Authors,Title,DOI,Question.purpose,Result.output,Context,Classif,Decision.context.simple,Decision.context.comment,P.sample.size,P.sample.size.comment,Approach,Approach.comment,Q.rationale,Q.advantages,Q.disadvantages,Q.recommendations,Oth.meth.compare,Oth.meth.compare.which,Oth.meth.use.with,Oth.meth.use.1.interview,Oth.meth.use.2.survey,Oth.meth.use.3.other,P.strat.gender,P.strat.gender.male,P.strat.gender.female,P.strat.age,P.strat.other,P.strat.other.comment,Duration.study,Duration.concourse.months,Duration.datacol.months,Duration.datacol.Qsort.min,Notes,QM.sample.stimuli,QM.concourse.dev.method,QM.concourse.size,QM.concourse.size.comment,QM.item.n,QM.item.n.comment,QM.factor.n,QM.factor.n.comment,QM.extr.method,QM.extr.method.comment,QM.rot.method,QM.rot.method.comment,QM.flagging,QM.factor.labels,QM.factor.n.criteria,QM.var.expl,QM.var.expl.comments,QM.Qsample.method,QM.Qsample.method.comment,QM.cond.of.instr,QM.cond.of.instr.code,QM.ratio.Qset-Pset,Geo.City.town.village,Geo.Country,Geo.Scale.final,Geo.Latitude,Geo.Longitude,Geo.search.name,Geo.desc,Geo.precision,Geo.Continent
Ockwell D.G.,"'Opening up' policy to reflexive appraisal: A role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia",10.1007/s11077-008-9066-y,"Explore the extent to which Q methodology can play a role in ""opening up"" policy to reflexive appraisal. Understand fire management discourses in Australia to appraise the social desirability of existing policy and practice","The findings of the Q study presented in this paper provide an additional resource to assist the staff of the Cape York Peninsula Sustainable Fire Management project in their understanding of the different stakeholder discourses on fire management and to inform the priority concerns. ||  Consideration of the discourses identified here in relation to the tensions and synergies with existing policy discussed above has strong potential to contribute to a more nuanced response to the ‘‘priority issues’’ identified during the development of the Natural Resource Management scheme. ||  The discourses identified here contribute to understanding the different value systems that underpin different stakeholders’ approaches to fire management ||  ""At present only discourses A and C are reflected in policy. That is, current policy is pro the use of fire. Appraising existing policy on the basis of the different constructions articulated by discourses B and D of the purpose of and practices involved in fire management, is successful in opening up existing policy to reflexive appraisal ||  Potential for appraising the social desirability of existing policy and practice in the region, a desirability that is contingent on specific values, assumptions and framings, especially within the context of the uncertainty surrounding scientific knowledge of the impacts of anthropogenic burning in the region. ||  They also highlight a need to consider expanding institutional capacity in the region to better facilitate stakeholder engagement in the development of fire management policy. ||  The Q study also raises considerations regarding fire management policy that are central to contemporary concerns over indigenous land rights ||  Aboriginal respondents were split between discourses A, C and D. This implies that certain Aboriginal stakeholders have some affinity with existing fire management policy"" ||  DIFFERENCES: Fundamental differences in ontology and epistemology relative to all three of the other discourses ||  COMMONALITIES: There is general agreement regarding the importance of Aboriginal knowledge of fire regimes",Fire management,Policy appraisal,6,Policy acceptability,32,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),"Facilitates the consideration of fire management policy within the context of different constructions and knowledge claims that are not currently reflected in policy ||  Participatory technique to the extent that it involves the participation of a cross-section of stakeholders, together with the fact that it draws the initial concourse of statements from the public realm, which might reasonably be assumed to reflect the plurality of different values, interests, understandings and so on that exist on a certain issue ||  It satisfied the key requirements for reflexivity by facilitating the reflection of a plurality of opinions and exposing the construction of these opinions to critical scrutiny. ||  Q was able to expose the way in which certain discourses (in this case the fire-free conservation and indigenous controlled land management discourses) are sometimes marginalized in terms of their consideration in policy.",The researcher might exert their own subjectivity in the selection of the final statements to be used in the study and interpretation of the ideal Q sorts into coherent discourses (but minimised with: use of strict filtering criteria on the selection of statements and the use of interviews with participants to describe the final discourses) ||  Element of subjectivity involved in the interpretation and analysis of the results of Q (but: the results of the study are clearly presented and therefore equally available for any other commentator to conduct their own (subjectively influenced) analysis) ||  Q is only capable of taking a snapshot in time of people’s subjective constructions of any particular issue.,See actions in parenthesis in 'Disadvantages',"Comparison with discourse/ textual analysis: other methods could yield similar insights to those afforded by Q.  ||  Q has the ability to reveal subtle differences in discourses that might support a similar policy approach. ||  The extent of analysis required to identify subtle differences in discourses using textual discourse analysis, however, would render it a very time consuming approach. ||  The relative suitability of QMethodology as opposed to textual discourse analysis arguably depends on the level of analysis that is to be undertaken.",discourse/ textual analysis,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Stakeholder groups adressed - aboriginal [3], government scientists [2], QPWS (Parks service) [4], other relevant government departments [4], independent scientists [4], pastoralist [2], tourist [2], Watttle hills (shareholders of property in area) [11]",Concourse between 1999-2003 (the researcher's previous experience in the field),4 years,NA,NA,Additional comparison of the factors by stakeholder groups,Statements,Based on was drawn from a range of literature and face-to- face consultation conducted between 1999 and 2003 within which Cape York stakeholders and others with an interest in fire in Cape York stated their ideas and opinions on the subject. An overview of the key stakeholder groups was developed on the basis of the author’s 5 year involvement (at that time) in researching fire in Cape York and,304,NA,36,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax and judgmental,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),"A—rational fire management; B—fire-free conservation; C—pragmatic, locally controlled burning; D—indigenous controlled land management",EV >1 and at least 1 Q sort loading significantly on that factor alone,0.64,0.64,Purposive,NA,On the basis of how strongly they agree with each statement,Agreement,1.125,Cape York,Australia,Sub-national,-10.717776,142.443984,"Cape York, Australia","Cape York, QLD 4876, Australia",colloquial_area,Oceania
"Nijnik M., Nijnik A., Lundin L., Staszewski T., Postolache C.",A study of stakeholders' perspectives on multi-functional forests in europe,10.1080/14728028.2010.9752677,"Uses a combination of methods. Q is used in particular to analyse ""Heterogeneity of attitudes of forestry stakeholders, concerning wood production, biodiversity conservation and provision of other ecosystem services, as well as of practical issues and benefits of multi-functional forestry to local communities"". The broad topic is ""major opportunities and challenges of the development of multi-functional forestry in Europe""","Preferences are identified around the key directions of FMS: strong sustainability (ecosystem conservation and recreation), sensible sustainabiliy (renewable resources and local communmities), weak sustainability (infrastructure and timber products). ||  A deeper understanding of stakeholder perceptions is essential for linking forest management practices to biodiversity conservation requirements influencing a policy design in forests that are managed for multiple purposes ||  The outcomes of this research suggest that these are not only long-term issues of nature conservation that matter, but also medium and short term forestry objectives, concerning income generation, creation of jobs, development of housing, of