Key actor perspectives on stakeholder engagement in Omani Environmental Impact Assessment: an application of Q-Methodology

References

• Addams, H., and J. Proops. 2000. Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Adomokai, R., and W.R. Sheate. 2004. “Community Participation and Environmental Decision-Making in the Niger Delta.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 (5): 495–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Azri, N.R. Al Busiadi, and H. Sulaiman. 2013. “Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Systems in GCC States through Performance Criteria” APCBEE Procedia 5: 296‒305. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2013.05.051.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, P.T. 1998. “Public Participation in Resolving Environmental Disputes and the Problem of Representativeness.” Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 9: 297–308.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S.R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, R., J. Van Exel, H. Mason, and M. Stricklin. 2010. “Connecting Q & Surveys: Three Methods to Explore Factor Membership in Large Samples.” Operant Subjectivity 34 (1): 38–58.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, R.Y., and W.E. Baber. 1989. “Bureaucracy or Analysis: Implications of Impact Assessment for Public Administration.” In Policy through Impact Assessment: Institutionalized Analysis as a Policy Strategy, edited by R.V. Bartlett, 143–153. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, R.V., and P.A. Kurian. 1999. “The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit Models of Policy Making.” Policy & Politics 27 (4): 415–433. doi:10.1332/030557399782218371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beierle, T.C., and J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Beierle, T.J. 2002. “The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions.” Risk Analysis 22 (4): 739–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beierle, T.J., and D.M. Koninsky. 2000. “Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Environmental Planning.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19 (4): 587–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, A., J. Palerm, and P. Haigh. 2004. “Public Participation in EIA of Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Projects: A Case Study Analysis.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 (6): 617–641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. 1993. “A Primer on Q Methodology.” Operant Subjectivity 16: 91–138.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S.R. 1971. “The Forced-free Distinction in Q-technique.” Journal of Educational Measurement 8: 283–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S.R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S.R. 1996. “Q Methodology and Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 6 (4): 501–512.
   Google Scholar
• Cairns, R. 2012. “Understanding Science in Conservation: A Q Method Approach on the Galápagos Islands.” Conservation and Society 10 (3): 217–231.
   Google Scholar
• Cass, N., and G. Walker. 2009. “Emotion and rationality: Characterising and Understanding Opposition to Renewable Energy Projects.” Emotion, Space and Society 2 (1): 62–69.
   Google Scholar
• Chess, C., and K. Purcell. 1999. “Public Participation and the Environment: Do we Know what Works?” Environmental Science and Technology 33 (16): 2685–2692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32: 23–296.
   Google Scholar
• Cotton, M. 2012. “Industry and Stakeholder Perspectives on the Social and Ethical Aspects of Radioactive Waste Management Options.” Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 11 (1): 8–26.
   Google Scholar
• Cotton, M., and P. Devine-Wright. 2011. “Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Line Siting in the UK.” Environment and Planning A 43 (4): 942–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry, R., J. Barry, and A. McClenaghan. 2012. “Northern Visions? Applying Q Methodology to Understand Stakeholder Views on the Environmental and Resource Dimensions of Sustainability.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56(5): 624–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davy, B. 1996. “Fairness as Compassion: Towards a Less Unfair Facility Siting Policy.” Risk ‒ Health Safety & Environment 7 (2): 99–108.
   Google Scholar
• Doody, D.G., P. Kearney, J. Barry, R. Moles, and B. O’Regana. 2009. “Evaluation of the Q-method as a method of Public Participation in the Selection of Sustainable Development Indicators.” Ecological Indicators 9 (6): 1129–11137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• du Plessis, C., G. Angelopulo, and D. du Plessis. 2006. “A Conceptual Framework of Corporate Online Communication: A Marketing Public Relations (MPR) Perspective.” Communicatio 32 (2): 241–263. doi:10.1080/02500160608537972.
   Google Scholar
• El-Fadl, K., and M. El-Fadel. 2004. “Comparative Assessment of EIA Systems in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Countries: Challenges and Prospects.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 (6): 553–593. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2004.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, J., S. Heesterbeek, C.J. Lukensmeyer, and N. Slocum. 2005. Participatory Methods Toolkit: A Practitioner's Manual. Brussels: King Baudouin Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson. 2007. “Many Ways to Say ‘No’, Different Ways to Say ‘Yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to Understand Public Acceptance of Wind Farm Proposals.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4): 517–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. 1990. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: a Survey of Insitutional Mechanisms.” Science, Technology & Human Values 15 (2): 226–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischhoff, B. 1995. “Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: 20 Years of Process.” Risk Analysis 15 (2): 137–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, J., and K. Brown. 2009. “Wind Energy on the Isle of Lewis: Implications for Deliberative Planning.” Environment and Planning A 41 (10): 2516–2536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gariepy, M. 1991. “Toward a Dual-Influence System: Assessing the Effects of Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment for Hydro-Quebec Projects.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11 (4): 353–374.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, C. 2007. “Community Perspectives of Wind Energy in Australia: The Application of a Justice and Community Fairness Framework to Increase Social Acceptance.” Energy Policy 35 (5): 2727–2736. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu, L.X., and W.R. Sheate. 2005. “Institutional Challenges for EIA Implementation in China: A Case Study of Development Versus Environmental Protection.” Environmental Management 36 (1): 125–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hildyard, N., P. Hegde, P. Wolvekamp, and S. Reddy. 2001. “Pluralism, Participation and Power: Joint Forest Management in India.” In Participation: The New Tyranny?, edited by. B. Cooke, and U. Kothari, 56–71. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• HMR Environmental Engineering Consultants. 2010a. Environmental Impact Assessment for Sohar-II Independent Power Project. Sultanate of Oman: Suez Tractebel S.A. Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• HMR Environmental Engineering Consultants. 2010b. Environmental Impact Assessment for Barka III Independent Power Project. Sultanate of Oman: Suez Tractebel S.A.
