The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x · Cited by 1,941
Campbell, S. (1996) · Journal of the American Planning Association · doi:10.1080/01944369608975696 · Cited by 1,667
Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00299.x · Cited by 837
The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions
Beierle, T. C. (2002) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00065 · Cited by 511
Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement
CONLEY, A., & MOOTE, M. A. (2003) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920309181 · Cited by 505
Metadata
- Authors
- Bingham, G.
- Venue
- Environmental Impact Assessment Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1987-09
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 253-255
- ISSN
- 0195-9255 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1561674866
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0195-9255(87)90014-x
- The paper
- Bingham, G. (1987). Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(87)90014-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
