Public participation

Public participation, also known as citizen participation or patient and public involvement, is the inclusion of the public in the activities of any organization or project. Public participation is similar to but more inclusive than stakeholder engagement.

"Public involvement" redirects here. For the UK health initiative, see Public involvement (UK health initiative).

Generally public participation seeks and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. This can be in relation to individuals, governments, institutions, companies or any other entities that affect public interests. The principle of public participation holds that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. Public participation implies that the public's contribution will influence the decision.[1][2] Public participation may be regarded as a form of empowerment and as vital part of democratic governance.[2] In the context of knowledge management the establishment of ongoing participatory processes is seen by some in the facilitator of collective intelligence and inclusiveness, shaped by the desire for the participation of the whole community or society.[2]

Public participation is part of "people centred" or "human centric" principles, which have emerged in Western culture over the last thirty years, and has had some bearings of education, business, public policy and international relief and development programs. Public participation is advanced by the humanist movements. Public participation may be advanced as part of a "people first" paradigm shift. In this respect public participation may challenge the concept that "big is better" and the logic of centralized hierarchies, advancing alternative concepts of "more heads are better than one" and arguing that public participation can sustain productive and durable change.[3]

Some legal and other frameworks have developed a human rights approach to public participation. For example, the right to public participation in economic and human development was enshrined in the 1990 African Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation.[4] Similarly major environmental and sustainability mechanisms have enshrined a right to public participation, such as the Rio Declaration.[5]

By field

Art
See also: Participatory art, Participatory cinema, and Participatory theatre

Budgeting
Main article: Participatory budgeting

Participatory budgeting is a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, in which ordinary city residents decide how to allocate part of a municipal or public budget. Participatory budgeting is usually characterized by several basic design features: identification of spending priorities by community members, election of budget delegates to represent different communities, facilitation and technical assistance by public employees, local and higher level assemblies to deliberate and vote on spending priorities, and the implementation of local direct-impact community projects. Participatory budgeting may be used by towns and cities around the world, and has been widely publicised in Porto Alegre, Brazil, were the first full participatory budgeting process was developed starting in 1989.

Development
Main articles: Participatory development, Participatory planning, and Participatory rural appraisal

In economic development theory, there is a school of participatory development. The desire to increase public participation in humanitarian aid and development has led to the establishment of a numerous context-specific, formal methodologies, matrices, pedagogies and ad hoc approaches. These include conscientization and praxis; Participatory action research (PAR), rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA); appreciation influence control analysis (AIC); "open space" approaches; Objectives Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP); vulnerability analysis and capacity analysis.[3]

Environment and sustainable development
Further information: right to public participation

In recent years public participation has become to be seen as a vital part of addressing environmental problems and bringing about sustainable development. In this context the limits of solely relying on technocratic bureaucratic monopoly of decision making, and it is argued that public participation allows governments to adopt policies and enact laws that are relevant to communities and take into account their needs.[6]

Public participation is recognised as an environmental principle, see Environmental Principles and Policies, and has been enshrined in the Rio Declaration.

Heritage

Around the globe experts work closely with local communities. Local communities are crucial stakeholders for heritage.[7]

Consultation with local communities is acknowledged formally in cultural management processes.[8] They are necessary for defining the significance of a cultural place/site, otherwise you run the risk to oversee many values, focusing on “experts’” views.[9] This has been the case in heritage management until the end of the 20th century. A paradigm shift started with the Burra Charter by ICOMOS Australia in 1979[10] and was later developed by the work of the GCI around 2000.[11][12] Today, so called “value-led conservation” is at the base of heritage management for WH sites: establishing stakeholders and associated values is a fundamental step in creating a Management Plan for such sites.

The concept of stakeholders has widened to include local communities.

Various levels of local government, research institutions, enterprises, charitable organisations, and communities are all important parties. Activities such as knowledge exchange, education, consultation, exhibitions, academic events, publicity campaigns, among others are all effective means for local participation.

