility for global climate change mitigation. In the forest jury, climate mitigation and biodiversity protection were considered important, and the dominating role of commercial forestry was questioned. However, the jury also emphasized equality in climate mitigation responsibility: Lapland's forests can be carbon sinks, but simultaneously, emissions need to be cut elsewhere—Finland's regions should bear equal responsibility for mitigating climate change.

Besides fostering understanding of the need to reduce emissions, the transport jury increased the participants' understanding of diverse capacities and vulnerabilities related to the transition. Metrics, such as income and mobility needs in rural areas, were applied to justify the continuity of affordable private driving. Furthermore, subjective expectations regarding the legitimacy of certain lifestyles, such as living in remote areas and depending on affordable cars, were employed to rationalize the continuity of private motoring and the current level of mobility possibilities. These arguments further encouraged the jurors to emphasize supportive measures, such as improved public transport, as an important element of just carbon-neutral transport, instead of measures limiting the possibilities to use private cars in rural areas. The reluctance to propose radical measures demonstrates that deliberation outcomes can also conflict with ambitious climate policies as they become seen as unjust (see also Bowden et al. 2021).

In the forest jury, timber production was considered a legitimate source of livelihood despite the challenges regarding biodiversity and climate change mitigation. Restrictions on private forest owners' forest management choices and loss of income were understood to be a legitimate basis for compensation. This resulted in recommendations supporting and encouraging the owners to protect biodiversity and carbon sinks rather than strict requirements and related sanctions. The emphasis on forest owners' rights is a common principle for determining access to forest resources. In addition, it is often regarded as necessary to acknowledge the rights, expectations, and needs of local communities (Forsyth and Sikor 2013; Hoang et al. 2019), including those of the forest itself, to guarantee the existence of the forests (Meriläinen and Lehtinen 2022). Similar to the transport jury's recommendation for supportive and enabling measures, the compensation for private forest owners and supportive measures were seen as ways to balance the legitimate expectations in the jury process.

The transport jury demonstrated how a jury deliberation can provide deeper insights on the potential and practical impacts of transition policies on people's well-being and daily lives (cf. Daw et al. 2022). This especially occurred by emphasizing the different opportunities for a car-free lifestyle in urban and rural areas and for shifting to electric cars. The accounts of jurors living in rural areas with long distances to travel to services and limited or no public transport connections made it clear that most of the policy measures, such as road tolls or parking restrictions, are unfeasible outside the Helsinki metropolitan area. Similarly, the buying costs of electric cars made them an unfeasible alternative for many. To meet the objectives, the jury looked for more creative solutions beyond those proposed by the URC, including biofuels and influencing the mobility needs themselves. Thus, besides identifying practical impacts, the jury also brought forward new ideas to reach more just outcomes, which adds an important aspect to the potential benefits of CJs.

The forest jury showcased the capacity to go beyond vested interests and emphasize the common good (c.f. Pickering et al. 2022; MacKenzie and Caluwaerts 2021). Reflections about the appropriate balance between public and private interests especially took place when the participants discussed the role of forestry and private forest owners' rights and duties. The jury highlighted that one industry dominating over all the others is unjust. Furthermore, the jury indicated support for burden sharing according to the “beneficiary pays” and “polluter pays” principles. A key outcome of the deliberation was the acknowledgment of the multiplicity of forest uses and the right of all forest users to be heard, resulting in an emphasis on inclusive and transparent forest land-use planning procedures. In a situation where legitimate interests are at odds, the procedures of decision-making play a special role in ensuring fairness (cf. Esaiasson et al. 2019). However, the emphasis on procedural justice can also be interpreted as an attempt to circumvent the difficult balancing task the jurors found themselves faced with, transferring the actual balancing to planning situations.

5.2 The Role of Framing the Tasks and Limitations

Both examples highlight the formative agency (Dryzek and Tanasoca 2021) of the juries in formulating the meaning of fairness in the policy contexts and in proposing solutions that are able to account for the conflicting interests or poorly understood practical limitations of everyday life. However, the juries differed in terms of their subjects and the framing of their tasks, which somewhat influenced the deliberations. In the transport jury, the pre-given agenda directed attention to specific transport policy measures, while the forest jury had a more open framing to consider the utilization of forests. As was also noticed by Wells et al. (2021) in relation to juries conducted in the United Kingdom, the pregiven measures make the transport jury appear more as a consultative process with limited room for citizens to influence the agenda, which the participants also criticized. While the focus on specific policy problems has generally been connected to the effectiveness of DMPs in providing clear recommendations (Bryant and Stone 2020), in justice deliberations, broad framings can facilitate more innovative thinking. Despite its broad framing, the forest jury provided specific policy recommendations, and the openness enabled the jury to address justice in broader terms, including consideration of processes with which to reach better solutions. Had the transport jury been given more space to consider how to reduce emissions in a just manner, instead of considering predetermined policy measures, it might have been able to produce more innovative solutions and enact its formative agency more effectively.

Furthermore, the transport jury's specific focus on an issue affecting the everyday life of the participants may have reinforced the jurors' expectations related to maintaining the current level of mobility, which was a clear limitation for its capacity to consider global justice (cf. Daw et al. 2022). The forest jury's task was more distanced from the everyday life of the participants, which enabled it to consider more broadly the general good in terms of climate mitigation and biodiversity. This implies that the choice of subject may influence the way justice becomes understood within DMPs.

The unaddressed justice issues give indications about the capacities of the juries to deal with potential epistemic injustices and raise the voices of disadvantaged and marginalized groups. The juries distilled the most important concerns of an average citizen, but both juries lacked in-depth consideration of vulnerable groups such as those economically most disadvantaged in the transport jury or the indigenous Samí people in the forest jury. Involving vulnerable groups has been an acknowledged issue in DMPs and solutions such as enclave deliberation have been proposed (Karpowitz et al. 2009; Ross et al. 2021). Our study further emphasizes this need: when aiming to use DMPs to facilitate justice in transitions governance, the inclusion of vulnerable perspectives becomes pertinent; otherwise, the juries can just reinforce existing power relations.

Finally, our approach focused on analyzing the justice issues raised during deliberative processes and how these were shaped into the final statements. While the jurors highlighted the issues they found important, some concerns may have gone unspoken, and others may have been voiced simply because the participants believed they were expected to mention them. However, the task of creating a statement likely ensured that the core shared justice issues persisted. Hence, it is likely that our analysis can show how justice develops in deliberation.