Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review

被引:104
作者
Sneegas, Gretchen [1 ]
Beckner, Sydney [2 ]
Brannstrom, Christian [1 ]
Jepson, Wendy [1 ]
Lee, Kyungsun [1 ]
Seghezzo, Lucas [3 ]
机构
[1] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Geog, 3147 TAMU, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[2] Texas A&M Univ, Texas Water Resources Inst, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[3] Univ Nacl Salta UNSa, CONICET, Inst Invest Energia No Convenc INENCO, Salta, Argentina
关键词
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES; PUBLIC-PARTICIPATION; CLIMATE-CHANGE; CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT; FLOOD MANAGEMENT; CORE BELIEFS; WIND ENERGY; LAND-USE; DISCOURSES; PERCEPTIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Q-methodology is a mixed qualitative-quantitative method used to measure social perspectives on issues relating to sustainability and environmental governance in a systematic, replicable manner. Although its use grown over the past two decades, to date there has not been a comprehensive review of the environmental sustainability Q-methodology literature. Using bibliometric analysis and systematic review, this paper examines the rapid growth in published Q-methodology research on sustainable natural resource management and environmental governance. We analysed and iteratively coded 277 empirical Q-studies published between 2000-2018 to establish research trends, shared gaps, and best practices among environmental social science Q-researchers. We also conducted co-authorship and co-citation analyses to identify research clusters using Q-methodology. We find that, while Q-methodology uses a relatively standardized protocol, considerable heterogeneity persists across such domains as study design, p-set identification, concourse and Q-set development, analysis and interpretation. Further, we identify major reporting gaps among Q methodology publications where researchers do not fully describe or justify subjective decision-making throughout the research process. The paper ends with recommendations for improving research reporting and increasing the circulation and uptake of up-to-date Q-methodology practices and innovations.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 114 条
[1]  
Amaruzaman Sacha, 2017, International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services & Management, V13, P233, DOI 10.1080/21513732.2017.1331264
[2]   Stakeholder Perspectives on Chronic Wasting Disease Risk and Management on the Canadian Prairies [J].
Amick, Kari ;
Clark, Douglas ;
Brook, Ryan K. .
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE, 2015, 20 (05) :408-424
[3]   An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making [J].
Armatas, Christopher A. ;
Campbell, Robert M. ;
Watson, Alan E. ;
Borrie, William T. ;
Christensen, Neal ;
Venn, Tyron J. .
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2018, 33 :1-18
[4]   Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States [J].
Armatas, Christopher A. ;
Venn, Tyron J. ;
Watson, Alan E. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2014, 107 :447-456
[5]   Diagnostic reframing of intractable environmental problems: Case of a contested multiparty public land-use conflict [J].
Asah, Stanley T. ;
Bengston, David N. ;
Wendt, Keith ;
Nelson, Kristen C. .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2012, 108 :108-119
[6]   Prognostic Framing of Stakeholders' Subjectivities: A Case of All-Terrain Vehicle Management on State Public Lands [J].
Asah, Stanley T. ;
Bengston, David N. ;
Wendt, Keith ;
DeVaney, Leif .
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2012, 49 (01) :192-206
[7]   Stakeholders' perceptions of marine fish farming in Catalonia (Spain): A Q-methodology approach [J].
Bacher, Kathrin ;
Gordoa, Ana ;
Mikkelsen, Eirik .
AQUACULTURE, 2014, 424 :78-85
[8]   Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology [J].
Barry, J ;
Proops, J .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 1999, 28 (03) :337-345
[10]  
Baur I, 2014, INT J COMMONS, V8, P657