For instance, local charities in Homs, Syria have been undertaking several projects with local communities to protect their heritage.[13]

A conservation programme in Dangeil, Sudan, has used social and economic relationship with the community to make the project sustainable over the long term.[14]

In Australia, Indigenous communities increasingly have stewardship of conservation and management programs to care for, monitor and maintain their cultural heritage places and landscapes, particularly those containing rock art.[15]

Media
Main articles: Participatory media and Participatory video

Public policy
See also: Participatory democracy

In some countries public participation has become a central principle of public policy making within democratic bodies, policies are rendered legitimate when citizens have the opportunity to influence the politicians and parties involved.[16] In the UK and Canada it has been observed that all levels of government have started to build citizen and stakeholder engagement into their policy-making processes. Situating citizens as active actors in policy-making can work to offset government failures by allowing for reform that will better emulate the needs of citizens.[17] By incorporating citizens, policies will reflect everyday needs and realities, and not the machinations of politicians and political parties.[18] This may involve large-scale consultations, focus group research, online discussion forums, or deliberative citizens' juries. There are many different public participation mechanisms, although these often share common features (for a list over 100, and a typology of mechanisms, see Rowe and Frewer, 2005).[19]

Public participation is viewed as a tool, intended to inform planning, organising or funding of activities. Public participation may also be used to measure attainable objectives, evaluate impact, and identify lessons for future practice.[20] In Brazil's housing councils, mandated in 2005, citizen engagement in policy drafting increased effectiveness and responsiveness of government public service delivery.[18] All modern constitutions and fundamental laws contain and declare the concept and principle of popular sovereignty, which essentially means that the people are the ultimate source of public power or government authority. The concept of popular sovereignty holds simply that in a society organized for political action, the will of the people as a whole is the only right standard of political action. It can be regarded as an important element in the system of the checks and balances, and representative democracy. Therefore, the people are implicitly entitled even to directly participate in the process of public policy and law making.[21]

In the United States public participation in administrative rulemaking refers to the process by which proposed rules are subject to public comment for a specified period of time. Public participation is typically mandatory for rules promulgated by executive agencies of the US government. Statutes or agency policies may mandate public hearings during this period.[22]

Science
Main articles: Citizen science, Participatory monitoring, and Participatory action research

Other

Public trust

In recent years loss of public trust in authorities and politicians has become a widespread concern in many democratic societies.The relationship between citizens and local governments has weakened over the past two decades due to shortcomings in public service delivery.[17] Public participation is a regarded as one potential solution to the crisis in public trust and governance, particularly in the UK, Europe, and other democracies. Establishing direct citizen participation can increase governance's effectiveness, legitimacy, and social justice.[16] The idea is that public should be involved more fully in the policy process in that authorities seek public views and participation, instead of treating the public as simply passive recipients of policy decisions.

The underlying assumption by political theorists, social commentators, and even politicians is that public participation increase public trust in authorities, improving citizen political efficacy, enhancing democratic ideals and even improving the quality of policy decisions. However, the assumed benefits of public participation in restoring public trust are yet to be confirmed.[23][24][25] Citizen participation is only sustained if citizens support it and if their involvement is actively supported by the governing body.

Accountability and transparency
Main article: Radical transparency

Public participation may also be viewed as accountability enhancing. The argument being that public participation can be a means for the participating communities to hold public authorities accountable for implementation.[6] In the United Kingdom citizens are used to ensure the fair and humane detention of prisoners. Volunteers comprise the Independent Monitoring Board that reports on the fair and humane detention of prisoners and detainees.[26]

Many community organizations are composed of affluent middle-class citizens with the privilege and the time to participate.[16] It is well documented that low-income citizens face difficulty organizing themselves and engaging in public issues.[27] Obstacles like: finding affordable childcare, getting time off of work, and access to education in public matters exacerbate the lack of participation by low-income citizens.[16] To foster greater participation of all social groups, vanguard privileged classes work to bring in low-income citizens through collaboration. The organizations establish an incentive for participation through accessible language and friendly environments.[28] This allows for an atmosphere of consensus between middle and lower-income citizens.