transport and infrastructure, and provision of forest products and amenities for local communities. It also compares preferences across countries; the only group represented in all the countries surveyed is the Extreme Conservationists. ||  DIFFERENCES: The diversity of stakeholders' attitudes is associated with the differences in participants' competencies formed by institutional environments, and previous and current political, economic and social developments and by cultural differences across the analysed countries (but not by gender). No difference in opinions between female and male respondents. However, attitudinal differences somewhat vary by age, living conditions and other life history aspects of the respondents, and still more by their competencies, such as work experience and occupation. The main difference between the two sub-groups (factors 1 and 4, and factors 3 and 5) is in the strength of manifestation of their preferences. ||  COMMONALITIES: General support of sustainable forest management. There is a general understanding of the importance of forest regeneration, primarily through the promotion of natural regeneration and planting of native species, and of forest use for multiple purposes, where various forest management practices appear to make a difference.",Forests,Management options,0-1,Evaluation of the challenges of a single option,66,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Offers a potentially useful contribution to the formulation and refinement of forest policy; it offers insights into stakeholder preferences and assist in identification of important criteria of end-user perspectives,Not stated,"Other methods are to be used (and may be complemented with the Q methodology), for finding out how many people (within the ""stakeholder population"" or for the public, in general) think about FMS this way, or that way. The applied method in this research is focused on a discursive and perception analysis. It gives a discursive evaluation of major issues that respondents do express. This approach should further be complemented with a decision making analysis taking into account more complex organizational forestry stakes.",NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,NA,NA,1,1,"Stakeholders in forestry, landuse, nature conservation & environmental issues (academics & practitioners) - from various European countries: Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, UK.",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"Additional comparison of the factors by country of origin. Uses 'discourse analysis' to interpret the factors, but not as a separate method",Statements,Relevant literature sources form,NA,Not stated,36,NA,5,NA,Not stated,(search of principal or centroid does not return results),Not stated,(search of varimax/ judg/ manual does not return results),Unspecified (likely automatic),Extreme conservationists; Recreants; Moderate productivists; Moderate conservationists; Extreme productivists,Not stated,NA,Not stated,Not stated (likely purposive),NA,Complete disagreement - complete disagreement,Agreement,0.545454545454545,NA,"Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the UK",Multi-country,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Europe
Falk-Petersen J.,Alien invasive species management: Stakeholder perceptions of the barents sea king crab,10.3197/096327114X13947900181356,"Investigates the perceptions of the main agents connected to King Crab by asking the following questions: ‘1. What are the different perceptions regarding the consequences of the King Crab invasion to ecosystem services and how are these related to opinions on how the King Crab should be managed?; 2. What are the important areas of agreement and disagreement between perspectives?; 3. What characterises actors with the same perceptions?‘ Aims to probe the extent to which divisions exist between different groups, with regards to ecological impacts and economic benefits","While divisions are indeed found and two groupings identified, these are not as clear as suggested by the lines typically portrayed in the media and elsewhere, i.e. economic gains versus ecological preservation. ||  Stakeholder groups reported here generally agreed that biodiversity concerns should be central and that further invasion was undesirable due to potential impacts on ecosystem services. ||  The supporting services of the ecosystem are recognised and valued. However, perceptions regarding what ecosystem services are at risk if the crabs become too many differ between respondents. ||  This seems to support a precautionary management strategy focused upon having too few rather than too many King Crabs. However, perceptions on what is the appropriate precautionary level of King Crab differed between the two management regions. ||  Rather than having opposing points of view, the two perspectives tend to focus on different aspects. ||  This study could be used to inform a valuation study on the Crab invasion in order to provide advice in a format that is more convenient for policy makers. ||  DIFFERENCES: there are two opposing groups: one focusing on the crab’s negative ecological impacts and the other on the economic opportunities the crab represents. This analysis did identify two different perceptions and a clear division in opinion between those living west (Factor 1 respondents) and east of 26°E (Factor 2 respondents). Factor 2 respondents emphasise the crab’s economic importance, while Factor 1 respondents stress the importance of securing unknown future benefits of ecosystem services (option values) ||  COMMONALITIES: the crab represents an important economic opportunity as well as a potential threat to various ecosystem services",Marine,Management options,0-1,NA,57,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),"Useful approach for identifying the different services people associated with the ecosystem and their perceptions on how the King Crab affects, or will affect, these services.",Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Stratified by location (East of 26 degrees East [20]/West of 26 degrees East [37]) ""Individuals from organisations previously involved in developing management strategy, Norwegian Polar Institute, Norwegian fisher's organisation, fishers (from quota regulated and open-access areas), fish buyers, Finnmark coast fishers, scientific researchers, fishery journalist, member of MFC, country politician."" Institutes/Affiliations: {Table 1} Directorate of Fisheries (DF) in Vadsø [3] County administration of Finnmark (CAF) in Vadsø [2] Bivdi, organisation for Sami fishers (SAMBIVDI) in Porsanger [1] Sami parliament representative (SAM) in Varanger [1] Fisher in Porsanger, member of Bivdi (SAMF) [1] Fishers in the Eastern management zone (FISHE) [8] Fish processors in the eastern management zone (FISHPE) [2] Former member of MFC (FMFC) [1] Finnmark county politician (FP) [1] Directorate of Fisheries (DF) in Bergen [2] Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFC) in Oslo [2] Ministry of the Environment (ME) in Oslo [2] Norwegian Polar Institute (NP) – management, in Tromsø [2] Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Tromsø (research) [3] Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Tromsø and Bergen (administration) [2] Fisher organisation (FO) in Tromsø and Trondheim. [3] Environmental organisations (EO) in Oslo and Bergen [4] Fishers in Hammerfest (FISHH) [3] Norwegian College of Fishery Science, Tromsø (NCFS) resource biology [4] Norwegian College of Fishery Science, Tromsø (NCFS) resource economics, economics, and technology [3] Centre for Sami studies at University of Tromsø (SAMS) [1] Fishery journalist (FJOR) [1] Biologists at Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Akvaplan-niva, NP, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (BIOL) [5]",Fieldwork during June-August 2011,NA,2,NA,NA,Statements,"From newspaper articles, scientific papers, hearings and other government pa- pers",93,NA,43,NA,2,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic,Unwanted pest; Do the best out of a bad situation,Screeplot,0.57,0.57,Not stated (likely purposive),NA,‘Disagree/ does not represent my point of view/ not like I think’ - ‘agree/ represents my point of view / like I think’,Agreement,0.754385964912281,NA,Norway,National,60.4720239999999,8.46894599999996,NA,Norway,NA,Europe
