The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?
Abstract
This literature review of studies on public meetings, workshops, and community advisory committees discusses public participation based on empirical evidence. Public participation “success” is defined by researchers' criteria that are divided into two categories: (1) those that evaluate the success of the participatory process and (2) those that evaluate the success of the outcome of the process. We find the form of participation public meetings, workshops, or citizen advisory committees does not determine process or outcome success. Therefore, attempts to develop a typology of public participation efforts may be problematic. However, we find some empirical support for practitioners' other widely accepted “rules of thumb”.
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
Arvai, J. L., & Froschauer, A. (2010) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669871003660767 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Chess, C., & Purcell, K.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1999-08-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 2685-2692
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2090415587
- Cited by
- 521
- References
- 0
- Type
- other
- 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: Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es980500g
- The paper
- Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999). Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es980500g
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.
