The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deliberative Methods for Understanding Environmental Systems
Open accessAbstract
Environmental problem solving needs science but also inevitably requires subjective judgment. Science can help in dealing with subjectivity, because scientists have long experience developing institutions and practices to address the subjective and value-laden choices that are essential to scientific progress. Democracy has also developed approaches to the problem. The underlying principles can be applied to environmental policymaking. This article explores these issues in the context of decisions about environmental risks, drawing on the work of the National Research Council and other sources. It suggests some guidelines for risk deliberation—including broad-based participation, commitment to scientific quality, explicit attention to values, transparency of deliberative processes, and rules for closure and reconsideration—and recommends that an experimental approach be employed to learn how best to use deliberative methods.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The concept of analytic deliberation involving the interested and affected parties (National Research Council 1996; Stern 2005), which is applied here to global resource commons, originated in careful analyses of the limitations of formal risk analytic techniques.”
From Design principles for global commons: natural resources and emerging technologies (2011) · cites this paper as Stern 2005
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
The Struggle to Govern the Commons
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091015 · Cited by 4,209
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Dietz, 1998, BioScience, 48, 441, 10.2307/1313241 · DOI · Paper page
- Fiorino, 1990, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15, 226, 10.1177/016224399001500204 · DOI
- Henrion, 1986, American Journal of Physics, 54, 791, 10.1119/1.14447 · DOI
- Lilienfeld, 1991, American Journal of Public Health, 81, 791, 10.2105/AJPH.81.6.791 · DOI
- Rosner, 1985, American Journal of Public Health, 75, 344, 10.2105/AJPH.75.4.344 · DOI
- Stern, 1991, Policy Sciences, 24, 99, 10.1007/BF00146466 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future
BERKES, F. (2010) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s037689291000072x · Cited by 377
Design principles for global commons: natural resources and emerging technologies
Stern, P. C. (2011) · International Journal of the Commons · doi:10.18352/ijc.305 · Cited by 197
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- STERN, P. C.
- Affiliations
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- STERN, PAUL C.
- ORCID
- STERN, PAUL C.
- Venue
- BioScience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 976
- ISSN
- 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2178455563
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 27.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- BioScience (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
- Keywords
- deliberative democracy, environmental risk assessment, environmental policy-making, citizen participation, scientific quality, transparency, environmental problem solving, experimental design
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