Critical interpretations

The concept and practice of public participation has been critiqued, often using Foucauldian analytical frameworks.[29] Such accounts detail how participation can be a method of capturing community activity into regimes of power and control although it has also been noted that capture and empowerment can co-exist.

In 1990 practitioners established the International Association for Public Practitioners in order to respond to the increasing interest in the practice, and in turn established the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2).[30] The practice is well established globally and the International Association of Public Participation now has affiliate organizations across the globe.[31]

Public participation in environmental governance

With growing complexities of the environmental issues, public participation has come to the fore in academic analysis concerning the contemporary debates about environmental governance.

There have emerged a number of arguments in favor of a more participatory approach, which stress that public participation is a crucial element in environmental governance that contributes to better decision making. It is recognised that environmental problems cannot be solved by government alone.[32] Participation in environmental decision-making effectively links the public to environmental governance. By involving the public, who are at the root of both causes and solutions of environmental problems, in environmental discussions, transparency and accountability are more likely to be achieved, thus secures the democratic legitimacy of decision-making that good environmental governance depends on.[33][34] Arguably, a strong public participation in environmental governance could increase the commitment among stockholders, which strengthens the compliance and enforcement of environmental laws. GIS can provide a valuable tool for such work (see GIS and environmental governance). In addition, some opponents argue that the right to participate in environmental decision-making is a procedural right that "can be seen as part of the fundamental right to environmental protection".[35] From this ethical perspective, environmental governance is expected to operate within a framework coinciding the "constitutional principle of fairness (inclusive of equality)", which inevitably requires the fulfillment of "environmental rights" and ultimately calls for the engagement of public.[35] Further, in the context of considerable scientific uncertainties surrounding environmental issues, public participation helps to counter such uncertainties and bridges the gap between scientifically-defined environmental problems and the experiences and values of stakeholders.[33][36] Through joint effort of the government and scientists in collaboration with the public, better governance of environment is expected to be achieved by making the most appropriate decision possible.

Although broad agreements exist, the notion of public participation in environmental decision-making has been subject to a sustained critique concerning the real outcome of participatory environmental governance. Critics argue that public participation tends to focus on reaching a consensus between actors who share the same values and seek the same outcomes. However, the uncertain nature of many of the environmental issues would undermine the validity of public participation, given that in many cases the actors come to the table of discussion hold very different perceptions of the problem and solution which are unlikely to be welded into a consensus due to the incommensurability of different positions.[37] This may run the risk of expert bias, which generates further exclusion as those who are antagonistic to the consensus would be marginalised in the environmental decision-making process, which violates the assumed advantage of participatory approach to produce democratic environmental decisions. This raises the further question of whether consensus should be the measure of a successful outcome of participation.[38] As Davies suggests, participative democracy could not guarantee the substantive environmental benefits 'if there are competing views of what the environment should be like and what it is valuable for'.[39] Consequently, who should be involved at what points in the process of environmental decision-making and what is the goal of this kind of participation become central to the debates on public participation as a key issue in environmental governance.[33]

Citizen science
Main article: Citizen science

Citizen science is a coined term commonly used to describe the participation of non-scientists in scientific research.

Greater inclusion of non-professional scientists in policy research is important.[40] It is academia's responsibly to facilitate the "democratization of policy research". This has several benefits: having citizens involved in not just the contribution of data, but also the framing and development of research itself.

