The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?
Open accessAbstract
This article differentiates between descriptive and explanatory factors to develop a typology and a theory of stakeholder and public engagement. The typology describes different types of public and stakeholder engagement, and the theory comprises four factors that explain much of the variation in outcomes (for the natural environment and/or for participants) between different types of engagement. First, we use a narrative literature search to develop a new typology of stakeholder and public engagement based on agency (who initiates and leads engagement) and mode of engagement (from communication to coproduction). We then propose a theory to explain the variation in outcomes from different types of engagement: (1) a number of socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional contextual factors influence the outcomes of engagement; (2) there are a number of process design factors that can increase the likelihood that engagement leads to desired outcomes, across a wide range of sociocultural, political, economic, and biophysical contexts; (3) the effectiveness of engagement is significantly influenced by power dynamics, the values of participants, and their epistemologies, that is, the way they construct knowledge and which types of knowledge they consider valid; and (4) engagement processes work differently and can lead to different outcomes when they operate over different spatial and temporal scales. We use the theoretical framework to provide practical guidance for those designing engagement processes, arguing that a theoretically informed approach to stakeholder and public engagement has the potential to markedly improve the outcomes of environmental decision‐making processes.
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
A Ladder Of Citizen Participation
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) · Journal of the American Institute of Planners · doi:10.1080/01944366908977225 · Cited by 17,064
Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 · Cited by 8,256
(2001) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · Cited by 4,566
Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review
Reed, M. S. (2008) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 · Cited by 4,237
Self-citationSugden, R., & Sen, A. (1986) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232999 · Cited by 4,031
Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., & Stringer, L. C. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001 · Cited by 2,659
Self-citationVarieties of Participation in Complex Governance
Fung, A. (2006) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x · Cited by 2,464
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
Self-citationWriting narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0899-3467(07)60142-6 · Cited by 2,224 · cited 1×
“First, the next section uses a narrative literature search (cf Baumeister & Leary 1997; Green et al. 2006) to develop a new typology of engagement based on agency (who initiates and leads engagement) and mode of engagement (from communication to coproduction).”
MethodParticipatory learning for sustainable agriculture
Pretty, J. N. (1995) · World Development · doi:10.1016/0305-750x(95)00046-f · Cited by 1,753
Cited by
Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making
Gerlak, A. K., Guido, Z., Owen, G., McGoffin, M. S. R., Louder, E., Davies, J., Smith, K. J., Zimmer, A., Murveit, A. M., Meadow, A., et al. (2023) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106336 · Cited by 114
Making transdisciplinarity happen: Phase 0, or before the beginning
Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., Leventon, J., & Lang, D. J. (2022) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019 · Cited by 81
Holifield, R., & Williams, K. C. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.081 · Cited by 62
Ekowati, D., Abbas, A., Anwar, A., Suhariadi, F., & Fahlevi, M. (2023) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2196041 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- 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., & van Delden, H.
- Venue
- Restoration Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-08-22
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- S1
- ISSN
- 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-100X
- OpenAlex
- W2746124018
- Cited by
- 746
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 54.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/rec.12541
- The paper
- 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., & van Delden, H. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541
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.