"Pereira M.A., Fairweather J.R., Woodford K.B., Nuthall P.L.",Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology,10.1016/j.agsy.2016.01.004,"Analyse the diversity of goals and values amongst 26 Brazilian commercial-scale beef farmers previously identified as exhibiting progressive technology adoption behaviours, and considers the implications for the agricultural innovation system","These four typologies have implications for the farmers' technology adoption and its promotion, e.g. they are likely to influence the uptake of particular types of innovations, and reinforce the importance of considering agricultural innovation system within a social systems framework; implications within agricultural innovation systems for the integration of goal diversity and adoption theory. ||  There is considerable diversity amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers. The diversity of farmer types within this subset holds relevance for agricultural innovation system, in general, and technology adoption in particular, and reinforces the necessity of a paradigm shift from an emphasis on the technology itself to an emphasis on potential users and their preferred behaviours. ||  DIFFERENCES: The PF aimed to run the farm professionally, based on sound technical and managerial practices. The CE put a particularly strong emphasis on the long-term sustainability of the farming system. The PM focused on technical issues to pursue economic returns and efficiency, thereby also creating space for lifestyle objectives. The ATF sought physical farm and livestock excellence, was growth oriented, and sought recognition by peers. ||  COMMONALITIES: believed in operating the farmas a business and agreedwith the notion that cattle production and nature conservation are compatible",Farming,Policy appraisal,6,On adoption behaviour,26,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),"it captures the subjective perspectives of the participant farmers and this is achieved independently of any researcher judgement. Further, the Q-methodology allows quantitative and statistical analysis",there are no objective measures for determining the most appropriate number of farmer types (factors). This does require researcher judgement and an associat-ed trade-off between extent of variance explained and a meaningful set of farmer type; there is scope for alternative interpretations ||  it does not allowfor the estimationof relative frequencies of these farmer types,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers,"Fieldwork over 2008/09. Each Q sorting, on average, 1.5hr",NA,NA,1.5,Additional descriptive statistics of respondents per perspective,Statements,"Structured sampling framework, drawn from the literature",133,NA,49,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Professional Farmer (PF); Committed Environmentalist (CE); Profit Maximiser (PM); Aspirant Top Farmer (ATF),"Combination of EV > 1, at least two significant loadings in the unrotated factor matrix",0.62,0.62,Purposive,NA,Strong disagreement - strong agreement,Agreement,1.88461538461538,Mato Grosso do Sul,Brazil,Sub-national,-20.7722295,-54.7851531,"Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil","State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil",state/province,Latin America
"Mazur K.E., Asah S.T.",Clarifying standpoints in the gray wolf recovery conflict: Procuring management and policy forethought,10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.017,"'Systematically structure stakeholder standpoints in the conflict about gray wolf recovery in Washington State’. The study is framed around top-order predator recovery and conservation being very contentious and assuming that, in order to resolve conflicts, the structure of contending perspectives needs to be understood","There exists a significant level of unanimity among stakeholders in a debate that is otherwise viewed as extremely contentious ||  Our findings emphasize the importance of systematically structuring stakeholder standpoints in contentious predator recovery and conservation issues, which minimize ambiguity thereby facilitating conflict management and consequent achievement of conservation goals. ||  Latent agendas and stakeholder inflexibilities may render the conflict to appear more contentious than it actually is.  ||  External scientists and consultants could play a significant role in buffering the conflict to facilitate successful wolf recovery and conservation; The environmental group stakeholders were the least flexible in structuring their standpoints ||  DIFFERENCES: only five issues were contentious, including whether wolves are needed for biodiversity conservation, and acceptable number of breeding pairs. ||  COMMONALITIES: procedures for determining delisting decisions, and collaboration between formal institutions and Native American tribes",Wildlife,Conflict resolution,42857,Defining the problems around an option for conservation (rewilding),32,NA,Face-to-face and post mail,"13 face-to-face, 19 by mail","The methodology is well suited for exploring contentious issues (Eden et al., 2005) because it enables systematic structuring of stakeholders’ standpoints (Stephenson, 1953), according to some, in a more democratic and open fashion than other approaches (Dryzek, 1990). ||  Q methodology is additionally advantageous for its ability to facilitate the emergence of latent belief structures, rather than imposing a framework or taxonomy by the researcher.","Q methodology is unique in uncovering these sorts of latent agendas that do not surface in the disputants’ expressions in controversial natural resource management issues (Addams and Proops, 2000). ||  enhances understanding and effective conflict management. The approach can help stakeholders better understand the deeply held values and concerns advanced through each standpoint. Such understanding could promote respect (Byrd, 2002) and prevent the conflict from approaching intractability ||  tool for understanding the human dimensions of wildlife conservation in deliberative policymaking processes ||  used to move a debate beyond positional gridlocked postures of support versus objection by providing sharper insight into the preferences of stakeholders","The purity of statements as originally expressed was preserved as much as possible. Some Q sorters were conflicted by a perceived lack of scientific accuracy or multiple concepts apparent in certain Q sort statements. ||  Additionally, a Q study does not guarantee that all perspectives are located (Brown, 1980). It is possible that important social perspectives framing the wolf dialogue are omitted if those that participated did not fully represent the views of their stakeholder groups (Danielson et al., 2009).","avoid missing important social perspectives by assessing the breadth of the views and opinions, recruiting strategically, and including P5 Q sorts from each stakeholder group in the analysis.","Q methodology out- performed the Nominal Group Technique voting in finding consensus among these disputants (Maxwell, 2000). Areas",Nominal Group Technique,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Profession: 5 stakeholder groups - livestock owners [5], hunters [6], government officials [5], external scientists and consultants [6], members of environmental NGOs [10] (participants self-identified themselves into one category)",Concourse development meetings between Oct-Nov 2009; Fieldwork between Dec 2010-February2011,2,3,NA,NA,Statements,From ten statewide public meetings,1150,NA,56,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Ecological standpoint; incompatibility standpoint; precautionary standpoint,"retained standpoints had R2 val- ues P12%, were markedly different from other standpoints, positive inter-standpoint associations <0.5, and at least one stake- holder loaded highest on that standpoint",0.6,0.6,Purposive,NA,Strongly disagree - strongly agree,Agreement,1.75,State of Washington,US,Sub-national,47.7510741,-120.7401386,"State of Washington, US","Washington, USA",state/province,North America
"Chandran R., Hoppe R., De Vries W.T., Georgiadou Y.",Conflicting policy beliefs and informational complexities in designing a transboundary enforcement monitoring system,10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.068,Explain why the previous GIS-based Wildlife Enforcement Monitoring System (WEMS) designed by a team of the United Nations University was a concern for the CITES secretariat (that subsequently redesigned to be more government-custody oriented),"each perspective has a particular implication on the adoption of a decision support system to monitor wildlife crime. The findings of our study reveal that scientific experts cannot expect unwavering support from the other groups for their aspirations, though they agree that some form of science mechanism is one way forward in bringing a policy consensus. We conclude that, transboundary enforcement information sharing is a complex problem where information system designers or policy makers alone cannot judge its acceptance within a policy context. ||  Find explanations for the resistance to the WEMS system ||  The ecocentric beliefs espoused mainly by grass-root NGOs and the hierarchists' beliefs espoused by the national CITES management authorities stood in strict conflict. For this reason CITES authorities tend to exclude NGOs from policy making process. Grass-root NGOs, due to their lack of confidence in governments and the CITES secretariat, seek independent bodies outside the policy system. ||  As the belief clusters are highly polarized, suppression of ecocentric actors will not address the implementation of WEMS in Asia. Instead, efforts should be made to bring in some sort of consensus or congruence between the various belief systems. ||  DIFFERENCES: NA ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Wildlife,Policy appraisal,0-1,"Possibly also 7, but the option evaluated wasn't really implemented finally and the study wants to find what alternative policy design to pursue",26,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,"a suitable research design that can be used to analyze the variety of opinions, perceptions, and attitudes that reflect the belief set of an individual or group of in- dividuals in a valid and reliableway","useful method for identifying salient perspectives of stakeholders. Though we did not use Q methodology to identify stakeholders, other recent research (Cuppen et al., 2010)indicates that Q methodology is a promising method to select stakeholders that hold significantly different perspectives and employ different discourses. Q method can be used to determine which stakeholders, especially veto players in the implementation stage, hold conflicting views and, therefore, who should be invited to take part in the policy design dialogue ||  rather than forcing participants to reach consensus, Q methodology could provide a forum for them to openly engage and disagree on divergent viewpoints","due to the vast geographical distribution and cultural discrepancies of participants, the use of Q methodology as a tool to select participants and foster structured debate on policy design may run into practical difficulties. Yet, we recommend it should be tried.","An ideal scenario would be to follow the method used by Mattson et al. (2006) where they identify the stakeholders through Q methodology, and then carried out a more detailed Q study on the selected participants in order to identify in sufficient detail where views clash and where they can be aligned.",NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Profession/work place (NGO, government official, CITES management, scientist ,Researcher, wildlife trader...and more) & country (Japan [4] /Thailand [7] /India[15])",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"Useful flowchart of the full research process, including analysis",Statements,From reputable academic journals and grey literature that captured the various discourses and perspectives in wildlife conservation,296,NA,39,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Strict conservation; Sustainable use; state regulation; Expert-based wildlife management [the names in the abstract do not coincide with those in the text],Scree test,0.65,0.65,Not stated (likely purposive),NA,Most disagree - most agree,Agreement,1.5,NA,"India, Japan and Thailand",Multi-country,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Asia
"MacDonald P.A., Murray G., Patterson M.",Considering social values in the seafood sector using the Q-method,10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.029,"Characterize different perspectives about what is valued about the ocean, seafood, and the community in the seafood sector of a single coastal community in British Columbia, Canada. This is to facilitate considering a broad range of social values in ocean management in ecosystem-based ocean management processes, which seek to manage intricately linked social–ecological systems","Provide insight into how people value the experience versus the utility of the ocean and the different value they attribute to the outcomes of ocean management versus the process deployed. ||  Interestingly, the different perspectives do not line up with the seafood sub-sectors; While the Q method does not support generalizations, this finding has implications for the design and implementation of integrated ocean management processes; Representation is often determined by sector yet these findings suggest that sector membership may not be an indicator of social values relative to the ocean. ||  The different nature of these values opens up a new form of discussion around substantive or concrete goals versus procedural equity and provides empirical support for some recent theorizing on values in eco-system management [7]. This raises the possibility that considering decisions in either or both substantive and procedural terms may increase the likelihood that management processes will be perceived as just and inclusive [4]. ||  DIFFERENCES: The most contentious topic areas were aquaculture and its acceptance as away to supplement wild capture fisheries (36), and the preservation of First Nations’ special right of access to the ocean (32) and its importance to the maintenance of First Nations’ culture;  ||  COMMONALITIES: on four areas: around the importance of using precaution and teaching people about the ocean, of stewardship of the ocean for future generations, using conservation of salmon as a community builder, and the resilience of the ecosystem",Marine,Management options,0-1,Valuation,42,NA,Face-to-face,"In person, either one-on-one or in small groups",methodology that would be practical and viable to implement in a resource constrained management process,"Q-method can help to identify, capture, and compare social values within a sector ||  can provide participants with a forum to discuss what is important and can provide a common vocabulary that cuts across existing constituencies. This has the potential to facilitate the consideration of a broad range of social values in ocean management ||  it does not attempt to assign distinct values to particular ecosystem services, which has been the thrust of some recent research. However, it shows, empirically, how people in the seafood sector value the ocean, seafood and their community and can broaden our collective understanding of the complex, interactive types of values associated with marine social-ecological systems. Regardless of whether these can be connected to particular ecosystem services (or bundles thereof) the Q-method has potential as a tool to integrate social values into ocean management processes because it systematically provides material shown to facilitate difficult negotiations [45]. ||  increase social engagement in management processes by offering a new and common vocabulary based on what is important in specific contexts [46].In addition, it creates new groupings of individuals and ideas, potentially breaking down old constituencies. As such, the Qmethod addresses the need for robust approaches that can gather a wide variety of social data on specific regions, and offers away to crystallize points of contention and to highlight possibilities for dialogue, potentially reducing conflict and increasing engagement in management processes [45].",Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Seafood sub-sectors/professions: commercial [2], recreational [2], First Nations fishers [5], recreational fishing services [2], fish & shellfish farmers [20], seafood processors [3], restaurants [2], regulators [4], resident [1], research [1]",Fieldwork between March-August 2013,NA,6,NA,NA,Statements,Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 well-informed parti- cipants recruited on the basis of their relevance to our research and their knowledge of the seafood sector in and around Campbell River,300,> 300,40,NA,5,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Collaborative pragmatism; Local stewardship; Objectivity and innovation; Balanced tradition; Balanced prosperity,"selecting factors with eigenvalues greater than two, meaning that each factor is identified by at least two significantly loading sorts",0.61,0.61,Purposive,NA,Least like the way I think - most like the way I think,Like one's way of thinking,0.952380952380952,"Campbell River, British Columbia",Canada,Sub-national,50.0331226,-125.2733354,"Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada","Campbell River, BC, Canada",city/town,North America