The key to success in applying citizen science to policy development is data which is "suitable, robust, and of a known quality for evidence-based policy making".[41] Barriers to applying citizen science to policy development include a lack of suitability between the data collected and the policy in question and skepticism regarding the data collected by non-experts.[41]

Right to public participation
This section is an excerpt from Right to public participation.[edit]

The right to public participation is a human right enshrined by some international and national legal systems that protects public participation in certain decision making processes. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the right of every person to participate in the affairs of his country, either directly or by selecting representatives.[42] Likewise, the right to political participation means the right under which the ruling authority is committed to providing rights to citizens, including the right to nominate and elect representatives, to hold public office in accordance with the principle of equal opportunities, to participate in private and public meetings, and the right to form and join political parties.[43][44] Articles 20 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights make a similar declaration about the right to participate in the management of public affairs.[45]

In some jurisdictions, the right to public participation is enshrined by law. The right to public participation may also be conceived of as human right, or as manifestation of the right to freedom of association and freedom of assembly. As such the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have public participation and freedom of information provisions in their legal systems since before the Middle Ages.[46] Democracy and public participation are closely connected democratic societies have incorporated public participation rights into their laws for centuries. For example, in the US the right to petition has been part of the First Amendment of the US constitution since 1791.[46] More recently, since the 1970s in New Zealand numerous laws (e.g.: health, local government, environmental management) require government officials to "consult" those affected by a matter and take their views into consideration when making decisions.

Effective public participation depends on the public having accessing to accurate and comprehensive information. Hence laws regarding public participation often deal with the issue of the right to know, access of information and freedom of information.[46] The right to participation may also be advanced in the context of equality and group rights, meant to ensure equal and full participation of a designated group in society. For example, in the context of disabled people.

Reporting and evaluating public participation and involvement

Reporting and evaluating methods of public participation and involvement in across multiple disciplines and languages has been an ongoing challenge, making it difficult to assess effectiveness.[47][48] Some novel tools for reporting involvement, engagement and participation across disciplines using standardised terminology have been developed. For example, a beta version of Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) was published in 2022, using Wikidata to encourage consistent terminology across languages to describe the tasks of involvement, the methods, communication modes and any impacts or outcomes from involvement.[49][50] STARDIT has already been used by a number of organisations to report initiatives, including Cochrane, Australian Genomics 'Guidelines For Community Involvement In Genomics Research',[51][52] NIHR funded research projects, La Trobe University's Academic and Research Collaborative in Health (ARCH),[53] citizen science projects and the Wiki Journals.[54][55]

