New research argues the energy transition cannot treat citizens as a procedural checkbox

From symbolic inclusion to meaningful involvement

The phrase “more than a box to tick” carries a broader warning about how institutions can misuse participatory language. Consultation processes can be run, meetings can be held, and feedback can be solicited without materially affecting outcomes. When that happens, participation functions symbolically: it demonstrates that a process occurred, but not that citizens had genuine influence.

The TU/e work, as described in the candidate text, appears to challenge exactly that dynamic. By questioning the gap between the ideal of participation and the reality of how it is carried out, the research pushes the debate beyond whether participation should exist and toward whether it is designed to matter.

That is a critical shift for the next phase of energy policy. Transitions are often narrated through deployment targets, technology costs and emissions trajectories. Those are important measures, but they do not fully capture whether projects are socially durable. Citizens who are invited in too late, heard selectively, or treated mainly as obstacles to be managed are unlikely to see themselves as participants in a shared transition.

The research arrives at a moment of rising stakes

The stakes around participation are increasing because the transition itself is becoming more visible. As power systems change, more people encounter the transition through concrete local effects rather than abstract national goals. That makes public involvement harder to fake. Residents tend to distinguish quickly between being informed and being empowered.

Although the supplied text does not provide the full findings of Nikki Kluskens’ PhD research, it does provide the central argument: citizen participation is widely viewed as important, but often fails to move from ideal to reality. That claim alone is enough to sharpen the policy question. If everyone says participation matters, what institutional arrangements are preventing it from becoming substantive?

The answer may differ by project and jurisdiction, but the underlying issue is structural. Participation takes time, resources and a willingness to share influence. Those are the very things many large transition programs struggle to provide when they are under pressure to move quickly.

A useful challenge to transition planning

What makes this research timely is that it does not reject the energy transition. It challenges how the transition is governed. That is an important distinction. Calling for stronger citizen involvement is not a call to slow innovation or abandon climate and energy goals. It is a warning that legitimacy cannot be assumed simply because the objective is widely endorsed.

In that sense, the research reframes participation from a communications exercise into a design requirement. If citizens are treated as more than a box to tick, institutions may need to rethink when communities are engaged, how much influence they are given, and whether participation changes anything visible in the final outcome.

The strongest implication of the summary is straightforward: the transition will be more durable if citizens are treated as actors rather than audience. That is not a sentimental add-on to policy. It is a practical condition for making major system change hold up under public scrutiny.

With only a brief candidate text available, the full detail of the TU/e findings remains outside the supplied material. But the core argument is already consequential. An energy transition that speaks constantly about participation while delivering little of it risks undermining its own legitimacy. The research’s challenge is therefore simple and demanding at the same time: stop treating participation as procedural theater, and start treating it as part of how the transition actually works.

This article is based on reporting by Phys.org. Read the original article.