The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions
Abstract
The increased use of stakeholder processes in environmental decision making has raised concerns about the quality of decisions these processes produce. Some claim that stakeholders make inadequate use of scientific information and analysis and are all too ready to sacrifice technical quality for political expediency. This article looks to the case study record to examine the quality of the decisions from stakeholder‐based processes. The data for the analysis come from a “case survey,” in which researchers coded information from 239 published case studies of stakeholder involvement in environmental decision making. These cases reflect a diversity of planning, management, and implementation activities carried out by environmental and natural resource agencies at many levels of government. Overall, the case‐study record suggests that there should be little concern that stakeholder processes are resulting in low‐quality decisions. The majority of cases contain evidence of stakeholders improving decisions over the status quo; adding new information, ideas, and analysis; and having adequate access to technical and scientific resources. Indeed, data suggest that it is the more intensive stakeholder processes—precisely those that have aroused recent concern—that are more likely to result in higher‐quality decisions.
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
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/016224390002500101 · Cited by 2,240
Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-5653 · Cited by 1,441
Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms
Fiorino, D. J. (1990) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/016224399001500204 · Cited by 1,320
Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation
(1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8 · Cited by 798
Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. M. (1995) · Cited by 722
Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982) · Judgment under Uncertainty · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477.034 · Cited by 634
Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?
Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es980500g · Cited by 521
Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure
Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf00999716 · Cited by 497
CASE SURVEY METHODOLOGY: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATTERNS ACROSS CASE STUDIES.
LARSSON, R. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256820 · Cited by 443
Cited by
Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner‐Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., et al. (2018) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12541 · Cited by 746
Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A Performance Matrix
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016 · Cited by 379
de Vente, J., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Valente, S., & Newig, J. (2016) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-08053-210224 · Cited by 334
Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011) · Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space · doi:10.1068/a44161 · Cited by 280
Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management
Thomas, J. C. (2013) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12109 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Beierle, T. C.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 739-749
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2010420648
- Cited by
- 511
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 42.34
- 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: The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0272-4332.00065
- The paper
- Beierle, T. C. (2002). The Quality of Stakeholder‐Based Decisions. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00065
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.
