Introduction: Embedding Public Participation in Planning, Governance, and Climate Action

Over the last two decades, the global political landscape has witnessed an unprecedented surge in interest in processes of democratic renewal and innovation. This movement, driven by researchers, public decision-makers, and activists alike, seeks to strengthen the deliberative functioning of modern democracies. It promotes more participatory governance [1] within political–administrative institutions (including political parties) and a greater capacity to value the principle of horizontal subsidiarity in planning projects, policies, and future-oriented processes organized in dialogue with the living forces of society (organized intermediaries as well as individuals and informal communities). The core objective of this growing movement is to enhance the effectiveness of policies and projects designed to address the multifaceted societal, environmental, and cultural challenges of our interconnected world, with its growing technical and social complexity. The interest generated by these transformations—whose quality has improved through networks, alliances, and mutual-learning platforms—is part of a broader shift in democratic theory and practice aimed at strengthening institutions’ capacity to integrate citizens’ voices into decision-making and to address complex public problems in interdependent contexts [2,3,4].

This process, encompassing a wide array of experiments and methodological devices, has led to a progressive diversification of participatory approaches—ranging from deliberative mechanisms based on random selection, such as mini-publics, to collaborative governance arrangements and digital platforms, including the use of rotation principles for spokespersons elected within party-movements and local civic lists. Their scale of implementation has also expanded, progressively moving beyond the local sphere to national [5] and also supranational levels, as the recent trends in the European Panels, the Global Citizens Assemblies Network (GloCAN) and the Democratic Odyssey, well capture.

A defining characteristic of this evolution has been the shift from “isolated pilot processes” to the configuration of “multichannel systems of participation and deliberation” [6], often supported by digital technologies. This development has been accompanied by increasing interaction among public administrations, researchers, and practitioners, contributing to the gradual institutionalization of these practices and their integration into various sectors [7], including education and professional training.

This expansion has not occurred without tensions and challenges. Numerous studies have pointed out that despite the proliferation of participatory initiatives, significant limitations persist in terms of perceived legitimacy, effectiveness, inclusion, and impact [8,9]. These include participatory fatigue and declining levels of embeddedness within governance systems [10,11], especially when embeddedness is imagined as a thoroughly enrooted—although weakly normative—status, through which participation “sits in a productive relation to the other institutions of the democratic system” [12]. In the case of deliberative practices based on sortition, the recent literature has highlighted several constraints, including the difficulty of implementing theoretically advanced recruitment methods and the complex relationship between invited participants (the “minipublic”), their often highly transformative deliberative experience, and the broader audience (the “maxipublic”). This has raised questions about the capacity of such devices to generate diffuse trust among those not directly involved in the core stages of deliberation (see [13]). These observations have renewed calls for “ecosystemic” solutions capable of complementing participatory and deliberative approaches by coordinating multiple channels of social dialogue and digital engagement. Such solutions may include stages that create spaces of positive discrimination for traditionally under-represented actors [14], as well as “safer spaces” designed to attract broader, depoliticized, or distrustful audiences through playfulness and other inclusive principles [15,16].

Beyond the internal challenges of participatory and deliberative mechanisms, as well as their ability to connect with the emotional sphere [17], broader decision-making procedures and administrative reforms [18], it is also essential to consider the broader political transformations of the past five years. These include shifts in leadership styles and the emergence of discourses that question or erode liberal democratic principles [19], introducing new uncertainties regarding the role and scope of participation in contemporary governance systems, to the point that authors like Gagnon et al. [20] argue that words such as “democracy” and “democratisation” stand today “for a long list of more specific signifiers” that “may only have in common the fact that they are not definable as involving autocracy” (p. vii). Against this backdrop, the field of democratic innovations appears as a dynamic yet fragmented space, where significant advances coexist with persistent shortcomings, and where the need for analytical approaches capable of integrating diverse practices, scales, and contexts is increasingly evident. Furthermore, the COVID pandemic—which had strong effects on the panorama of participatory practices [21,22]—not only proved to be a “laboratory of transformation” for many participatory process [23,24] but also demonstrated that non-human forces can have strong impacts on the transformation of governance practices and democratic trends, to the point that it becomes important to recognize specific forms of agency that are not located within the human subject. From this perspective, the new theoretical trends that reframe the centrality of participatory practices under reviewed versions of the “Assemblage Theory” [25,26] constitute an important shift today, which is guiding new formats of participatory experiments [27] that help broaden the scope of politics and democracy, actively incorporating more-than-humans and transforming our human democracies into “multi-species democracies” [28].

