The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Companion to Environmental Studies
Abstract
Environmental appraisal presents deeper and wider problems than are typically conceded in policy. Strong political pressures for decision justification routinely force the closing down of due deliberation over the real limits to knowledge. Even technical language can become warped – to imply that all environmental dilemmas are susceptible to apparently precise and definitive probabilistic risk analysis. The inconvenient messiness of less tractable aspects of incertitude (strict uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance) can thereby be suppressed. Reviewing the most serious problems, this chapter outlines practical methods for resisting these pressures and opening up a more rigorous, robust, transparent – and democratically accountable – environmental politics. Please note: we do not have permission to upload this as a record but you can follow the link to the full document externally.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“First of all, the water body and its riparian zones are often considered to be common good, thus they do not appear to have an assigned economic value (“tragedy of the commons”, [193]).”
From Urban Stream and Wetland Restoration in the Global South—A DPSIR Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [193]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Urban Stream and Wetland Restoration in the Global South—A DPSIR Analysis
Wantzen, K., Alves, C., Badiane, S., Bala, R., Blettler, M., Callisto, M., Cao, Y., Kolb, M., Kondolf, G., Leite, M., et al. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11184975 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Stirling, A.
- Corresponding author
- Stirling, Andy
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2018-05-01
- OpenAlex
- W2897430557
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 14.53
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- OpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
- Keywords
- environmental assessment, environmental policy, risk analysis, uncertainty, ambiguity, ignorance, democratic accountability, political pressure, deliberation, environmental politics
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
