The Dutch government is committed to transitioning to a low-carbon economy. District heating networks are considered essential for achieving this transition. This research aims to compare two different methods of involving citizens in decision-making and development related to district heating networks. The novel Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) method is compared to a general survey to explore differences in the results of these two. The research approach encompasses multiple components, including 12 stakeholder interviews, the design and use of a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) and survey and subsequent analysis. The survey and PVE were even and randomly distributed across 2700 citizens of the neighbourhood Blijdorp in Rotterdam. This led to 138 completed PVE’s or surveys. As a last step the results of the two different consultations were analysed in terms of reaching the stakeholders goals. The research findings indicate that a Participatory Value Evaluation and survey have different results in incorporating the goals of the involved stakeholders. The PVE was able to create more detailed input for the stakeholders and was better in creating understanding of the complexity of the problems the stakeholders are facing. However, it is important to acknowledge that respondents in the PVE took longer to complete the evaluation and the PVE was rated more challenging than the survey. As a result, the response rate for the PVE was only half as much as the survey. This research contributes to the field of research into public participation in multiple ways. Firstly, the PVE has been applied in a new context. It has been shown that a PVE can be utilised to address the challenges of engaging citizens in the establishment of heat networks. Secondly, most studies on a PVE as a participatory method lack comparative research. This study demonstrates that a PVE and survey have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The identified advantages and disadvantages have been compared to findings from other studies on PVE. While some align with existing research, others present contrasting results.