ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring the science and data foundation for Federal public lands decisions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public lands provide diverse resources, values, and services worldwide. Laws and policies typically require consideration of science in public lands decisions, and resource managers are committed to science-informed decision-making. However, it can be challenging for managers to use, and document the use of, science and data in their decisions. To better understand science and data use in Federal public lands decisions in the United States, we assessed the number, type, and age of documents cited in 70 Environmental Assessments (EAs) completed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado from 2015-2019. We focused on the BLM, as they manage the largest area of public lands in the United States. We selected Colorado as our study area, as actions proposed on BLM lands in Colorado are representative of those across the nation. Fifty percent of citations were categorized as science and 23% as data. EAs contained an average of 17 citations (range 0-111), with documents analyzing effects of oil and gas development and recreation actions including the highest and lowest mean number of citations (41 and 6, respectively). Of individual resource analysis sections within EAs, 24% contained ≥1 science citation and 21% contained ≥1 data citation. Journal articles were the most cited type of document (26% of citations) followed by non-BLM inventories (13%). Forty-seven percent of citations were relatively recent (2010 or later); the oldest citation was from 1927. Commonly analyzed resources with the highest mean number of citations were socioeconomics, mineral resources, and noise. Fourteen of 33 commonly analyzed resources included <1 citation on average. Actions and resources with no or few citations represent opportunities for strengthening the transparent use of science and data in public lands decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.