"Rastogi A., Hickey G.M., Badola R., Hussain S.A.",Diverging viewpoints on tiger conservation: A Q-method study and survey of conservation professionals in India,10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.013,"Explore diverse viewpoints of conservationists in India, about tiger conservation, based on the idea that biodiversity conservation often involves contentions and complex decision-making dilemmas, typically with stakeholders of divergent viewpoints and interests","Despite ‘tiger–tribal’ issues often overwhelming conservation debates in India, there are important areas of overlap within the tiger-centered and community-centered viewpoints, and with other independent (albeit rarely evident) viewpoints. To help foster consensus, we suggest the need to avoid framing conservation policy discussions along the tiger–tribal debate and instead focus on existing areas of agreement. Creating a discourse around these views can help organize conservation professionals into a more coherent and united body, crucial for effective participation in policy advocacy, design and implementation. ||  In sum (of the below excerpts): policymakers should make use of the potential coalitions (in terms of perceptions about the ethical value of tigers) in order to move forward in conservation, and the apparent conflict of perspectives is not that severe when looking at the detail of each perspective. ||  As expected, we found tiger-centered and community-centered viewpoints. The basic tenets of this debate are similar to the ‘conservation-development’ viewpoints which have been fairly consistent in the conservation biology discourse. ||  Our findings suggest that tiger conservation management and policy in India may benefit from accepting the polarity of the tiger–tribal debate. Our results suggest that if a policy change requires a high degree of agreement or coalition among conservation professionals, it will need to refrain from utilizing the tiger–tribal perspectives, and instead emphasize the more universally acceptable perspectives. ||  Research in either of these areas alone is not likely to reconcile it. When environmental issues create political disputes, scientific evidence is often not useful in reconciliation, because the dispute is essentially between divergent worldviews and belief systems (Sarewitz, 2004). As a result, we can speculate that any policy issue that invokes the tiger–tribal debate will not receive widespread support from conservation professionals in India. ||  Our second key observation offers the potential for agreement; the two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive or necessarily contradictory. The majority of participants agreed with both – the tiger-centered and community centered viewpoints. ||  It is recognized that ‘tiger–tribal’ issues are highly vocalized, seemingly polarizing, and often overwhelm conservation debates in India, potentially becoming a basis for the segregation of advocacy coalitions (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Our results, indicate that the participants found areas of agreement within the tiger-centered and community-centered viewpoints, and with other independent (albeit rarely evident) viewpoints (Miller et al., 2011).  ||  Prevalence of a viewpoint that justified tiger conservation on a moral or ethical basis (Viewpoint 5). Importantly, the moral/ethical viewpoint of tiger conservation was the most widely accepted viewpoint, with nearly 90% agreement. These moral/ethical grounds for tiger conservation are rarely stated explicitly in the literature. Indeed, a reason for the protection of tigers is rarely specified, and much of the argument on saving tigers focuses on its value as an umbrella species, or a majestic species; the concourse for the Q-method offered an alternative argument for protecting the tiger: its value as a nationalistic symbol in the Indian political discourse ||  For policy makers, it will be important to recognize the existence of advocacy coalitions along the ‘tiger–tribal’ viewpoints, and the potential of these coalitions to affect policy design. It is therefore important for tiger-related policy debates to emphasize this overlap between the ‘tiger–tribal’ viewpoints and also with the other latent views. ||  The moral viewpoint of tiger conservation has the potential to serve as a basis from which stronger coalitions of advocacy for tiger conservation can form, deemphasizing the ‘tiger–tribal’ divide, and instead emphasizing tiger conservation as a highly desirable societal goal. Such a coalition of professionals could play a greater role in policy-related debates over tiger conservation in India. ||  Our study provides an initial step in the process of formulating and developing such policy strategies ||  DIFFERENCES: NA ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Wildlife,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,51,NA,Online,Q-assessor,"allows participants to express themselves without conforming to pre-assigned categories set by the researcher, yet reveals the implicit subjectivities of participants",Not stated,Not stated,"We recommend using this combination of methods (the Q-method (to explore viewpoints), with a survey instrument (to validate the results and ascertain the popularity of individual viewpoints)) in other conservation-related contexts where a more nuanced understanding of stakeholder viewpoints is required by policy-makers and conservation managers.",NA,NA,1,0,1,0,1,31,20,0,1,"Profession groups working on tiger issues in India - media, researchers, NGOs, Indian Forest Service. Stratifified by sector of employment (government [18], NGO [17], Private sector [8], University [5], Other [7]) ...and by role in conservation (Policy [14], management [6], field work [18], academia [10], research [28], advocacy [16], fund-raising [2], media [9], tourism [8], other [6])",Concourse development October 2010-January 2011; fieldwork between December 2011-January 2012,4,2,NA,Descriptive statistics of characteristics of participants,Statements,"literature review, brainstorming and discussions",NA,Not stated,36,NA,5,NA, 'Factor analysis' (unspecified),(unspecified whether PCA or centroid),Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),(1) community-centered conservation; (2) tiger-centered conservation; (3) science and tourism-led approach to conservation; (4) instrumental approach to conservation; (5) conservation as a moral duty,Not stated,NA,EV=26.5,Purposive,NA,Level of agreement/disagreement,Agreement,0.705882352941176,NA,India,National,20.593684,78.96288,India,India,country,Asia
"Gall S.C., Rodwell L.D.",Evaluating the social acceptability of Marine Protected Areas,10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.004,"Assess social acceptance of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) with fisheries and conservation management goals in Devon & Severn region, UK","The results suggest that social acceptability of MPAs is generated by effective and ongoing stakeholder engagement, transparency and honesty relating to the costs and benefits of designations and a certainty that once sites are in place the resources exist for their effective management. ||  Understanding social acceptability will guide adaptive management and increase the chances of MPA success and the meeting of global targets ||  Where MPAs are not found to be socially acceptable, adaptive management may be required to ensure that activities are managed in a way that allows them to reach their goals. ||  Aspects limiting acceptability: uncertainty about benefits and inclusivity and transparency. These results show that social acceptability of MPAs is gener- ||  ated by effective and ongoing stakeholder engagement, transparency and honesty relating to the costs and benefits of designations and a certainty that once sites are in place the resources exist for their effective management. It will also be increased where evidence exists that suggests the MPAs will be successful in meeting their goals, and should increase over time if this is seen to be the case. ||  DIFFERENCES: ‘pro-conservation’ who felt that conservation should be prioritised over commercial and economic interests; ‘pro-fisheries’ who saw fishing to be the priority and expressed concerns over the uncertainty of management measures and the number of plannedMPAs; and ‘win–win’ who felt that the current ||  approach to marine management using MPAs would allow both fisheries and conservation goals to bemet ||  COMMONALITIES: social acceptability of MPAs was identified across all three discourses, but was limited by the knock-on effects of the exclusion of stakeholders from the implementation of MPAs and the development of management measures. This resulted in disenfranchisement and uncertainty over the future of their activities",Marine,Policy appraisal,6,Policy acceptability,24,NA,Face-to-face,NA,"It was selected