How the Just Transition has different meanings for policy and communities

In the latest DUST deliverable, we explored how community, policy, and contextual factors influence the participation of vulnerable and marginalised communities in place-based sustainability transition policies. One of the outcomes of this research was the identified mismatch between what the transition means for policy and for communities. The opportunities and barriers of the transition for decision makers and communities are vastly different, highlighting the need to identify meeting points and develop policy actions that can be mutually beneficial.

The Policy Perspective: Systemic Change from the Top Down

For governments and industry leaders, a just transition is often framed around large-scale economic shifts. This typically means:

Carbon-neutral industries – Encouraging green investments and phasing out fossil fuels.
Reskilling and workforce adaptation – Preparing workers for emerging green jobs.
Technology-driven solutions – Scaling up innovations in renewable energy and emissions reductions.

While these measures are crucial for meeting national and international sustainability targets, they don’t always translate into tangible benefits that improve people's day-to-day lives.

The Community Perspective: Quality of Life and Local Priorities

For communities, particularly those directly affected by climate policies (such as coal-dependent towns or industrial hubs), a just transition is about more than economic shifts. Their concerns often focus on:

Improvements to the living environment – Cleaner air, green spaces, and safer neighborhoods.
Recreational and social opportunities – More parks, cultural activities, and public gathering spaces.
Better services and infrastructure – Healthcare, education, and public transportation improvements.

Even though these issues are directly related to sustainability, both in objective and approach, they may be sidelined in high-level discussions in favor of larger scale strategies that diminish the regional perspective. This may contribute to a disconnected narrative between the transition and the future perspectives of affected communities.

Bridging the gap between policy and community visions

With a clear indication of the differences in what the transition means for policymakers and communities, the question becomes how to bridge this gap. In our deliverable, we came to several recommendations:

Build trust: find ways to increase the trust policymakers have in communities to play a meaningful role in governance, and the trust communities have in public institutions to make representative decisions.
Value different types of knowledge: ensure a range of forms of knowledge are valued, including the technocratic framing of sustainability transitions and the practical knowledge of citizens.
Ensure effective governance and capacity: promote bottom-up governance arrangements, avoid disconnected deliberation processes and support capacity building activities.
Effectively inform and communicate: provide quality and constructive information to communities without gaps in information on transition rationales and acknowledging the inherent uncertainties in transition processes.

Read more of our insights into participation in place-based sustainability transition policies in Deliverable 3.4!