The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy
Open accessAbstract
The article deals with some implications of radical uncertainty for participatory democracy, and more precisely for Participatory Technology Assessment (PTA). Two main forms of PTA are discussed. One is aimed at involving lay citizens and highlighting public opinion. The other is addressed to stakeholder groups and organisations, not only in terms of interest mediation but also of inclusion of their insight into a problem. Radical uncertainty makes ‘intractable’ many environmental and technological issues and brings into question traditional and new approaches to policy-making. Its consequences are explored from the viewpoint of new science, deliberative democracy, and network governance. Radical uncertainty calls for a rethinking of the aims of public deliberation, and a reinterpretation of the divide between opinion- and position-oriented PTA. To look for a public opinion, understood as a shared principled view, can prove misleading, as can thinking of stakeholder participatory arrangements in the usual way. When facts and values overlap, and are deeply controversial, the only opportunity for mutual understanding may be to look for practical, ‘local’ answers, based on different positional insights. Moreover, radical uncertainty also affects interest determination and pursuit, and may enhance the opportunity of joint, inclusive, non-strategic issue definition and solution-devising. This vision of public deliberation is consistent with the idea of network governance. However, fragmentation can affect the effectiveness and legitimacy of participatory policies. Trying to handle fragmentation from the top, as many suggest, is unlikely to be successful. A more promising endeavour is to foster deliberative settings which, although positioned at the level of ‘local’ and often contingent networks and commonalities, are open to include ‘Otherness’ – other contexts, other problem definitions, other concerns.
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
Hisschemöller, M., & Hoppe, R. (1995) · Knowledge and Policy · doi:10.1007/bf02832229 · Cited by 344
Cited by
Stirling, A. (2008) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243907311265 · Cited by 1,567
Responsibility and Environmental Governance
Pellizzoni, L. (2004) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/0964401042000229034 · Cited by 287
Self-citationMitchell, R. E., & Leach, B. (2019) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.1832 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Pellizzoni, L.
- Venue
- Environmental Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-224
- ISSN
- 0963-2719 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2053811213
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 54.35
- 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: Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3197/096327103129341298
- The paper
- Pellizzoni, L. (2003). Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy. Environmental Values. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341298
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.