   Google Scholar
• Hostovsky, C., V. MacLaren, and G. McGrath. 2010. “The Role of Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment in Vietnam: Towards a More Culturally Sensitive Approach.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (3): 405–425. doi:10.1080/09640561003613187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hourdequin, M., P. Landres, M.J. Hanson, and D.R. Craig. 2012. “Ethical Implications of Democratic Theory for U.S. Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 35: 37–44. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B.B., and C. Chess. 2006. “From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency View About Communications with the Public.” Risk Analysis 26 (5): 1395–1407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasemir, B., J. Jager, C.C. Jaeger, and M.T. Gardner. 2003. Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, D.P. 1997. “Integrating Sustainability and Environmental Impact Assessment.” Environmental Management 21 (1): 23–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, R.L., S.E. Daniels, and G.H. Stankey. 1997. “Procedural Justice and Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decision Making.” Society & Natural Resources 10 (6): 577–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotov, A.V. 2003. “Internet Tools for Supporting of Lay Stakeholders in the Framework of the Democratic Paradigm of Environmental Decision Making.” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12: 145–162.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. 1980. Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H. 2003. “Democratising Expertise and Socially Robust Knowledge.” Science and Public Policy 30 (3): 151–156. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780461.
   Google Scholar
• Ogunlana, S., T. Yotsinsak, and S. Yisa. 2001. “An Assessment of People's Satisfaction with the Public Hearing on the Yadana Natural Gas Pipeline Project.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 72 (2): 207–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omanuna. 2013. “Environmental Laws and Regulations.” http://www.oman.om/wps/portal/!ut/p/c0/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3hjA3cDA39LT18Tp0AXAyMvI2_TYEdjI4NgE_2CbE dFAJCSMWg!/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/en/site/home/gov/gov5/gov52/
   Google Scholar
• Orman, L. 2013. “Technology as Risk.” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 32 (2): 22–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renn, O., T. Webler, and H. Kastenholz. 1996. “Procedural and Substantive Fairness in Landfill Siting: A Swiss Case Study.” Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 7 (2): 145–168.
   Google Scholar
• Rockloff, S.F., and S. Lockie. 2004. “Participatory Tools for Coastal Zone Management: Use of Stakeholder Analysis and Social Mapping in Australia.” Journal of Coastal Conservation 10 (1): 81–92.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance: Final Report: International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency & International Association for Impact Assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Schusler, T.M., D.J. Decker, and M.J. Pfeffer. 2003. “Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management.” Society and Natural Resources 16 (4): 309–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd, A., and C. Bowler. 1997. “Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40 (6): 725–738. doi: 10.1080/09640569711877.
   Google Scholar
• Speller, G., and N. Ravenscroft. 2005. Public Participation in Green Space Management, in Green Space Project, Final Report. Zurich: European Commission under the Fifth Framework Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Stainton Rogers, R. 1995. “Q Methodology.” In Rethinking Methods in Psychology, edited by R. Smith, 178–191. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Steelman, T.A., and L.A. Maguire. 1999. “Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-Methodology in National Forest Management.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18 (3): 361–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenner, P., and R. Stainton Rogers. 2004. “Q Methodology and Qualiquantology: The Example of Discriminating Between Emotions.” In Mixing Methods in Psychology, edited by. Z. Tod, B. Nerlich, S. Mckeown, and D. Clark, 99–197. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and its Methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swedeen, P. 2006. “Post-normal Science in Practice: A Q Study of the Potential for Sustainable Forestry in Washington State, USA.” Ecological Economics 57 (2): 190–208. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNECE. 1998. “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.” In Fourth Ministerial Conference: Environment for Europe. Aarhus, Denmark: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
   Google Scholar
• van Exel, J., and G. de Graaf. 2005. “Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview.” www.jobvanexel.nl
   Google Scholar
• Venables, D., N. Pidgeon, P. Simmons, K. Henwood, and K. Parkhill. 2009. “Living with Nuclear Risk: A Q-Method Study.” Risk Analysis 29 (8): 1089–1104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wates, N. 2000. The Community Planning Handbook. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Wathern, P. 1988. “An Introductory Guide to EIA.” In Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, edited by P. Wathern, 3–28. London: Unwin Hyman.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2005. “Doing Q Methodology: Theory, Method and Interpretation.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 2: 67–91.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., S. Danielson, and S. Tuler. 2009. Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., and S. Tuler. 2006. “Four Perspectives on Public Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making: Combined Results from 10 Case Studies.” Policy Studies Journal 34 (4): 699–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webler, T., S. Tuler, and R. Krueger. 2001. “What is a Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectives from the Public.” Environmental Management 27 (3): 435–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webler, T., S. Tuler, I. Shocky, P. Stern, and R.P. Beattie. 2003. “Participation by Local Government Officials in Watershed Management Planning.” Society and Natural Resources 16: 105–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M. 2003. “Reshaping the Dutch Planning System: A Learning Process?” Environment and Planning A 35 (4): 705–723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M. 2010. “Discourses on the Implementation of Wind Power: Stakeholder Views on Public Engagement.” In Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation, edited by P. Devine-Wright, 75–87. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Wolsink, M., and J. Devilee. 2009. “The Motives for Accepting or Rejecting Waste Infrastructure Facilities. Shifting the Focus from the Planners’ Perspective to Fairness and Community Commitment.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (2): 217–236. doi: 10.1080/09640560802666552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, C. 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Harlow: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, C. 2003. “Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries.” International Development Planning Review 25 (3): 301–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1993. “Public Uptake of Science: A Case for Institutional Reflexivity.” Public Understanding of Science 2 (4): 321–337. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar