The use and potential of Q method in environmental planning and management

References

• Addams, H. 2000. “Q Methodology.” In Social Discourses and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology, edited by H. Addams and J. L. R. Proops, 14–40. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Alam, Rizwana, and Jon C. Lovett. 2019. “Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis.” Sustainability 11 (12): 3387. doi:10.3390/su11123387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, Kim S., Lucy Parry, Phomma Thammavong, Silinthone Sacklokham, Somphanh Pasouvang, John G. Connell, Tom Jovanovic, Magnus Moglia, Silva Larson, and Peter Case. 2018. “Rice Farming Systems in Southern Lao PDR: Interpreting Farmers’ Agricultural Production Decisions Using Q Methodology.” Agricultural Systems 160: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alriksson, Stina, and Monika Filipsson. 2017. “Risk Perception and Worry in Environmental Decision-Making: A Case Study within the Swedish Steel Industry.” Journal of Risk Research 20 (9): 1173–1194. doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1153498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amaruzaman, Sacha, Beria Leimona, Meine van Noordwijk, and Betha Lusiana. 2017. “Discourses on the Performance Gap of Agriculture in a Green Economy: A Q-Methodology Study in Indonesia.” International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services & Management 13 (1): 233–247. doi:10.1080/21513732.2017.1331264.
   Google Scholar
• Amick, Kari, Douglas Clark, and Ryan K. Brook. 2015. “Stakeholder Perspectives on Chronic Wasting Disease Risk and Management on the Canadian Prairies.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20 (5): 408–424. doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.1046095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Araral, Eduardo, Alberto Asquer, and Yahua Wang. 2017. “Regulatory Constructivism: Application of Q Methodology in Italy and China.” Water Resources Management 31 (8): 2497–2521. doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1496-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artis, Evan, Noella J. Gray, Lisa M. Campbell, Rebecca L. Gruby, Leslie Acton, Sarah Bess Zigler, and Lillian Mitchell. 2020. “Stakeholder Perspectives on Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas.” PloS One 15 (9): e0238574. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azizah, Fahma Fiqhiyyah Nur, Hiroe Ishihara, Aiora Zabala, Yutaro Sakai, Gede Suantika, and Nobuyuki Yagi. 2020. “Diverse Perceptions on Eco-Certification for Shrimp Aquaculture in Indonesia.” Sustainability 12 (22): 9387. doi:10.3390/su12229387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, Fredric. 2018. “Narratives of Biorefinery Innovation for the Bioeconomy: Conflict, Consensus or Confusion?” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 28: 96–107. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baur, Ivo, Karina Liechti, and Claudia Rebecca Binder. 2014. “Why Do Individuals Behave Differently in Commons Dilemmas? The Case of Alpine Farmers Using Common Property Pastures in Grindelwald, Switzerland.” International Journal of the Commons 8 (2): 657. doi:10.18352/ijc.469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckham Hooff, Sarah, Iosif Botetzagias, and Athanasios Kizos. 2017. “Seeing the Wind (Farm): Applying Q-Methodology to Understand the Public’s Reception of the Visuals around a Wind Farm Development.” Environmental Communication 11 (5): 700–722. doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1292937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, Pam M., Veronika Fabók, Malgorzata Blicharska, Yennie K. Bredin, Marina García Llorente, Eszter Kovács, Nicoleta Geamana, et al. 2018. “Why Conserve Biodiversity? A Multi-National Exploration of Stakeholders’ Views on the Arguments for Biodiversity Conservation.” Biodiversity and Conservation 27 (7): 1741–1762. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1173-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, Jeffrey E., Kathrin Kopke, and Cathal O’Mahony. 2019. “Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market.” Sustainability 11 (23): 6834. doi:10.3390/su11236834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracken, L. J., E. A. Oughton, A. Donaldson, B. Cook, J. Forrester, C. Spray, S. Cinderby, D. Passmore, and N. Bissett. 2016. “Flood Risk Management: An Approach to Managing Cross-Border Hazards.” Natural Hazards 82 (S2): 217–240. doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2284-2.
   Google Scholar
• Braito, Michael, Heidi Leonhardt, Marianne Penker, Elisabeth Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Georg Thaler, and Courtney G. Flint. 2020. “The Plurality of Farmers’ Views on Soil Management Calls for a Policy Mix.” Land Use Policy 99 (104876): 104876. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104876.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. Ross, James Webber, Sara Zonneveld, Donna Carless, Benjamin Jackson, Yuri Artioli, Peter I. Miller, et al. 2020. “Stakeholder Perspectives on the Importance of Water Quality and Other Constraints for Sustainable Mariculture.” Environmental Science & Policy 114: 506–518. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckwell, Andrew, Christopher Fleming, Maggie Muurmans, James C. R. Smart, Dan Ware, and Brendan Mackey. 2020. “Revealing the Dominant Discourses of Stakeholders towards Natural Resource Management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, Using Q-Method.” Ecological Economics 177 (106781): 106781. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106781.
   Google Scholar
• Carmenta, Rachel, Aiora Zabala, Willy Daeli, and Jacob Phelps. 2017. “Perceptions across Scales of Governance and the Indonesian Peatland Fires.” Global Environmental Change 46: 50–59. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, Liam M., and Daniel Y. Liu. 2016. “Measuring Stakeholder Perspectives on Environmental and Community Stability in a Tourism-Dependent Economy: Measuring Community Perspectives.” International Journal of Tourism Research 18 (6): 620–632. doi:10.1002/jtr.2084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamberlain, Emily C., Murray B. Rutherford, and Michael L. Gibeau. 2012. “Human Perspectives and Conservation of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park, Canada.” Conservation Biology : The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 26 (3): 420–431. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01856.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, Rachel, Matthew Tonts, and Paul Plummer. 2015. “Exploring Perceptions of the Impacts of Resource Development: A Q-Methodology Study.” The Extractive Industries and Society 2 (3): 540–551. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2015.04.008.
   Google Scholar
• Chikudza, Lynnlee, Claire Gauzente, Patrice Guillotreau, and Karen A. Alexander. 2020. “Producer Perceptions of the Incentives and Challenges of Adopting Ecolabels in the European Finfish Aquaculture Industry: A Q-Methodology Approach.” Marine Policy 121: 104176. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, Leong. 2020. “Social Networks and Perceptions of Power in the Mekong.” Water Alternatives 13 (2): 393–417. www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol13/v13issue2/581-a13-2-10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciftcioglu, Gulay Cetinkaya. 2020. “Using a Combination of Q-Methodology and Survey-Based Approach for Assessing Forest Ecosystem Services of Five Finger Mountains in Northern Cyprus.” Sustainability Science 15 (6): 1789–1805. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00824-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clare, Shari, Naomi Krogman, and Ken J. Caine. 2013. “The ‘Balance Discourse’: A Case Study of Power and Wetland Management.” Geoforum 49: 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton, Matthew, and Emma Stevens. 2019. “Mapping Discourses of Climate Change Adaptation in the United Kingdom.” Weather, Climate, and Society 11 (1): 17–32. doi:10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0024.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz, Mariana, Roberto Quiroz, and Mario Herrero. 2007. “Use of Visual Material for Eliciting Shepherds’ Perceptions of Grassland in Highland Peru.” Mountain Research and Development 27 (2): 146–152. doi:10.1659/mrd.0793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuppen, Eefje. 2012. “A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Learning in a Stakeholder Dialogue on Bio-Energy.” Research Policy 41 (3): 624–637. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuppen, Eefje, Sylvia Breukers, Matthijs Hisschemöller, and Emmy Bergsma. 2010. “Q Methodology to Select Participants for a Stakeholder Dialogue on Energy Options from Biomass in The Netherlands.” Ecological Economics 69 (3): 579–591. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, Ben B., and Ian D. Hodge. 2012. “Shifting Environmental Perspectives in Agriculture: Repeated Q Analysis and the Stability of Preference Structures.” Ecological Economics 83: 51–57. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz, Paula, Carolina Adler, and Anthony Patt. 2017. “Do Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Renewable Energy Infrastructure Pose a Risk to Energy Policy Implementation? A Case of a Hydropower Plant in Switzerland.” Energy Policy 108: 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz, Paula, and Oscar van Vliet. 2018. “Drivers and Risks for Renewable Energy Developments in Mountain Regions: A Case of a Pilot Photovoltaic Project in the Swiss Alps.” Energy, Sustainability and Society 8 (1): 28. doi:10.1186/s13705-018-0168-x.