However, while practices and their socio-political frameworks have expanded rapidly, a significant transdisciplinary gap remains in their analysis and evaluation. Reflection on the plurality of approaches to participatory and deliberative processes across disciplines and perspectives is still insufficient.

This Special Issue, entitled “Embedding Public Participation in Planning, Governance and Climate Action: A Cross-Disciplinary Overview,” is situated within this context and seeks to address some of these challenges. Conceived in line with the call for papers, it offers a snapshot of the current state of democratic innovations. Its purpose is to gather theoretical and empirical contributions that advance democracy through interdisciplinary collaboration, stimulate collective reflection on the near future of democratic innovations, and promote dialogue across academic fields. Rather than proposing a single definition of participation, the contributions assembled here illuminate the diversity of approaches, scales, and mechanisms that shape the field, as well as the persistent limitations affecting legitimacy, effectiveness, inclusion, and impact. This Special Issue thus responds to the need for more holistic and interdisciplinary approaches capable of capturing the complexity of participatory and deliberative practices in contemporary contexts.

The seven articles included in this collection explore how participation can be more effectively embedded in institutional frameworks, particularly when addressing complex challenges such as environmental transitions and technological integration. Four thematic clusters can be identified, through which the contributions collectively navigate the tensions between institutional “invited spaces” and bottom-up civic organization. Many highlight a visible tension between institutionalization and innovation in participatory practices, showing how processes of formalization and scaling up, while consolidating participation within governance systems, also generate new challenges in terms of legitimacy, effectiveness, inclusion, and impact.

The first group of contributions addresses technological frontiers and cognitive systems, examining how emerging technologies—from Artificial Intelligence (AI) to interactive mapping—can transcend traditional problem-solving methodologies by leveraging synergies of human and machine capabilities.

Rask and Shin conduct a systematic literature review to examine, through academic discourse, the potential of Collective Intelligence (CI) to transform deliberative democracy. They conceptualize CI in the public sector as the “dynamic capacity of a democratic collective to engage in participatory problem-solving and decision-making, synergistically combining human creativity and machine capabilities.” Their analysis reveals a convergence between CI and deliberative democracy: while CI focuses on optimizing problem-solving through technological enhancement, deliberative democracy provides the ethical and philosophical grounding for its application. However, they warn of the risk of “collective stupidity,” whereby systems may act less intelligently than the individuals composing them, thus requiring careful management of power dynamics and algorithmic bias. Their analysis underscores the pivotal role of digital and machine-centric components, which go beyond being mere supplementary tools. AI and digital platforms are central to the effective operation of CI systems, enhancing inclusivity and responsiveness through real-time feedback, extensive data analysis, and broader stakeholder interaction. The authors advocate further research on measuring deliberative quality in real time, deploying CI tools to empower under-represented groups, addressing specific governance challenges, and examining ethical and social implications, particularly regarding privacy, security, and power asymmetries in technology-driven decision-making.

Complementing this theoretical perspective, Hennig, Roberts, Welling, Pinal, and Ólafsson present a practical application of technological innovation through a “serious game” approach in rural Iceland. Developed within the pan-European PHOENIX project, their study focuses on the “Land Use Game,” a prototype designed to engage younger generations in participatory planning. Using 2D and 3D interactive mapping, the game allows participants to assign land-use preferences in a playful yet meaningful way. The study evaluates its feasibility, technological features, and practical applications, drawing on gameplay observations, participant feedback, and spatial analysis. The authors argue that such tools are essential because many individuals feel excluded from traditional planning processes due to technical complexity and lack of accessible platforms. Their findings demonstrate that gamification can lower practical and social barriers to participation, making land-use planning more accessible and engaging while providing planners with actionable knowledge and valuable spatial data often unavailable through conventional consultation processes. The second, refined version of the game further improved technical functionality and fostered more deliberative interaction during gameplay, strengthening its potential to support evidence-based planning.

The second group of articles addresses the challenges of scale and linguistic diversity in participatory and deliberative settings, particularly when participation extends beyond the local level.