See also

References
  1. "IAP2 Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation". Iap2.org. Retrieved 2012-08-06.
  2. "Principles of Public Participation". Co-intelligence.org. 2008-05-23. Retrieved 2012-08-06.
  3. Archived July 11, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  4. African Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation Archived May 2, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  5. Shelton, Dinah. "A rights-based approach to public participation and local management of natural resources." 3rd IGES International Workshop on Forest Conservation Strategies for the Asia and Pacific Region. 1999.
  6. Nazrul Islam, Nazrul Isable Martinez and Wang Xi, "Environmental Law in Developing Countries: Selected Issues, IUCN, 2002, pg.7
  7. ICCROM. People-Centred Approaches to the Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Living Heritage. 2015 https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/PCA_Annexe-2.pdf
  8. "Engaging local communities in stewardship of World Heritage: a methodology based on the COMPACT experience". unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 2020-12-08.
  9. Clark, Kate. “Preserving What Matters. Value-Led Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites.” Conservation, The GCI Newsletter 16, no. 3 (2001): 5-12.
  10. "Charters". australia.icomos.org. Retrieved 2020-12-08.
  11. Avrami, Erica C., Randall Mason, and Marta De la Torre. 2000. Values and Heritage Conservation: Research Report. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pub/values_heritage_research_report
  12. De la Torre, Marta, ed. 2002. Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation Institute.
  13. Azzouz, Ammar (2019-02-11). "A tale of a Syrian city at war". City. 23: 107–122. doi:10.1080/13604813.2019.1575605. ISSN 1360-4813. S2CID 150357708.
  14. Guiducci, Francesca; Sweek, Tracey; Anderson, Julie (2020-08-31). "Finding Sustainability in the Desert: Conservation of the Archaeological Site of Dangeil, Sudan, and Its Associated Collections". Studies in Conservation. 65 (sup1): P113–P118. doi:10.1080/00393630.2020.1761183. ISSN 0039-3630. S2CID 219435237.
  15. Marshall, Melissa; May, Kadeem; Dann, Robin; Nulgit, Lloyd (2020-08-31). "Indigenous Stewardship of Decolonised Rock Art Conservation Processes in Australia". Studies in Conservation. 65 (sup1): P205–P212. doi:10.1080/00393630.2020.1778264. ISSN 0039-3630. S2CID 224805280.
  16. Fung, Archon (2015-02-25). "Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future". Public Administration Review. 75 (4): 513–522. doi:10.1111/puar.12361. ISSN 0033-3352.
  17. Speer, Johanna (December 2012). "Participatory Governance Reform: A Good Strategy for Increasing Government Responsiveness and Improving Public Services?". World Development. 40 (12): 2379–2398. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.034. ISSN 0305-750X.
  18. Donaghy, Maureen M. (2013-03-05). Civil Society and Participatory Governance. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203098011. ISBN 978-0-203-09801-1.
  19. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30 (2), 251-290.
  20. Archived September 27, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  21. Vértesy, László (2017-01-10). "The Public Participation in the Drafting of Legislation in Hungary". Central European Public Administration Review. 14 (4). doi:10.17573/ipar.2016.4.06. ISSN 2591-2259.
  22. Assari, Ali; T.M. Mahesh (December 2011). "Comparative Sustainability of Bazaar in Iranian Traditional Cities: Case Studies in Isfahan and Tabriz" (PDF). International Journal on Technical and Physical Problems of Engineering (IJTPE). 3 (9): 18–24. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
  23. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25 (1), 3-29.
  24. Rowe, G. and Gammack, J.G. (2004) Promise and perils of electronic public engagement, Science and Public Policy, 31 (1), 39-54.
  25. "Public participation (science in society)". Ifr.ac.uk. Retrieved 2012-08-06.
  26. Roffee, James A. (2017-01-01). "Accountability and Oversight of State Functions: Use of Volunteers to Monitor Equality and Diversity in Prisons in England and Wales". SAGE Open. 7 (1): 2158244017690792. doi:10.1177/2158244017690792. ISSN 2158-2440.
  27. "Wampler, Brian, and Stephanie McNulty. "Does participatory governance matter." Exploring the (2011). - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2021-12-04.
  28. Musso, Juliet; Weare, Christopher; Bryer, Thomas; Cooper, Terry L. (January 2011). "Toward "Strong Democracy" in Global Cities? Social Capital Building, Theory-Driven Reform, and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Experience". Public Administration Review. 71 (1): 102–111. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02311.x. ISSN 0033-3352.
  29. Huxley, Margo (June 2000). "The Limits to Communicative Planning". Journal of Planning Education and Research. 19 (4): 369–377. doi:10.1177/0739456X0001900406. ISSN 0739-456X. S2CID 143756651.