   Google Scholar
• Eden, Sally, Andrew Donaldson, and Gordon Walker. 2005. “Structuring Subjectivities? Using Q Methodology in Human Geography.” Area 37 (4): 413–422. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00641.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgeley, Catrin M., Amanda M. Stasiewicz, and Darcy H. Hammond. 2020. “Prioritizing Research Needs in Natural Resources: Using Q-Methodology as a Focus Group Discussion Tool.” Journal of Forestry 118 (6): 569–575. doi:10.1093/jofore/fvaa035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, Geraint, John Barry, and Clive 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. doi:10.1080/09640560701402075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, Janet A., Hari Dhungana, Janine Duffy, Jun He, Mirna Inturias, Ina Lehmann, Adrian Martin, David M. Mwayafu, Iokiñe Rodríguez, and Helen Schneider. 2020. “Conservationists’ Perspectives on Poverty: An Empirical Study.” People and Nature 2 (3): 678–692. doi:10.1002/pan3.10098.
   Google Scholar
• Fry, Matthew, Christian Brannstrom, and Michael Sakinejad. 2017. “Suburbanization and Shale Gas Wells: Patterns, Planning Perspectives, and Reverse Setback Policies.” Landscape and Urban Planning 168: 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.08.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gannon, Kate Elizabeth, and Mike Hulme. 2018. “Geoengineering at the ‘Edge of the World’: Exploring Perceptions of Ocean Fertilisation through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation.” Geo: Geography and Environment 5 (1): e00054. doi:10.1002/geo2.54.
   Google Scholar
• Giannichi, Marta Lisli, Martin Dallimer, Timothy R. Baker, Gordon Mitchell, Paula Bernasconi, and Guy Ziv. 2018. “Divergent Landowners’ Expectations May Hinder the Uptake of a Forest Certificate Trading Scheme: Expectations about a Conservation Scheme.” Conservation Letters 11 (3): e12409. doi:10.1111/conl.12409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimsrud, Kristine, Maximo Graesse, and Henrik Lindhjem. 2020. “Using the Generalised Q Method in Ecological Economics: A Better Way to Capture Representative Values and Perspectives in Ecosystem Service Management.” Ecological Economics 170: 106588. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruber, James. 2011. “Perspectives of Effective and Sustainable Community-Based Natural Resource Management: An Application of Q Methodology to Forest Projects.” Conservation and Society 9 (2): 159. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.83725.
   Google Scholar
• Guenat, Solène, Andrew J. Dougill, William E. Kunin, and Martin Dallimer. 2019. “Untangling the Motivations of Different Stakeholders for Urban Greenspace Conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Ecosystem Services 36: 100904. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermans, Frans, Kasper Kok, Pieter J. Beers, and Tom Veldkamp. 2012. “Assessing Sustainability Perspectives in Rural Innovation Projects Using Q-Methodology: Sustainability Perspectives in Rural Innovation.” Sociologia Ruralis 52 (1): 70–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00554.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, Christina Chemtai, and Marleen Simone Schutter. 2019. “Networking the Blue Economy in Seychelles: Pioneers, Resistance, and the Power of Influence.” Journal of Political Ecology 26 (1): 425. doi:10.2458/v26i1.23102.
   Google Scholar
• Hobson, Kersty, and Simon Niemeyer. 2011. “Public Responses to Climate Change: The Role of Deliberation in Building Capacity for Adaptive Action.” Global Environmental Change 21 (3): 957–971. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huaranca, Laura Liliana, Martín Alejandro Iribarnegaray, Federico Albesa, José Norberto Volante, Christian Brannstrom, and Lucas Seghezzo. 2019. “Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina.” Ecological Economics 165: 106424. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iribarnegaray, M. A., M. F. E. de la Zerda, C. M. Hutton, C. Brannstrom, V. I. Liberal, W. Tejerina, and L. Seghezzo. 2014. “Water-Conservation Policies in Perspective: Insights from a Q-Method Study in Salta, Argentina.” Water Policy 16 (5): 897–916. doi:10.2166/wp.2014.159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaligot, Rémi, and Jérôme Chenal. 2019. “Stakeholders’ Perspectives to Support the Integration of Ecosystem Services in Spatial Planning in Switzerland.” Environments 6 (8): 88. doi:10.3390/environments6080088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas, A., N. Saarinen, H. Saarikoski, L. A. Leskinen, T. Hujala, and J. Tikkanen. 2010. “Stakeholder Perspectives about Proper Participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland.” Forest Policy and Economics 12 (3): 213–222. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, Götz Ferdinand. 2014. “Seeking Environmental Injustice with Help of Q Methodology on APA Algodoal-Maiandeua.” Environmental Justice 7 (3): 61–69. doi:10.1089/env.2014.0005.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, Geoffrey N., and Simon R. Swaffield. 2012. “Identifying Cultural Service Values of a Small River in the Agricultural Landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand, Using Combined Methods.” Society & Natural Resources 25 (12): 1330–1339. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.676723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kindermann, Gesche, and Michael J. Gormally. 2013. “Stakeholder Perceptions of Recreational and Management Impacts on Protected Coastal Dune Systems: A Comparison of Three European Countries.” Land Use Policy 31: 472–485. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger, Rob, Seth Tuler, and Thomas Webler. 2001. “What is a Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectives from the Public.” Environmental Management 27 (3): 435–450. doi:10.1007/s002670010160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvakkestad, Valborg, Per Kristian Rørstad, and Arild Vatn. 2015. “Norwegian Farmers’ Perspectives on Agriculture and Agricultural Payments: Between Productivism and Cultural Landscapes.” Land Use Policy 42: 83–92. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langston, James Douglas, Rowan McIntyre, Keith Falconer, Terry Sunderland, Meine van Noordwijk, and Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono. 2019. “Discourses Mapped by Q-Method Show Governance Constraints Motivate Landscape Approaches in Indonesia.” PloS One 14 (1): e0211221. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauret, Valentin, Miguel Delibes-Mateos, François Mougeot, and Beatriz Arroyo-Lopez. 2020. “Understanding Conservation Conflicts Associated with Rodent Outbreaks in Farmland Areas.” Ambio 49 (5): 1122–1133. doi:10.1007/s13280-019-01256-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, Nadine, and Gretchen Sneegas. 2018. “Beyond Polarization: Using Q Methodology to Explore Stakeholders’ Views on Pesticide Use, and Related Risks for Agricultural Workers, in Washington State’s Tree Fruit Industry.” Agriculture and Human Values 35 (1): 131–147. doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9810-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loring, Philip A., and Megan S. Hinzman. 2018. “‘They’re All Really Important, But…’: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia.” Ecological Economics 152: 367–377. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louah, Line, Marjolein Visser, Alice Blaimont, and Charles de Cannière. 2017. “Barriers to the Development of Temperate Agroforestry as an Example of Agroecological Innovation: Mainly a Matter of Cognitive Lock-In?” Land Use Policy 67: 86–97. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Ming, Alin Lin, and Jiyi Sun. 2018. “The Impact of Photovoltaic Applications on Urban Landscapes Based on Visual Q Methodology.” Sustainability 10 (4): 1051. doi:10.3390/su10041051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maniatakou, Sofia, Håkan Berg, Giorgos Maneas, and Tim M. Daw. 2020. “Unravelling Diverse Values of Ecosystem Services: A Socio-Cultural Valuation Using Q Methodology in Messenia, Greece.” Sustainability 12 (24): 10320. doi:10.3390/su122410320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattson, David J., Kimberly L. Byrd, Murray B. Rutherford, Steven R. Brown, and Timothy W. Clark. 2006. “Finding Common Ground in Large Carnivore Conservation: Mapping Contending Perspectives.” Environmental Science & Policy 9 (4): 392–405. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazur, Kristine E., and Stanley T. Asah. 2013. “Clarifying Standpoints in the Gray Wolf Recovery Conflict: Procuring Management and Policy Forethought.” Biological Conservation 167: 79–89. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown, Bruce F., and Dan B. Thomas. 2013. Q Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood. 1998. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” In The Corporation and Its Stakeholders, edited by Max Clarkson, 275–314. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moher, David, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Alessandro Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, and Lesley A. Stewart. 2015. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement.” Systematic Reviews 4 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molenveld, Astrid, Arwin van Buuren, and Gerald-Jan Ellen. 2020. “Governance of Climate Adaptation, Which Mode? An Exploration of Stakeholder Viewpoints on How to Organize Adaptation.” Climatic Change 162 (2): 233–254. