Act global, think local? Local perspectives towards environmental sustainability in semi-rural communities of Alberta, Canada

References

• Abacus Data. (2018). Perceptions of carbon pricing in Canada: A survey of 2250 Canadians. Retrieved March 23, 2020. https://ecofiscal.ca
   Google Scholar
• Ameztegui, A., Solarik, K. A., Parkins, J. R., Houle, D., Messier, C., & Gravel, D. (2018). Perceptions of climate change across the Canadian forest sector: The key factors of institutional and geographical environment. PLoS One, 13(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197689
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, I., & Wilson, G. A. (2009). Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate change: Technocentrism, ecocentrism, and the carbon economy. Environment and Planning A, 41(10), 2324–2341. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics, 28(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2001). Public understandings of air pollution: The localisation of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00063-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brocchi, D. (2010). The cultural dimension of sustainability. In Bergmann & Gerten (Eds.), Religion and Dangerous Environmental Change: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on the Ethics of Climate and Sustainability. LIT Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Buckwell, A., Fleming, C., Muurmans, M., Smart, J. C., Ware, D., & Mackey, B. (2020). Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method. Ecological Economics, 177, 106781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burningham, K., & O'Brien, M. (1994). Global environmental values and local contexts of action. Sociology, 28(4), 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038594028004007
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, R., Byrne, S., Ryan, R., & O’Regan, B. (2017). Applying the Q-method to identify primary motivation factors and barriers to communities in achieving decarbonisation goals. Energy Policy, 110, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairns, R., & Stirling, A. (2014). Maintaining planetary systems’ or ‘concentrating global power?’ High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering. Global Environmental Change, 28, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calder, M. J., & Beckie, M. A. (2013). Community engagement and transformation: Case studies in municipal sustainability planning from Alberta, Canada. Community Development, 44(2), 147–160.
   Google Scholar
• Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Upham, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connelly, S. (2007). Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local Environment, 12(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830601183289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey, B. (2021). Understanding conflicting views in conservation: An analysis of England. Land Use Policy, 104, 105362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105362
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1997).
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2017). Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecological Economics, 131, 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehgartner, U. (2020). The discursive framework of sustainability in UK food policy: The marginalised environmental dimension. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1768832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2019). Achieving a sustainable future: A federal sustainable development strategy for Canada 2019 to 2022 (Cat. No. En4-136/2019E-1-PDF). Government of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080500339638
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Hajer, M. A. (1999). Living with nature: Environmental politics as cultural discourse (pp. 1–20). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government of Canada. (2021). Greenhouse gas sources and sinks: Executive summary 2021. Retrieved March 22, 2022. www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange.html
   Google Scholar
• Griggs, S., & Howarth, D. (2019). Discourse, policy and the environment: Hegemony, statements and the analysis of U.K. airport expansion. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1266930
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (1996). The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy proccess. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080500339646
   Google Scholar
• Håvard, H. (2017). Constructing the sustainable city: Examining the role of sustainability in the ‘smart city’ discourse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(4), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1245610
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, M. (2018). Defining stewardship: Towards an organisational culture of sustainability. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 40(40), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2010.wi.00005
   Google Scholar
• Horlings, L. G. (2015). The inner dimension of sustainability: Personal and cultural values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 163–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, C. (2016). Paris agreement. International Legal Materials, 55(4), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020782900004253
   Google Scholar
• Jepson, W., Brannstrom, C., & Persons, N. (2012). We don’t take the pledge: Environmentality and environmental skepticism at the epicenter of US wind energy development. Geoforum, 43(4), 851–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leipold, S., Feindt, P. H., Winkel, G., & Keller, R. (2019). Discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: Traditions, trends, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1660462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathevet, R., Bousquet, F., & Raymond, C. M. (2018). The concept of stewardship in sustainability science and conservation biology. Biological Conservation, 217, 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mccright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor, S. (2001). Neoliberalism and health care. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(2), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2001.00183.x
   Google Scholar
• Mildenberger, M., Howe, P., Lachapelle, E., & Stokes, L. (2016). The distribution of climate change public opinion in Canada. PLoS One, 11(8), e0159774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159774
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orenstein, D. E., & Shach-Pinsley, D. (2017). A Comparative Framework for Assessing Sustainability Initiatives at the Regional Scale. World Development, 98, 245–256.
   Google Scholar
• Parkins, J. R., Hempel, C., Beckley, T. M., Stedman, R. C., & Sherren, K. (2015). Identifying energy discourses in Canada with Q methodology: Moving beyond the environment versus economy debates. Environmental Sociology, 1(4), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2015.1054016
   Google Scholar
• Previte, J., Pini, B., & Haslam-Mckenzie, F. (2007). Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00433.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raphael, D., Curry-Stevens, A., & Bryant, T. (2008). Barriers to addressing the social determinants of health: Insights from the Canadian experience. Health Policy, 88(2-3), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.03.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafft, K. A., Borlu, Y., & Glenna, L. (2013). The relationship between Marcellus shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociology, 78(2), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2014). What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414536746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stedman, R. C. (2004). Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1395–1406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00534.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., & Bennett, E. M. (2015). Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour: Q technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, H. (2019). Contemporary discourses of green political economy: A Q method analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1118681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. (2006). Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of technology. In Voß et al (Ed.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 225–272). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, M. (2017). Discourses of the Alberta oil sands: What key stakeholders really think about sustainability. Consilience, 18(2), 175–192.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vries, B. J., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1006–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.015
   Google Scholar
• Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar