We recruited participants from an earlier survey conducted on energy justice in the region of Overijssel, specifically the respondents who expressed interest in continuing participation in the study (Van Duren, Mengerink & van de Ven 2022). To counter possible biases in this self-enrollment, we contacted local organizations that help citizens living in energy poverty with energy saving. Third, we sent emails to local (sport) clubs and neighborhood communities in these four cities to spread the word. Fourth, posters and flyers were spread in public spaces (library, pharmacies, restaurants, shops) in each of the cities approximately three or four weeks before the session. Per mini-public, we aimed for a mixture in age, gender, occupation, income, and type of home (Table 1). Due to ethical concerns, we could not ask for personal information beforehand; therefore, various recruitment strategies were applied to cover the diversity. In total, 68 persons signed up to participate, while 42 persons showed up at the events.

For each mini-public, we organized a warm-up round, a core part, and a closure. Each included visual materials. Participants were seated in groups of four participants, supported by one trained moderator1 per table. In the warm-up part, participants formulated their individual ideas about burdens and benefits in the energy transition, without being influenced by other (dominant) participants. To help them order their thoughts, the researchers selected snippets like newspaper fragments, photos, and icons, which were distributed over the tables. These materials were deliberately broad and not limited to energy themes, encouraging open interpretation. In the main part of the deliberations, half of the mini-public was deliberating with the support of geographical maps; the other half used energy justice-related drawings (see Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). They all explored justice dilemmas in the context of an energy transition. The maps were geographical maps with overlays covering topics such as energy poverty, nature parks, and pollution. These maps were physically printed on transparent foil. They provided rather abstract and expert-driven information. The drawings had been developed based on prior statements by the survey respondents (Van Duren Mengerink & van de Ven 2022) about energy justice. We selected three dilemmas for the drawings that each illustrated one dimension of justice: distributional, procedural, and recognition. These visual materials were tested and improved based on a pilot round in other provinces in the Netherlands (Gelderland and North Holland). In the final phase of the deliberations, participants completed a postcard task. They had to write down on the postcard the insight they found most meaningful and to indicate to whom it should be sent. Postcards were chosen for their narrative richness and ability to convey dense and detailed sources of information (Arreola & Burkhart, 2010).2

The analysis focused on the role and function of the visual material in supporting the discussion and framing of ‘energy justice’ in the Dutch energy transition. Each of the discussions at the different tables was individually recorded and transcribed. All 11 recordings (35 hours of recording) were transcribed into text documents. Additionally, the open answers from the survey (Van Duren, Mengerink & van de Ven 2022) and field notes from all moderators were added to the dataset to reflect on the setting and atmosphere. For analytical purposes, it is not enough simply to assess deliberativeness by asking whether every individual has had equal input or whether those individuals show evidence of having changed their minds (Bächtiger & Parkinson, 2019). Analysis must be open to the possibility of a variety of communicative modes and performative repertoires, changing perspectives through narrative and a variety of unconventional interventions. It is this last requirement that we specifically explore by looking at the role of representational visual materials in studying a just energy transition from a citizen’s perspective. For data analysis, we created a codebook based on the three tenets of energy justice: distributional justice, procedural justice, and recognition justice, with the sub-codes availability, affordability, responsibilities, and burdens. After this first round of coding, the data was sorted on type of material (selected (photo) images and clippings, drawings, geographical maps, and postcards) to filter only relevant quotations in light of discussing a just energy transition. Based on this filtered quotation dataset, an inductive analysis was conducted.

When using selected images to discuss a just energy transition (see Figure 1), four themes predominantly appeared from the analysis: role of agency, experiences of mistrust, and sympathy for the other. It must be noted that these main themes appeared in conversations within a much broader context than only energy, such as next generations, responsibilities, and valued landscapes. In light of energy justice, understanding the logics behind a decision is a theme that intersects between the three tenets of justice, as it includes questions of (fair) distribution, access to information (procedural), and recognition of the needs of citizens (and of others) to experience levels of freedom to independently reflect and choose.

Most expressions included issues related to feelings of agency in various ways. Across the dataset, participants expressed a strong sense of dependency, referring, for example, to institutions (‘Because I can’t find out what those companies do’), systems (‘Up to a certain level, I can determine that I want to pay a fair price. But can others do this too?’), and one another (‘You become dependent on others, which makes you inactive, because then what else am I supposed to do?’), which shaped their perceptions of agency and fairness in the energy transition. One participant used the assignment of choosing a visual (a labyrinth) and text to reflect on her own position. Surprisingly, the maze was turned into a forest when speaking. This shows that although the visuals might direct a participant in describing the visual, she still used her own words to describe the meaning of the visual about her experience. The imagery used in the research exercise helped participants articulate these otherwise abstract experiences of entanglement and confusion.

