The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decisionmaking
Abstract
Environmental decisions made by individuals, civil society, and the state involve questions of economic efficiency, environmental effectiveness, equity, and political legitimacy. These four criteria are constitutive of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, which has become the dominant rhetorical device of environmental governance. We discuss the tendency for disciplinary research to focus on particular subsets of the four criteria, and argue that such a practice promotes solutions that do not acknowledge the dynamics of scale and the heterogeneity of institutional contexts. We advocate an interdisciplinary framework for the analysis of environmental decisionmaking that seeks to identify legitimate and context-sensitive institutional solutions producing equitable, efficient, and effective outcomes. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by using it to examine decisions concerning contested nature conservation and multiple-use commons in the management of Hickling Broad in Norfolk in the United Kingdom. We conclude that interdisciplinary approaches enable the generalisation and transfer of lessons in a way that respects the specifics and context of the issue at hand.
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
Cites
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
North, D. C. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808678 · Cited by 32,691
Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5412.278 · Cited by 2,798
Cited by
Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change
Adger, W. N. (2003) · Economic Geography · doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00220.x · Cited by 2,542
Self-citationThe Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services
Corbera, E., Brown, K., & Adger, W. N. (2007) · Development and Change · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x · Cited by 373
Self-citationScholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006) · International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/14676370610677829 · Cited by 360
Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change
Adger, W. N. (2010) · Der Klimawandel · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92258-4_19 · Cited by 291
Self-citationEmbedding environment and sustainability into corporate financial decision‐making
Siegrist, M., Bowman, G., Mervine, E., & Southam, C. (2020) · Accounting & Finance · doi:10.1111/acfi.12533 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., & Seyfang, G.
- Venue
- Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1095-1110
- ISSN
- 0308-518X (ISSN-L)
- 1472-3409
- OpenAlex
- W2075036355
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.11
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decisionmaking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1068/a35289
- The paper
- Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., & Seyfang, G. (2003). Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35289
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.