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02683-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naspetti, S., S. Mandolesi, and R. Zanoli. 2016. “Using Visual Q Sorting to Determine the Impact of Photovoltaic Applications on the Landscape.” Land Use Policy 57: 564–573. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen, B. N., B. Boruff, and M. Tonts. 2018. “Indicators of Mining in Development: A Q‐Methodology Investigation of Two Gold Mines in Quang Nam Province, Vietnam.” Resources Policy 57: 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.02.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nhem, Sareth, and Young Jin Lee. 2019. “Using Q Methodology to Investigate the Views of Local Experts on the Sustainability of Community-Based Forestry in Oddar Meanchey Province, Cambodia.” Forest Policy and Economics 106: 101961. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101961.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholas, P. K., S. Mandolesi, S. Naspetti, and R. Zanoli. 2014. “Innovations in Low Input and Organic Dairy Supply Chains: What is Acceptable in Europe?” Journal of Dairy Science 97 (2): 1157–1167. doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijnik, Maria, Tatiana Kluvánková, Albert Nijnik, Serhiy Kopiy, Mariana Melnykovych, Simo Sarkki, Carla Barlagne, et al. 2020. “Is There a Scope for Social Innovation in Ukrainian Forestry?” Sustainability 12 (22): 9674. doi:10.3390/su12229674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nkiaka, Elias, and Jon C. Lovett. 2019. “Strengthening the Science-Policy Interface for Climate Adaptation: Stakeholder Perceptions in Cameroon.” Regional Environmental Change 19 (4): 1047–1057. doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1441-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordhagen, Stella, Unai Pascual, and Adam G. Drucker. 2017. “Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing off? Farmers’ Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea.” Ecological Economics 137: 99–109. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norström, Albert V., Christopher Cvitanovic, Marie F. Löf, Simon West, Carina Wyborn, Patricia Balvanera, Angela T. Bednarek, et al. 2020. “Principles for Knowledge Co-Production in Sustainability Research.” Nature Sustainability 3 (3): 182–190. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nost, Eric, Morgan Robertson, and Rebecca Lave. 2019. “Q-Method and the Performance of Subjectivity: Reflections from a Survey of US Stream Restoration Practitioners.” Geoforum 105: 23–31. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakes, Robert. 2019. “Culture, Climate Change and Mobility Decisions in Pacific Small Island Developing States.” Population and Environment 40 (4): 480–503. doi:10.1007/s11111-019-00321-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, Kerri Jean. 2017. “Common Sense Principles Governing Potable Water Recycling in the Southwestern US: Examining Subjectivity of Water Stewards Using Q Methodology.” Geoforum 86: 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palomo-Campesino, Sara, Federica Ravera, José A. González, and Marina García-Llorente. 2018. “Exploring Current and Future Situation of Mediterranean Silvopastoral Systems: Case Study in Southern Spain.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (5): 578–591. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2017.12.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, Lindsey B., and Daniel P. Shepardon. 2015. “Practitioners’ Views on Useful Knowledge for Climate Change Adaptation Projects: Practitioners’ Views on Useful Knowledge.” Sustainable Development 23 (6): 355–368. doi:10.1002/sd.1596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelenur, Marcos. 2018. “Household Energy Use: A Study Investigating Viewpoints towards Energy Efficiency Technologies and Behaviour.” Energy Efficiency 11 (7): 1825–1846. doi:10.1007/s12053-018-9624-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, D'jeane T., and Lucas Ward. 2017. “Greater Sage-Grouse in Montana: Mapping Archetype Viewpoints across Stakeholder Groups Using Q Methodology: Greater Sage-Grouse Stakeholder Viewpoints.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 41 (1): 34–41. doi:10.1002/wsb.727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramlo, Susan. 2016. “Mixed Method Lessons Learned from 80 Years of Q Methodology.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10 (1): 28–45. doi:10.1177/1558689815610998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramlo, Susan E., and Isadore Newman. 2011. “Q Methodology and Its Position in the Mixed-Methods Continuum.” Operant Subjectivity 34 (3): 172–191. International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity (ISSSS). doi:10.15133/j.os.2010.009.
   Google Scholar
• Rastogi, Archi, Gordon M. Hickey, Ruchi Badola, and Syed Ainul Hussain. 2013. “Diverging Viewpoints on Tiger Conservation: A Q-Method Study and Survey of Conservation Professionals in India.” Biological Conservation 161: 182–192. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray, Lily. 2011. “Using Q-Methodology to Identify Local Perspectives on Wildfires in Two Koyukon Athabascan Communities in Rural Alaska.” Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 7 (2): 18–29. doi:10.1080/15487733.2011.11908070.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, Mark S., Anil Graves, Norman Dandy, Helena Posthumus, Klaus Hubacek, Joe Morris, Christina Prell, Claire H. Quinn, and Lindsay C. Stringer. 2009. “Who’s in and Why? A Typology of Stakeholder Analysis Methods for Natural Resource Management.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rijneveld, Rhode, and Hero Marhaento. 2020. “Stakeholders’ Contradicting Perceptions on the Effects of Agroforestry and Monocropping Systems on Water Use.” Water Practice and Technology 15 (2): 365–373. doi:10.2166/wpt.2020.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripken, Malena, Xander Keijser, Thomas Klenke, and Igor Mayer. 2018. “The ‘Living Q’: An Interactive Method for Actor Engagement in Transnational Marine Spatial Planning.” Environments 5 (8): 87. doi:10.3390/environments5080087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins, Paul, and Rob Krueger. 2000. “Beyond Bias? The Promise and Limits of Q Method in Human Geography.” The Professional Geographer 52 (4): 636–648. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Piñeros, Sandra, Oscar Martínez-Cortés, Liz Villarraga-Flórez, and Alejandra Ruíz-Díaz. 2018. “Timber Market Actors’ Values on Forest Legislation: A Case Study from Colombia.” Forest Policy and Economics 88: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rust, Niki A. 2017. “Can Stakeholders Agree on How to Reduce Human–Carnivore Conflict on Namibian Livestock Farms? A Novel Q-Methodology and Delphi Exercise.” Oryx 51 (2): 339–346. doi:10.1017/S0030605315001179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salazar, Debra J., and Donald K. Alper. 2011. “Justice and Environmentalisms in the British Columbia and US Pacific Northwest Environmental Movements.” Society & Natural Resources 24 (8): 767–784. doi:10.1080/08941920903452989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sardo, Ana Margarida, and Danielle Sinnett. 2020. “Evaluation of the Q Method as a Public Engagement Tool in Examining the Preferences of Residents in Metal Mining Areas.” Frontiers in Communication 5: 55. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.00055.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, Shay, Greg Brown, Ann Peterson, and Ron Johnstone. 2016. “Stakeholder Perspectives for Coastal Ecosystem Services and Influences on Value Integration in Policy.” Ocean & Coastal Management 126: 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, Jacqueline, and Alan Bond. 2018. “Delivering More Inclusive Public Participation in Coastal Flood Management: A Case Study in Suffolk, UK.” Ocean & Coastal Management 161: 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneegas, Gretchen. 2020. “Making the Case for Critical Q Methodology.” The Professional Geographer 72 (1): 78–87. doi:10.1080/00330124.2019.1598271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneegas, Gretchen, Sydney Beckner, Christian Brannstrom, Wendy Jepson, Kyungsun Lee, and Lucas Seghezzo. 2021. “Using Q-Methodology in Environmental Sustainability Research: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review.” Ecological Economics 180: 106864. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spruijt, Pita, Anne B. Knol, Arthur C. Petersen, and Erik Lebret. 2016. “Differences in Views of Experts about Their Role in Particulate Matter Policy Advice: Empirical Evidence from an International Expert Consultation.” Environmental Science & Policy 59: 44–52. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. 1935. “Technique of Factor Analysis.” Nature 136 (3434): 297–297. doi:10.1038/136297b0.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, William. 1975. The Study of Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strickert, Graham, Kwok Pan Chun, Lori Bradford, Douglas Clark, Patricia Gober, Maureen G. Reed, and Diana Payton. 2016. “Unpacking Viewpoints on Water Security: Lessons from the South Saskatchewan River Basin.” Water Policy 18 (1): 50–72. doi:10.2166/wp.2015.195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sy, Mariam Maki, Hélène Rey-Valette, Monique Simier, Vanina Pasqualini, Charles Figuières, and Rutger De Wit. 2018. “Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach.” Ecological Economics 154: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taheri, Fatemeh, Marijke D’Haese, Dieter Fiems, Gholam Hossein Hosseininia, and Hossein Azadi. 2020. “Wireless Sensor Network for Small-Scale Farming Systems in Southwest Iran: Application of Q-Methodology to Investigate Farmers’ Perceptions.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 177: 105682. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuler, Seth, and Thomas Webler. 2009. “Stakeholder Perspectives about Marine Oil Spill Response Objectives: A Comparative Q Study of Four Regions.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 17 (2): 95–107. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00568.x.
   Google Scholar
• Ullah, Kafait, Muhammad Shabbar Raza, and Faisal Mehmood Mirza. 2019. “Barriers to Hydro-Power Resource Utilization in Pakistan: A Mixed Approach.” Energy Policy 132: 723–735. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar, Michael, Jennifer McRuer, Xiaohui Liu, Linda Theron, Daniel Blais, and Matthew A. Schnurr. 2020. “Social-Ecological Resilience through a Biocultural Lens: A Participatory Methodology to Support Global Targets and Local Priorities.” Ecology and Society 25 (3): 8. doi:10.5751/ES-11621-250308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaas, Jetske, Peter P. J. Driessen, Mendel Giezen, Frank van Laerhoven, and Martin J. Wassen. 2019. “Let Me Tell You Your Problems’. Using Q Methodology to Elicit Latent Problem Perceptions about Invasive Alien Species.” Geoforum 99: 120–131. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.11.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vande Velde, Katherine, Jean Hugé, Daniel A. Friess, Nico Koedam, and Farid Dahdouh-Guebas. 2019. “Stakeholder Discourses on Urban Mangrove Conservation and Management.” Ocean & Coastal Management 178: 104810. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.05.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vargas, Andrés, David Diaz, and Juanita Aldana-Domínguez. 2019. “Public Discourses on Conservation and Development in a Rural Community in Colombia: An Application of Q-Methodology.” Biodiversity and Conservation 28 (1): 155–169. doi:10.1007/s10531-018-1644-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venus, Terese E., Mandy Hinzmann, Tor Haakon Bakken, Holger Gerdes, Francisco Nunes Godinho, Bendik Hansen, António Pinheiro, and Johannes Sauer. 2020. “The Public’s Perception of Run-of-the-River Hydropower across Europe.” Energy Policy 140 (111422): 111422. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111422.
   Google Scholar
• Wainger, Lisa, Anna McMurray, Michael Paolisso, Katherine J. Johnson, and Brian Needelman. 2017. “Coastal Community Values for Marsh-Dependent Socioecological Services Revealed through a Systematic Qualitative Approach.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 46 (2): 338–364. doi:10.1017/age.2017.15.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Marsha L. 2013. “A Case Study Investigating the Influence of Deliberative Discussion on Environmental Preferences.” Society & Natural Resources 26 (3): 303–324. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.689932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, Simon, and Paul Stenner. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, Thomas, Stentor Danielson, and Seth Tuler. 2009. Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Greenfield, MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, Stephanie, and Sandy Kerr. 2019. “Property, Power and Planning: Attitudes to Spatial Enclosure in Scottish Seas.” Marine Policy 108: 103633. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitzman, Jenny, and Megan Bailey. 2018. “Perceptions of Aquaculture Ecolabels: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach in Nova Scotia, Canada.” Marine Policy 87: 12–22. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weldegiorgis, Fitsum S., and Saleem H. Ali. 2016. “Mineral Resources and Localised Development: Q-Methodology for Rapid Assessment of Socioeconomic Impacts in Rwanda.” Resources Policy 49: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.03.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolsink, Maarten, and Sylvia Breukers. 2010. “Contrasting the Core Beliefs Regarding the Effective Implementation of Wind Power. An International Study of Stakeholder Perspectives.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (5): 535–558. doi:10.1080/09640561003633581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zabala, Aiora, Unai Pascual, and Luis García-Barrios. 2017. “Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations.” Ecological Economics 135: 234–245. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zabala, Aiora, Chris Sandbrook, and Nibedita Mukherjee. 2018. “When and How to Use Q Methodology to Understand Perspectives in Conservation Research: The Q Methodology.” Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 32 (5): 1185–1194. doi:10.1111/cobi.13123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanoli, Raffaele, Lorenzo Carlesi, Roberto Danovaro, Serena Mandolesi, and Simona Naspetti. 2015. “Valuing Unfamiliar Mediterranean Deep-Sea Ecosystems Using Visual Q-Methodology.” Marine Policy 61: 227–236. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.08.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanoli, Raffaele, Eduardo Cuoco, Yulia Barabanova, Serena Mandolesi, and Simona Naspetti. 2018. “Using Q Methodology to Facilitate the Establishment of the 2030 Vision for the EU Organic Sector.” Organic Agriculture 8 (3): 265–273. doi:10.1007/s13165-018-0207-0.
   Google Scholar