Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38882291›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

What law does not understand about public participation.

Otelemate Ibim Dokubo, Maria Alina Radulescu, Lorenzo Squintani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Otelemate Ibim DokuboFaculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Maria Alina RadulescuFaculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Lorenzo SquintaniFaculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public participation plays a vital role in developing and implementing climate policies. However, in practice, it is challenging to organise public participation effectively. In this paper, we compare three main regulatory approaches to public participation, the Aarhus Convention, the Escazú Agreement and the Impact and Benefits Agreements, in light of their ability to implement social sciences insights on effective public participation. By linking the social sciences and law, our analysis shows that the shortcomings of each regime, when individually taken, potentially explain why public participation practices face difficulty fulfilling the envisaged goals.

Identifiers

PMID38882291
PMCPMC11176844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.