here as, unlike other survey methods which result in a statistical analysis of categories defined in advance by the researcher, Q methodology results in a set of discourses explaining the perceptions that exist amongst people, allowing them to develop their own topics rather than having them pre-defined [31]. The method was considered appropriate for a study of social acceptance.",Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Broad groups: commercial fishermen [3], recreational users [3], Non-Governmental Organisations [5], managers [1], charter boat operators [1], academics [4] and statutory bodies [3], local authority [2], marine professional [2]",Fieldwork between April 2014 and March 2015,NA,12,NA,The explained variance is very much collected in the first factor (49%) suggesting quite a homogeneous group,Statements,"Review of appropriate sources, including previous work by the authors, newspaper articles and associated comments sections, social media such as Twitter and Facebook and existing literature on the topic",NA,Not stated,42,NA,3,NA,Centroid,NA,Not stated,(search of varimax/ judg/ manual does not return results),Unspecified (likely automatic),Pro-conservation; Pro-fisheries; ‘win–win’,EV >1,0.62,0.62,Purposive,NA,Least like I think - most like I think,Like one's way of thinking,1.75,Devon & Severn,UK,Sub-national,50.7155591,-3.530875,"Devon, UK","Devon, UK",county/district,Europe
"Davies B.B., Hodge I.D.","Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK",10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.002,Investigate the perceptual frameworks of a sample of UK arable and mixed lowland farmers regarding the appropriate way in which to approach the environmental management of agricultural land. The study is based on the idea that assumptions and instruments that are at odds with the underlying motivations of agents may actually reduce achievement of policy objectives,"These alternative ‘conservation ethics’ also provide the background against which the legitimacy of government policy is judged. It seems likely that regulation is a more acceptable policy approach for those behaviours that coincide with relatively ‘pure’ duties, whereas agri-environmental schemes that offer incentives will be seen as appropriate for duties that are more readily mitigated by circumstances. ||  Different policy instruments will clearly have different impacts given the variation in motivations and interests across these groups. ||  DIFFERENCES: diversity in what land managers feel are legitimate expressions of environmental stewardship; it is the interpretation of the ‘conservation ethic’–how it is translated into practice, but not its fundamental legitimacy–that accounts for most diversity among the groups ||  COMMONALITIES: no groups emerge with a purely ‘productivist’ outlook that disparagessomekind of environmentalist value system",Farming,Policy appraisal,42922,NA,102,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,"particularly well suited to the study of perceptual frames of references, although its use in reported agricultural research remains very limited.","Q methodology can be a valuable way of demonstrating the nature of the mental frameworks of actors in a particular context and this enables us to formulate some important questions regarding the motivations of land managers in the context of a rapidly changing rural policy ||  enabling the identification of groups of individuals who define their management priorities and underlying beliefs in similar ways ||  useful investigational approach with a level of sophistication beyond standard structured survey methods; furthermore, the assessment process itself was very positively received by interviewees, leading to a good level of engagement in the Q-sorting task","while Q can demonstrate the presence of these alternative perspectives, the non-random nature of the study does not allow us to determine the relative distributions of these different perspectives across the arable farming community ||  does not explain how alternative environmental perspectives are themselves generated. Determining causality in this instance is of course a complex task and is likely in any case to reveal many factors over which government policy has little if any control. However, we do not know currently how dynamic these perspectives are",Not stated,Standard survey methods: Q is more sophisticated,Standard surveys,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,All farmers across Eastern region of the UK but different types/connected to different networks,Not stated,NA,NA,NA,This study was replicated by the authors in 2012,Statements,"From a combination of sources, including previous survey questions, and intended to cover farmers' views across four specific areas",NA,Not stated,33,NA,5,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Environmentalists; Progressives; Commodity Conservationists; Jeffersonians; Yeomen,Factors that initially identified three or more significant load- ings,0.54,0.54,Purposive,NA,Strongly agree - strongly disagree,Agreement,0.323529411764706,Eastern UK (principally East Anglia),UK,Sub-national,52.3555177,-1.1743197,"East Anglia, UK","England, UK",state/province,Europe
"Mattson D.J., Byrd K.L., Rutherford M.B., Brown S.R., Clark T.W.",Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contending perspectives,10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.005,"Elucidate participant perspectives regarding ‘‘problems’’ and ‘‘solutions’ in order to reduce current conflict over large carnivore conservation and to design effective strategies that enjoy broad public support (assuming that effective strategies depend on a better understanding of the values, beliefs, and demands of those who are involved or affected)","Despite differences,weidentified potential common ground focused on respectful, persuasive, and creative processes that would build under- standing and tolerance. ||  Divergent perceptions of problems are at the crossroads of conflict, implicitly rooted in divergent inculturated beliefs about the appropriate state of the world and appropriate outcomes of management. ||  Despite a legacy of conflict and the emergence of bipolar ||  factors from both Q-sorts, our results were encouraging insofar as the potential for common ground was concerned. ||  DIFFERENCES: NA (it describes each perspective, but doesn't provide an overall comparison) ||  COMMONALITIES: substantial congruence between the ways in ||  which participants understood the problems of large carni- vore conservation and the solutions they recommended; habitat fragmentation was problematic and that there was merit in working to maintain connections among carnivore populations across the U.S. and Canada border and in not building more roads; tolerating, the need for respectful, persuasive, and creative processes that would build understanding and tolerance among participants as well as generate new strategies leading to win–win rather than zero–sum outcomes.",Wildlife,Conflict resolution,42857,NA,27,27|21,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Professions - ENGO employee [6], non-governmental scientist [3], citizen activist [2], rancher [2], academic [7], federal agency scientist [5], state agency manager [1], workshop funder [1]","Concourse, Q-set and Q-sorting were done in the same workshop, participatively and in two days in 2002 (nominal group method). This does not include preparation of the workshop.",NA,0.066666666666667,NA,"There were two Q-sets: one for problems, another for solutions (the n of statements and p-sample size are given for both, in this order). They inverted the factor loadings for one factor, in order to circunvent bipolar factors.",Statements,Nominal group method,300,Approximately 300 statements for each of the 28 participants in the workshop,51,51|40,4,4|4,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Carnivore Advocate (problems Factor I); Devolution Advocate (problems Factor II); Process Reformer (problems Factor III); Agency Empathizer (problems Factor IV); Carnivore Advocate (solutions Factor A); Devolution Advocate (solutions Factor B); Process Reformer (solutions Factor C); Economic Pragmatist (solutions Factor D),Not stated,NA,Not stated,Purposive,(50 selected) of which 27 attended,Those I most disagree with - those I most agree with / those I think would be least effective - those I think would be most effective,Agreement,1.88888888888889,Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains,US,Sub-national,47.812447,-112.8003246,"Rocky Mountains, US","Rocky Mountain, Montana 59422, USA",establishment,North America