  30. "International Association for Public Participation". www.iap2.org. Retrieved 2015-06-04.
  31. "International Association for Public Participation - Affiliates". www.iap2.org. Retrieved 2015-06-04.
  32. Pring, G. and Noé, S.Y. (2002) 'The Emerging International Law of Public Participation Affecting Global Mining, Energy, and Resource Development' in Zillman, D.M., Lucas, A. and Pring, G.(eds) Human Rights in Natural Resource Development: Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resources, Oxford University Press, Oxford, P 76.
  33. Bulkeley, H. and Mol, A.P.J. (2003), 'Participation and Environmental Governance: Consensus, Ambivalence and Debate', Environmental Values 12 (2): 143–54.
  34. "Ramos, G. Public participation in Environmental Governance". Globalnation.inquirer.net. 2008-07-21. Retrieved 2012-08-06.
  35. Du Plessis, A. (2008), 'Public Participation, Good Environmental Governance and Fulfillment of Environmental Rights', Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 11(2): 170-201.(4)
  36. Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts and the Environment, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, p.222.
  37. Pellizzoni, L. (2003): 'Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy', Environmental Values 12(2): 195-224.
  38. Owens, S. (2000). 'Engaging the public: information and deliberation in environmental policy', Environment and Planning A, 32: 1141–8.
  39. Davies, A. (2001). 'What silence knows – planning, public participation and environmental values', Environmental Values, 10: 77–102.
  40. Richardson, Liz. "Engaging the Public in Policy Research: Are Community Researchers the Answer?" Politics and Governance, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014, pp. 32–44.
  41. Chapman, Colin and Crona Hodges. "Can Citizen Science Seriously Contribute to Policy Development?: A Decision Maker's View." Analyzing the Role of Citizens Science in Modern Research. IGI Global, 2017. 246-261.
  42. "What is Public Participation?". EUKN.
  43. US EPA, OITA (February 24, 2014). "Public Participation Guide: Introduction to Public Participation". US EPA.
  44. Fluker, Shaun (June 30, 2015). "The Right to Public Participation in Resources and Environmental Decision-Making in Alberta". Alberta Law Review. 52 (3): 567. doi:10.29173/alr24.
  45. "مفوضية الأمم المتحدة السامية لحقوق الإنسان | العهد الدولي الخاص بالحقوق الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والثقافية". www.ohchr.org.
  46. "Public participation legislation - Coastal Wiki". Encora.eu. Retrieved 2012-08-06.
  47. Nunn, Jack S.; Tiller, Jane; Fransquet, Peter; Lacaze, Paul (2019). "Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review". Frontiers in Public Health. 7: 79. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00079. ISSN 2296-2565. PMC 6467093. PMID 31024880.
  48. Nunn, Jack S.; Shafee, Thomas; Chang, Steven; Stephens, Richard; Elliott, Jim; Oliver, Sandy; John, Denny; Smith, Maureen; Orr, Neil; Preston, Jennifer; Borthwick, Josephine; van Vlijmen, Thijs; Ansell, James; Houyez, Francois; de Sousa, Maria Sharmila Alina (2022-07-19). "Standardised data on initiatives—STARDIT: Beta version". Research Involvement and Engagement. 8 (1): 31. doi:10.1186/s40900-022-00363-9. ISSN 2056-7529. PMC 9294764. PMID 35854364.
  49. Nunn, Jack S.; Shafee, Thomas; Chang, Steven; Stephens, Richard; Elliott, Jim; Oliver, Sandy; John, Denny; Smith, Maureen; Orr, Neil; Preston, Jennifer; Borthwick, Josephine; van Vlijmen, Thijs; Ansell, James; Houyez, Francois; de Sousa, Maria Sharmila Alina (2022-07-19). "Standardised data on initiatives—STARDIT: Beta version". Research Involvement and Engagement. 8 (1): 31. doi:10.1186/s40900-022-00363-9. ISSN 2056-7529. PMC 9294764. PMID 35854364.
  50. "STARDIT". Science For All. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
  51. (PDF) https://web.archive.org/web/20230718053234/https://www.australiangenomics.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Involve-Australia-Guidelines_April-2023.pdf. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-07-18. Retrieved 2023-07-18. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  52. "Guidelines For Community Involvement In Genomics Research" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 July 2023.
  53. "About the ARCH, Research, Academic and Research Collaborative in Health (ARCH), La Trobe University". 2023-07-18. Archived from the original on 2023-07-18. Retrieved 2023-07-18.
  54. Nunn, Jack S.; Shafee, Thomas; Chang, Steven; Stephens, Richard; Elliott, Jim; Oliver, Sandy; John, Denny; Smith, Maureen; Orr, Neil; Preston, Jennifer; Borthwick, Josephine; van Vlijmen, Thijs; Ansell, James; Houyez, Francois; de Sousa, Maria Sharmila Alina (2022-07-19). "Standardised data on initiatives—STARDIT: Beta version". Research Involvement and Engagement. 8 (1): 31. doi:10.1186/s40900-022-00363-9. ISSN 2056-7529. PMC 9294764. PMID 35854364.
  55. "STARDIT". Science For All. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.