The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions
Abstract
In spite of the expanding role of public participation in environmental decisionmaking, there has been little systematic examination of whether it has, to date, contributed toward better environmental management. Neither have there been extensive empirical studies to examine how participation processes can be made more effective. Democracy in Practice brings together, for the first time, the collected experience of 30 years of public involvement in environmental decisionmaking. Using data from 239 cases, the authors evaluate the success of public participation and the contextual and procedural factors that lead to it. Thomas Beierle and Jerry Cayford demonstrate that public participation has not only improved environmental policy, but it has also played an important educational role and has helped resolve the conflict and mistrust that often plague environmental issues. Among the authors' findings are that intensive 'problem-solving' processes are most effective for achieving a broad set of social goals, and participant motivation and agency responsiveness are key factors for success. Democracy in Practice will be useful for a broad range of interests. For researchers, it assembles the most comprehensive data set on the practice of public participation, and presents a systematic typology and evaluation framework. For policymakers, political leaders, and citizens, it provides concrete advice about what to expect from public participation, and how it can be made more effective. Democracy in Practice concludes with a systematic guide for use by government agencies in their efforts to design successful public participation efforts.
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
Cited by
The Struggle to Govern the Commons
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091015 · Cited by 4,209
Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007 · Cited by 1,354
Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis
Renn, O., Klinke, A., & van Asselt, M. (2011) · AMBIO · doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0 · Cited by 508
van Asselt, M. B. A., & Renn, O. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.553730 · Cited by 420
Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review
Mitton, C., Smith, N., Peacock, S., Evoy, B., & Abelson, J. (2009) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2002-10-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 40-1164-40-1164
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W584072911
- Cited by
- 838
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.40-1164
- The paper
- Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. (2002). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.40-1164
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.