"Rodríguez-Piñeros S., Mayett-Moreno Y.",Forest owners’ perceptions of ecotourism: Integrating community values and forest conservation,10.1007/s13280-014-0544-5,Reveal forest owners’ perceptions to build infrastructure in their forest as part of their ecotourism project,"Although ecotourism has been reported as an alternative to generate profit, this study shows that there is a mix of views on how forest owners perceive income generation from ecotourism. ||  Ecotourism is perceived as a complementary activity to farming that would allow women to be involved in community development, but not to replace it. Low impact infrastructure is desired due to forest owners’ perception to preserve the forest for the overall community well-being. ||  views are associated to the benefits they expect to obtain corroborating what McFarlane et al. (2011) observed. ||  DIFFERENCES: disagree on the construction of a scenic lookout, walking trails, and areas for camping ||  COMMONALITIES: agree that the forest needs to be clean of unhealthy trees and weeds; they also agree to hang some hammocks and swings",Forests,Management options,42857,Evaluation of the feasibility of a single option,14,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,Q methodology serves well to assess forest owners’ perceptions and motivations to keep the forest for ecotourism,Not stated,"inability to have an accurate population size, since it is a community of migrants",Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,7,7,1,1,"Activity (member of reserve's commitee [3], male farmers [4], women on ecotourism [3], women other activities [4]) and Education (Non-educated [2], uncompleted elementary [4], elementary [6], secondary [2])",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,with semi-structured interviews to members of the reserve committee (6) and to all the women (8) who are members of the ecotourism group; standardize instruments and previous studies in the topic,NA,Not stated,32,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic,Ecotourism as an opportunity for women to be involved in community development; Community integration will lead to conservation; Ecotourism to preserve cultural and social pride,Not stated,0.56,0.56,Purposive,NA,Very much ‘‘unlike my view’’ or ‘‘the lesser importance’’ - very much ‘‘like my view’,Like one's view,2.28571428571429,La Preciosita Sangre de Cristo in Puebla,Mexico,Sub-national,19.0412967,-98.2061996,"La Preciosita Sangre de Cristo in Puebla, Mexico","Puebla, Mexico",city/town,Latin America
"Chamberlain E.C., Rutherford M.B., Gibeau M.L.","Human Perspectives and Conservation of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park, Canada",10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01856.x,"Explore stakeholders’ perspectives (and find common ground) on conservation and management of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in Banff National Park and the Bow River watershed of Alberta, Canada. Based on the premise that tools are needed to depolarize situations where conservation initiatives provoke intense conflict among stakeholders, due to disputes about the nature of conservation measures and their effects on human interests","We used our results to inform a series of workshops in which stakeholders developed and agreed on new management strategies that were implemented by Parks Canada. ||  Q results offered participants insight into their own views and the views of others, revealing that perspectives about grizzly bear conservation and human behavior in the Banff-Bow Valley were complex and nuanced rather than being simply for or against conservation or human use. Also, the initial workshop brought people together in a noncontentious atmosphere to discuss the preliminary research results and provided an opportunity to improve communication and understanding of different perspectives. Second, our results showed participants the distinct problem narratives underlying their arguments about preferred solutions. ||  DIFFERENCES: Participants’ views about the appropriate role of science in policy making varied. The optimistic decision-process reformers strongly supported using science more directly to guide policy and management,whereas the optimistic landscape managers tended not to support this approach, and the conservation advocates were neutral or slightly in favor of using science to guide policy and management. ||  COMMONALITIES: they agreed that the population of grizzly bears is vulnerable to extirpation, human use of the area should be designed around ecological constraints, andmore inclusive decision-making processes are needed",Wildlife,Conflict resolution,42857,NA,29,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,"Tools are needed to depolarize such situations, foster understanding of the perspectives of people involved, and find common ground","usefulness of Q method to illuminate people’s perspectives and identify common ground in settings where conservation is contested ||  developing better understanding of diverse problem narratives, as Q methodology facilitates, may be critical to improving conservation programs in contested settings.",Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Profession/affiliation: Government of Alberta [2], NGO [1], Parks Canada [5], environmental organisation [2], Government of British Columbia [2], Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society [1], Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative [1], Arc Wildlife Services [1], anonymous [4], University of Calgary [1], Tourism Canmore [1], commercial business [4], Shell Canada [1], Alberta Beef producers [1], National Park Ski Areas Association [1], community resident [1] ",Several weeks for concourse development (via interviews); not stated for the Q-sorting,0.5,NA,NA,"Two Q-sets, one for problems, another for solutions. The results were presented ex-post in a workshop with 15 attendants. The making and analytical decisions and presentation of this is pretty similar to that of Mattson et al in the N Rockies. The results of this study are reported as part of a broader process in Rutherford M.B., Gibeau M.L., Clark S.G., Chamberlain E.C., where one can find more about the outcomes/ results of the study",Statements,from semistructured interviews conducted with participants several weeks before the Q-sorting exercis,NA,Not stated,38,38|30,4,4|3,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Problems: I (deficient goals and plans); II (exaggerated problems); III (institutional flaws); IV (politicized decision making); Solutions: A (conservation advocates); B (decision-process reformers); C (landscape managers),Not stated,NA,Not stated,Purposive,Targeted non-random sampling (purposive),“Most unlike my point of view” - “most like my point of view”,Like one's view,1.31034482758621,Banff-Bow Valley,Canada,Sub-national,51.1761581,-115.5750159,"Banff-Bow Valley, Canada","Bow Ave, Banff, AB T1L, Canada",street,North America
"Brodt S., Klonsky K., Tourte L., Duncan R., Hendricks L., Ohmart C., Verdegaal P.",Influence of farm management style on adoption of biologically integrated farming practices in California,10.1079/RAFS200488,"Identify farmer management styles among almond and winegrape growers in California, to understand adoption decisions, assumed to be in a broader farm decision-making context","we demonstrate that management styles differ substantially among farmers, these differences affect use of information sources and adoption of biologically based practices on the farm, and such adoption does not negatively affect crop performance. ||  These results hold important implications for efforts to increase the adoption of sustainable agriculture, especially by showing that contents and methods of outreach efforts must vary to accommodate diverse farm management styles. ||  The study looks more into the differences, rather than try to find common ground, as many others. ||  DIFFERENCES: NA ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Farming,Management options,6,Adoption decisions,40,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,1,0,1,0,0,NA,NA,1,1,Stratified by crop (almond growers [21]; winegrape growers [19]) and farming practice (conventional farming [almond=12 & winegrape=8]; biologically integrated farming based on participation or non-participation in the BIOS (almonds) [9] or BIFS (winegrapes) [11] programs.,Not stated,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,Not stated,NA,Not stated,50,"(counted from the board figure, but not stated)",3,NA,Not stated,(search of principal or centroid does not return results),Not stated,(search of varimax/ judg/ manual does not return results),Unspecified (likely automatic),Environmental stewards; production maximizers; networking entrepreneurs,Not stated,0.48,0.48,Purposive,NA,Least like my point of view - most like my point of view,Like one's view,1.25,California Central Valley,US,Sub-national,40.6804279,-122.3708419,"California Central Valley, US","Shasta Lake, CA 96019, USA",city/town,North America