Delving further into the data, mistrust emerged as a central thread throughout the data. While it varied in intensity and focus, it consistently underpinned attitudes toward a just transition. Different ideas of mistrust are at play when citizens are considering a just energy transition. ‘Every time I get the same answer: we don’t know yet’. Disappointment and a lack of trust are expressed through doubt in the indecisiveness of the government. Regardless of her attempts, answers to questions specifically for her street/housing type remain unanswered. Although it demonstrates the high degree of willingness of the participant to visit information meetings, she is left with feelings of disappointment and frustration as those civil servants, regardless of their good intentions, cannot or are not allowed to share more information in light of a long-term timeline or a strategic plan to realize the energy transition and what this means for the individual. Mistrust also extended to experts and public discourse. Some participants critiqued contradictory messaging: ‘If someone who claims to be an expert says something negative about it … others repeat that’.

Others questioned the consistency of sustainability narratives, pointing to contradictions between government rhetoric and what is seen in practice. In the following quotations, a participant used the newspaper heading (‘Gas companies have forfeited their right’) to express his dissatisfaction with how companies dealt with challenges in the past. ‘I wholeheartedly agree. In my view, they have not acted ethically towards many people I know who still live there’. Another participant expressed the view that it is not logical for the government to promote a sustainable food system, such as food forests and indigenous crop breeding, while simultaneously observing vast landscapes filled with flowers intended for export.

A last theme that stood out in the analysis when using selected images was the high degree of sympathy for others. Sympathy for ‘others’ surfaced as a significant and often under-acknowledged justice concern. Clearly, all themes are deeply interconnected with others, as becomes clear in the following quote, showing aspects of mistrust (regarding the energy supplier) and sympathy for others (fair price for the neighbor): ‘Here in this picture I saw the green local idea. So if you have a roof you can put nice solar panels on, just use it and then share the power preferably with your neighbor. Because with the energy supplier, you get almost nothing for it anyway’.

Also in the following quotation, after choosing an image/phrase from a limited pile of (±50) items, forced participants to go beyond their first thoughts. ‘Some pictures were already gone, but I chose a sailing boat. Without an engine in this case. Ideal, pure clean energy. You can go anywhere you want. And I used the text: “In the end, she turned her wound into a miracle”. I think that the pain and worries we now have, we should turn that into something beautiful. Hopefully we can ensure that our descendants in 20 years, 30 years’ time, will think that we have turned the pain that we had back then into something fantastic’. The reason we included this quotation is because it demonstrates that through the use of a limited set of images, citizens can be challenged to reconsider their own ideas to bring a perspective that truly brings new reflections to the table, rather than a repetition of other participants at the same table. Through their elaborate explanations, other participants opened the floor to deliberate on ideas of norms and values and visualize a concrete imagination of a future.

In summary, selected images allow participants to explore and construct their own points of view within a debate/topic, specifically in addition to other group members. This resulted in a wide collection of perspectives at the start.

When using energy-related drawings to discuss a just energy transition, four themes predominantly appeared: the organization of responsibilities, a lack of transparency and mistrust, limited understanding of the rationale behind decisions, and a fluctuating sense of sympathy toward others. While the drawings (see Annex 1) were explicitly designed to reflect the three tenets of energy justice, participant responses revealed how these concepts intertwine in practice. Notably, the drawings frequently initiated conversations around procedural justice, but participants quickly broadened their reflections to encompass intergenerational responsibilities, local attachments, and societal inequalities—issues extending far beyond energy alone.

The procedural justice images (see Figure 3), for instance, frequently elicited responses centered on the distribution of responsibilities—raising questions about who should take the lead and how roles are coordinated across actors. In the following quotation, the participant both referred to the government as a leading actor (responsibilities) and to energy companies as the ones who will profit the most and are therefore also seen as influential. ‘Solar panels, I never got into it. I’m still waiting for the government. But now I have to give it back to [energy provider]; they are then going to balance it somehow, and they benefit, while I don’t’. This statement reveals how the perceived imbalance between effort and benefit deepens the sense of unfairness and detachment.

Also, other participants situated (procedural) justice in the (un)reliability of actors: when even trusted role models failed to act upon their own values, their own willingness to change diminished. This blurred the lines between personal agency and systemic responsibility. A participant explained, ‘Sometimes I think, maybe the whole climate crisis is nonsense. Because the people at the top don’t act either’. Still, participants often saw making principal choices—such as paying extra for green energy—as a way to assert personal responsibility: ‘I think that we as citizens, also have that responsibility to choose. You show that you want things to be different. So that the government can’t say, “Yes, but you don’t want anything else.” And I wanted to add that even poor people, like me, I can’t be the only one, who are willing to pay a little bit more for your principles’. Yet, responsibility was also experienced as frustrating when collective support was absent. One participant, describing herself as ahead of the troops, explained, ‘Often it is the case that I am too early. Organizations are not ready for the question or not understanding my question’. Others also expressed helplessness when their individual efforts did not translate into wider societal momentum: ‘There is maybe frustration and powerlessness there, because from my individual space and individual choices I can do that. It frustrates me to a certain extent that as a collective we don’t care that much about that’.

