Challenges of introducing citizen science in climate citizens' assemblies 

Inclusivity & representativity 

While citizen science has the potential to democratize knowledge production, participation is not always equally accessible to all members of society. Many projects rely on digital tools and platforms, which can exclude communities with limited internet access, lower technological literacy, or language barriers. Additionally, participation is often voluntary, meaning that those with more free time and resources, typically people from privileged backgrounds, are more likely to engage. This can result in an overrepresentation of certain demographics, while marginalized communities, who are often the most affected by climate change, may be left out of decision-making. If climate citizens’ assemblies are to truly represent diverse perspectives, efforts must be made to ensure inclusive participation and equitable access to citizen science initiatives. 

Ethical concerns 

Citizen science projects often involve the collection and sharing of environmental and personal data, raising concerns about privacy, ownership, and consent. Participants may not always be fully aware of how their data is used or whether it will be shared with third parties. There is also a risk of exploitation, where volunteers contribute valuable information without receiving proper recognition or compensation. Furthermore, in cases involving indigenous knowledge or local environmental observations, issues of cultural appropriation and consent become particularly sensitive. Ethical guidelines and legal protections must be in place to ensure that citizen science respects the rights of participants and communities while maintaining transparency in data usage. 

Complexity in integration with policymaking 

Even when citizen science generates valuable and reliable data, integrating it into official policymaking can be challenging. Many government institutions are accustomed to collaborating with the same researchers, universities, and agencies, making them hesitant to embrace new perspectives. Bureaucratic resistance often prevents policymakers and civil servants from fully recognising citizen science as a legitimate source of evidence. Without clear frameworks for integration and open-minded governance models, climate citizens’ assemblies may struggle to incorporate citizen-generated evidence into meaningful policy outcomes. 

Scepticism from commissioners 

Despite its use of rigorous methodologies and its ability to produce high-quality outcomes, citizen science continues to face significant scepticism from commissioners, such as policymakers and civil servants. This scepticism often stems not from concerns about scientific rigour, but from political or institutional reluctance to embrace deeper forms of public participation and the greater flexibility this entails in decision-making. Overcoming these biases requires strong advocacy and increased collaboration between citizen science initiatives and organisers of citizen science assemblies. 

Risk of tokenism in public participation 

While citizen science is often promoted as a way to make decision-making more democratic, there is a risk that it can be used as a superficial gesture rather than a meaningful tool for change. Some governments and institutions engage with citizen science projects only to appear inclusive, without genuinely considering public input in policy decisions. This form of tokenism can lead to frustration and disillusionment among participants, who may feel that their contributions are ignored. To avoid this, climate citizens' assemblies must ensure that citizen science findings are not just collected but actively used in shaping climate policies. 

Appropriation of citizen science for political or corporate agendas 

In some cases, citizen science initiatives and citizen climate assemblies can be co-opted by political actors for their own interests. Governments may selectively use the outcomes of participatory processes, highlighting findings that align with their agenda while disregarding inconvenient results. To prevent such appropriation, strong ethical guidelines, transparency in data usage, and independent oversight are essential to safeguard the integrity of citizen science and citizens’ assemblies, ensuring they remain genuine tools for democratic climate action.