Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37829149›Full record

ArticleGlobal environmental change : human and policy dimensions2023

Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies.

Jens Newig, Nicolas W Jager, Edward Challies, Elisa Kochskämper

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
25.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Optimizing Face Validity and Clinical Relevance of a Mathematical Population Cancer Epidemiology Model Using a Novel Advisory Group Approach.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jens NewigLeuphana University Lüneburg, Institute of Sustainability Governance, Lüneburg, Germany.
Nicolas W JagerUniversity of Bremen, SOCIUM - Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, Bremen, Germany.
Edward ChalliesUniversity of Canterbury, School of Earth and Environment, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Elisa KochskämperLeibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space, Research Group Urban Sustainability Transformations, Erkner, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space · DELeuphana University of Lüneburg · DEUniversity of Bremen · DEUniversity of Canterbury · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Participation and collaboration of citizens and organized stakeholders in public decision-making is widely believed to improve environmental governance outputs. However, empirical evidence on the benefits of participatory governance is largely scattered across small-N case studies. To synthesize the available case-based evidence, we conducted a broad case-based meta-analysis across 22 Western democracies, including 305 individual cases of public environmental decision-making. We asked: How do 'more' participatory decision-making processes compare against 'less' participatory ones in fostering - or hindering - strong environmental governance outputs, (i.e. environmental provisions in plans, agreements or permits)? Which design features make a difference? What role does the decision-making context play? How do results change if we control for the intentions of the leading governmental agency? To capture the central design features of decision-making processes, we distinguish three dimensions of participation: the intensity of communication among participants and process organizers; the extent to which participants can shape decisions ("power delegation"); and the extent to which different stakeholder groups are represented. Our regression analysis yields robust evidence that these three design features of participation impact upon the environmental standard of governance outputs, even when controlling for the goals of governmental agencies. Power delegation is shown to be the most stable predictor of strong environmental outputs. However, communication intensity only predicts the conservation-related standard of outputs, but not the environmental health-related standard of outputs. Participants' environmental stance was another strong predictor, with considerable variation across different contexts. While our results remain broadly stable across a wide range of contexts, certain contextual conditions stood out in shaping the relation between participation and environmental outputs. Overall, our findings can inform the design of participatory processes that deliver governance outputs of a high environmental standard.

Indexed as

Collaborative governanceContextEffectivenessEnvironmental governanceMeta-analysisParticipatory governance

Identifiers

PMID37829149
PMCPMC10565671
OpenAlexW4379744422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.