Next to that, drawings can help describe the current situation and recognize different positions. Although the drawing hinted at procedural justice, the participant related to recognition justice (see Figure 2): ‘Yes, I do think this picture reflects very well how I feel from time to time. Because everyone is pointing at everyone, and everyone is waiting for everyone, in the end exactly nothing happens’. This shows that if drawings are designed open-ended, they contribute actively to the involvement of multiple perspectives on the same situation.

While the round with selected images and clippings induced stories that included sympathy for the other, in this round we observed participants strongly framing the problems from their own position without referring to ‘the other’. ‘I also see a lot of opportunities. I can insulate my own house. But is that a wise choice?’ Or: ‘When I look at my own picture, am I being seen, am I being heard, am I being understood? I don’t think so’. Surprisingly, when talking about needs or solutions, participants barely spoke about problems or solutions needed for their own situation but mainly discussed problems and solutions for citizens in ‘other’ situations than themselves.

Like in the selected round images, also when using drawings, a lack of transparency and mistrust was frequently raised, as we could already observe between the lines of earlier quotations. Additionally, a technical mistrust is expressed by a participant: ‘The best thing would be, that I could be sure that the power coming out of my socket is also green. The energy network is so opaque. It’s just a guess whether that wisp that comes out today comes from Russia, from Turkey or from your solar panels’. Transparency and mistrust are also discussed regarding the understanding of implemented policies and solutions: ‘My wish is clarity on who pays what, and on what the government is doing, as we don’t see what actually changes’.

Also, when using drawings during the sessions, participants complained about transparency in policy processes. Interestingly, participants did not uniformly assign blame. While they questioned the coherence of governmental decisions (e.g., energy surcharges going to high-income earners), they also showed empathy for policymakers, recognizing constraints of time, uncertainty, and political compromise: ‘It’s quite crooked, but also understandable. They had to make an energy plan in a month’. Yet another participant retorted, ‘They had other options. The planners knew the consequences. So this was a conscious choice’.

In summary, our results show that well-designed open-ended drawings are particularly suitable for problem definition of a complex problem in the lived realities of citizens.

In this round of the sessions, participants discussed geographical maps (see Methods section) that were displayed on screen in an interactive map or printed on a transparent foil. Three themes predominantly appeared from the analysis: dichotomic dialogue style, abstract perspectives, and giving meaning to numbers.

Using geographical maps, a notable shift in conversational dynamics was observed. Unlike previous formats that centered around personal storytelling, discussions when using maps often adopted a comparative frame, with participants positioning themselves in relation to others. This frequently manifested in dichotomous thinking, such as contrasts between ‘I’ and ‘them’. For instance, one participant expressed frustration over top-down policymaking, suggesting that intrinsic motivation would be more effective than imposed regulations: ‘I always find it so unfortunate that things [sustainable behavior] have to be arranged through policies. People should start seeing it for themselves. Otherwise, it will be imposed from above and then you get that polarisation again’ (Map: livability × health risks).

Participants also reflected on perceived unfairness in subsidy distribution, revealing underlying feelings of mistrust. In more detail, concerns were raised about individuals misusing grants, with skepticism extending to both fellow citizens and government oversight: ‘Sometimes you see people applying for a grant and then all at once there’s a big fat car in front of their door’ (Map: income × energy poverty). Here, participants advocated for more stringent monitoring to ensure subsidies serve their intended purpose. Spatial injustice was also discussed as a cumulative phenomenon, especially when participants highlighted disparities in access to renewable energy solutions. ‘If someone either has no money or has no place for solar panels on their own roof, then a municipality or a neighbor should provide them, or you can have it leased, for example’ (Map: average income × renewable energy projects). Different forms of justice are included in this expression. While the idea introduces solidarity, it also reaffirms power asymmetries by placing vulnerable citizens in dependent positions.

Compared to earlier discussed visual methods, map-based discussions tended to generate abstract, general reflections rather than anecdotal accounts. Participants often transitioned into a normative discourse, proposing value-based solutions. For example, one participant emphasized a return to nature as a guiding principle: ‘In the energy transition, nature should be central. People who are connected to nature feel better’ (Map: energy poverty × energy use). Nevertheless, these normative reflections were also anchored in the realities revealed by the data. Participants expressed surprise at counter-intuitive patterns—such as low energy use in high-poverty areas—suggesting that perceived (policy formulated) problems do not always align with actual data. And so, geographical maps also helped participants to analyze and better understand the current situation. Where the previous participant ended up in a normative suggestion, the following participant noticed a gap and turned that into an opportunity: ‘My concern is that apparently not everyone with money is consciously engaged in generating renewable energy’ (Map: income × renewable energy projects).

Specifically for the geographical maps, conversations also included discussions about giving meaning to numbers. In this category, more normative discussions appeared in light of energy justice. For example, what do we consider as a ‘fair’ amount of energy to be used per person, in light of recent developments that make people generate their own energy: ‘Because you can generate a lot, but if you use it all at the same time, then it’s not quite fair anymore. Because the person who can’t afford it, ends up with paying 25% extra or so’ (Map: average income × renewable energy projects). From a normative spatial angle, ‘Well, you get a bit of a skew then, because if you live in Rijssen; you have spare energy that you can sell. But if it’s a very densely populated municipality with low-rise buildings, where are you going to put your solar panels?’ (Map: average income × renewable energy projects). ‘What I see here, and what surprises me, is that precisely the areas, where there is a lot of energy poverty, are also low in consumption. So then you would say, that’s is not the location where the problem is at all’ (Map: energy poverty × average energy use). Like in the previous quotation, conversations appeared around whether the geographical map matched their expectations. One other participant shared, ‘Because it’s almost all rural. So you would say how is this possible? I find that very strange’.

A different type of conversation appeared when the conversation moved from interpreting the numbers toward considering what a ‘just’ map should look like. When participants discussed the ‘energy generation’ map combined with the ‘average energy consumption’ map, ideas of fairness expressed included a strong distributional component. The fair solution and anticipated ideal situation were framed as balance over (a) the different municipalities and (b) generated energy. Where in the previous conversations striving for balance/equality in terms of numbers was ideal, the conversation when using the ‘average income’ map with the ‘renewable energy’ map continued toward spatial implications. The areas where fewer burdens are experienced (in terms of landscapes, construction, biodiversity) could compensate for the areas that suffer from the installation of solar or wind parks. At the same time, participants discussing the ‘renewable energy’ map with the ‘average energy consumption’ map kept returning to the theme of skepticism toward the competence of political actors. Several participants questioned whether policymakers fully understood the technical and spatial implications of energy projects.

In sum, map-based discussions shifted participants from individual narratives to systemic critique and procedural and recognition justice, broadening the conversation to include structural, spatial, and institutional dimensions, hence the more distributional dimensions of energy justice.

After 2.5 hours of deliberation within smaller groups, participants were asked to write a postcard with one key message ‘The energy transition is fair if ….’ and address this to a person (this could be anyone). The postcards mainly highlighted responsibilities and actions related to a specific actor. This information is specifically valuable in light of procedural justice, as it indicates by whom the energy transition should be organized and prioritizes what should be done first.

Our analysis started with looking at the addressed persons, as this indicates who is expected to undertake action (procedural justice). Participants addressed their postcards primarily to political figures, suggesting a continued belief in institutional responsibility for a just energy transition. Addressees ranged from EU-level actors (e.g., Timmermans, EC Commissioner) to national (e.g., Rutte (Prime Minister), Van der Plas (Political Party Leader)) and municipal representatives (e.g., councilors, aldermen). Notably, this reliance on political actors appears paradoxical, as earlier conversations also revealed deep-rooted mistrust toward governmental intentions and actions. Few postcards were directed to provincial authorities, and only a minority addressed society at large (future generations, unheard /unseen citizens, or the Dutch population), reflecting on earlier calls for individual accountability.

Content-wise, the key messages from the postcards could be divided into three main categories. First, anticipated inequality, framed within Dutch policy contexts, was a central concern. Participants expressed strong urgency regarding distributional justice, including calls for fair pricing, targeted support for vulnerable households, and equitable spatial placement of renewable infrastructure. These views reflected fears that the energy transition could provoke existing inequalities. Second, a category of messages emphasized individual responsibility, echoing earlier rounds. These participants advocated for behavioral change through education rather than regulation and for flexible participation options tailored to diverse capacities. Many stressed intrinsic motivation while acknowledging the supportive role of institutions or personal networks. The third and smaller category conveyed a global and cooperative outlook. These messages, aligned with distributional and recognition justice, emphasized planetary stewardship, inclusivity, and awareness of global inequities, particularly the disproportionate burdens borne by less privileged regions. These reflections illustrated a broader ethical and collective framing of energy justice beyond national borders. The postcard assignments address mostly procedural aspects of the transition. They specifically shed light on who citizens think should take action or is responsible to organize change, as well as what the essence of this action should or could be.

In Table 2, we summarize the themes deliberated by participants when talking about different materials and how these relate to three tenets of energy justice.