Burger, Maximilian

There is a clear lack of research on how policy proposals from bottom-up deliberative arenas, like Citizens' Juries, are perceived by the general public. This is especially apparent in countries of the Global South, where such policymaking approaches provide a promising case to solve pressing environmental issues. This study addresses this gap by investigating public support and the perceived legitimacy of policy recommendations emerging from Citizens’ Juries, using anti-deforestation measures in the Colombian Amazon as a case study. We aim to conduct an online survey experiment (n = 1,200) with Colombian participants to assess how the origin of an environmental policy - whether from a citizens’ jury, expert panel, or different government bodies - affects public support and perceived legitimacy. In addition, we will conduct a discrete choice experiment with the same sample, examining public preferences for Citizens' Jury characteristics. By presenting respondents with jury design variations in terms of representativeness, decision-making authority, depth of deliberation, and financial implications, we can determine which characteristics are most closely associated with perceived fairness and acceptance. Demographic and attitudinal data will also be collected to assess how factors such as political stance and environmental attitudes moderate perceptions of jury legitimacy. Our study will provide novel insight into the design of deliberative processes in Colombia and similar contexts, thereby enhancing public engagement and trust in participatory policy development.