De Carvalho, Zanandrez, and de Menezes examine the reconstruction of participatory institutions in Brazil after President Bolsonaro’s mandate, focusing on the PPA Participativo, a national-level budget-planning experiment structured around decentralized regional debates. The strategy integrates three layers: an online platform, state-level plenary sessions, and a high-level inter-council forum. By articulating these institutional designs, the Brazilian government sought to address the challenge of scaling up participation. The experiment represented a significant step toward re-establishing participatory governance after a period of political disengagement from such approaches. The authors identify tensions between organized corporate demands and emerging agendas such as climate action and animal rights, concluding that large-scale participatory initiatives require bridging the gap between participation scholarship and institutional activism.

At the European level, Lionel Cordier analyses the linguistic and political dimensions of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE), which involved 800 citizens deliberating in 24 official languages over nearly one year. He identifies a phenomenon of “procedural slowness,” particularly in written drafting and amendment processes, where interpretation and translation—though resource-intensive—may enhance deliberative quality by formalizing exchanges and disciplining communication. However, he warns against “hegemonic multilingualism,” whereby English as a lingua franca privileges highly educated and multilingual participants while marginalizing those lacking transnational linguistic capital. He further notes that the absence of live translation in certain informal sessions led to language-based clustering and self-censorship. Cordier suggests that subsidiary approaches, such as on-demand interpreters, could mitigate these effects. Looking ahead, he reflects on the potential of promoting constructed auxiliary languages to foster a more equitable European identity and reduce linguistic inequality.

The third cluster examines political context, trust, and regional disparities.

Duradoni, Severino, Neri, Puddu, and Guazzini offer a gender-sensitive analysis of trust in climate-sceptical governments, focusing on Italy’s current administration. They identify a paradox: while institutional trust often predicts pro-environmental behaviour, greater trust in a climate-sceptical government correlates with lower levels of implemented pro-environmental behaviour. Trust, therefore, is not neutral; its effects depend on the values promoted by institutions. This finding suggests that open participatory methods may be counterproductive in contexts where authorities promote sceptical narratives.

Nagy, Heiner, and Kovács examine academic discourse on participation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Despite intense environmental pressures, the legacy of totalitarian regimes has weakened traditions of public engagement. Their bibliometric analysis reveals a sectoral and country-focused research landscape dominated by energy security concerns rather than deliberative innovation. They describe the region as characterized by “democracies without citizens,” where participatory apathy hampers the implementation of the European Green Deal. Strengthening autonomous civil society engagement is thus crucial to counter scepticism and rebuild institutional trust.

Finally, Bullon-Cassis, Lutringer, Mexi, and Welp analyze youth agency through Hirschman’s “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” framework, examining Climate Citizens’ Assemblies in Barcelona, Bologna, Geneva, and Paris. They argue that while protest (“voice”) creates opportunities for institutional response, perceptions of responsiveness are decisive. In Geneva, embedded deliberative processes reinforced institutional loyalty; in Barcelona, unmet expectations led to disenchantment and demobilization (“exit”). They conclude that mini-publics must be framed and communicated as components of longer-term engagement processes to sustain youth participation.

In conclusion, the contributions to this Special Issue collectively suggest that embedding public participation is a gradual and evolutionary process that extends beyond the design of platforms or the selection of participants. It requires sustained commitments to transparency, responsiveness, and transdisciplinary dialogue in order to build holistic and consequential models of interaction between institutions and society. Participation is not a one-size-fits-all solution but a complex negotiation shaped by technology, language, trust, historical legacies, and path dependencies.

The articles highlight structural tensions within contemporary democratic innovations: the gap between formal inclusion and effective influence; the reproduction of inequalities within inclusive frameworks; the ambivalence of facilitators such as trust and digital technologies; and the decisive role of historical and institutional contexts. Without a consequentialist orientation capable of producing tangible policy outcomes, democratic innovations risk becoming sources of frustration or empty rituals.

Looking ahead, the future of democratic innovations must focus on bridging these gaps, ensuring that citizens’ voices are not only heard but effectively integrated into governance structures. This requires strengthened monitoring and evaluation frameworks and the development of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches.

This Special Issue thus calls for deeper analysis of how political representatives conceptualize citizenship, more flexible participatory systems integrating psychosocial and technological dimensions, and more integrated, transdisciplinary frameworks capable of articulating the diversity of participatory forms in contexts of democratic transformation.

In short, this collection offers a critical and multidimensional perspective on contemporary participation—not as a homogeneous set of practices but as a plural and evolving field shaped by normative, institutional, technological, and contextual tensions. Rather than providing definitive answers, it invites renewed and inter-disciplinary reflection on the conditions under which participation can meaningfully contribute to democratic renewal and the governance of complex public problems in increasingly interdependent societies.