"Bredin Y.K., Linnell J.D.C., Silveira L., Tôrres N.M., Jácomo A.A., Swenson J.E.",Institutional stakeholders' views on jaguar conservation issues in central Brazil,10.1016/j.gecco.2015.04.010,"Explore the extent to which stakeholder views (personnel working for key institutions in central Brazil) about jaguar conservation aligned with institutional arrangements. Based on the premise that large carnivore management is typically a source of heated controvery and that social, rather than economic, factors are important for why humans kill jaguars","These differences and their underlying motivations are important to consider for successful jaguar conservation strategies in Brazil. ||  an understanding of differing views at the institutional level could aid coordination across management and policy-making organizations. Additionally, compatibility between policies and local stakeholder views is a prerequisite for effective conservation (Kansky et al., 2014; Heberein, 2012). Therefore, understanding the different views across institutes at the decision-, and policy-making level is important for identifying potential incongruities in views. ||  institutional stakeholders’ views on jaguar conservation issues in central Brazil do not necessarily conform to the polarized perspectives so often seen in European and North American contexts ||  DIFFERENCES: institutional stakeholder views diverged regarding the desired distribution of jaguars in Brazil, hunting policies, and the effects of hunting and development projects on jaguar conservation ||  COMMONALITIES: all accepted the jaguar’s fundamental right to exist and agreed that it was important to establish protected areas for jaguars",Wildlife,Conflict resolution,0-1,NA,34,NA,Face-to-face,NA,"particularly useful for studying conflictive issues, such as carnivore conservation; to identify common ground across potentially polarized views, and foster understanding among stakeholders","useful tool for exploring the range of extant views,  ||  to identify common ground across potentially polarized views, and  ||  foster understanding among stakeholders","prone to respondent bias. In particular when the topic of investigation is sensitive, respondents may report what they believe to please the interviewer rather than their honest views ||  the impossibility to know, a-priori, the number of respondents needed to capture the range of extant perspectives ||  certain element of chance in the selection process as the unwillingness or inability of stakeholders to participate, dictates their inclusion ||  the inclusion of Q statements and the limited number of issues that can be managed by interviewees, ||  predicates the possible scope of perspectives ||  a main challenge in Q methodology will always be to retain a manageable set of Q statements, reflecting as great a diversity of points of view as can be encompassed by the statements","we were careful to ask stakeholders to explain any apparent inconsistencies in responses to clarify their logic. ||  balancing values for and against jaguar conservation and basing ourQstatements on various sources, including large carnivore management conflicts elsewhere, we believe that we managed to ensure as inclusive a sample of relevant jaguar related issues as 33 Q statements allow",NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Institutions - 32 institutions (below), {from Table 1} - 1 representative from each affiliation except 2 each from both The Landless Workers’ Movement, MST, and the Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity, FUNBIO FETAEG, Goiás’ Farmers’ Association. MAPA, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. MMA, Ministry of Environment. SEMARH, Department of Environment and Water Resources. IBAMA, Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable Natural Resources. MTUR, Ministry of Tourism. AGETUR, Goiás State Agency of Tourism. SFB, Brazilian Forest Service. MST, The Landless Workers’ Movement. CLOC Vía Campesina, International Peasants’ Movement. CIMI–CNBB, Indigenous Missionary Council–National Conference of Brazilian Bishops. FNMA, National Environmental Fund. ANA, National Water Agency. MME, Ministry of Mines and Energy ISPN, The Institute for the Society, Population and Nature. Embrapa, Brazilian Institute for Research on Agriculture and Livestock keeping. CENAP, National Centre for Research and Conservation of Carnivorous Mammals. ICMBio, The Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation. MST, The Landless Workers’ Movement. The World Bank FUNBIO, Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity. EMATER, Company of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension for the State of Goiás. SEAGRO, Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation for the State of Goiás. CELG, Power plants in Goiás. WWF, The World Wildlife Fund. AGRODEFESA, Agricultural Protection Agency of Goiás. CNA, Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock. MDA, Ministry of Agrarian Development. INCRA, National Institute of Agrarian Reform and Colonization. IMAFLORA, Institute for Agricultural and Forest Management and Certification. ANEEL, Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency. PRONAF, National Program to Strengthen Small Scale Agriculture. FUNBIO, Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity. DNIT, National Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport.",Fieldwork between 11 November 2011 and 18 January 2012,NA,2,NA,NA,Statements,"Printed and online scientific- and popular publications, blogs, information sites and newspapers for arguments/statements mentioning the species of our interest; informal conversations; radio and TV reports",NA,Not stated,33,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic,A) jaguars’ intrinsic right to exist; B) wider ecocentric values; and C) contesting jaguar-focused conservation,EV >1,0.68,0.68,Is,NA,Disagree most - agree most,Agreement,0.970588235294118,Goias and Mato Grosso states,Brazil,Sub-national,-15.93397,-50.1403832,"Goias, Brazil","Goiás, GO, Brazil",city/town,Latin America
"Rutherford M.B., Gibeau M.L., Clark S.G., Chamberlain E.C.","Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada",10.1007/s11077-009-9075-5,"Through a series of workshops, they encourage participants to use the policy sciences' approach for thinking effectively about problems, in order to develop innovative solutions to the problems of grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, in the frame of acrimonious disputes about the production and use of scientific knowledge in management","The Q study contributed to progress at the workshops in several ways: allowed participants to relate their views in depth before the workshops began, in a private setting with a receptive listener, and without debate; the meeting to discuss the preliminary findings of the Q study brought participants together to talk with each other and the researchers in a relaxed setting; helped participants to clarify their own standpoints and understand better the perspectives of others, turning the early discussion to views and values, which opened up the possibility for more constructive dialogue. ||  Five ways in which the policy sciences framework (the combination of methods they employ, not just the Q method) can help collaborative decision makers to be more rational and effective in dealing with conservation problems: encourages comprehensive thinking about the context for problems; the policy sciences framework helped them to move beyond simply arguing about trends and promoting preferred alternatives; directing participants to consider appropriate goals for social process and decision process, in addition to goals for biological conservation; the framework asks participants to examine their own standpoints and consider how their identifications and biases shape their thinking, getting people to see themselves and others in value terms is crucial to clarifying, securing, and sustaining the common interest; by talking explicitly about social process and decision process, it was possible for participants to find common ground on which they could agree. ||  DIFFERENCES: NA ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Wildlife,Conflict resolution,42857,NA,29,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,1,0,0,Workshops,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Staff of federal and provincial agencies, scientists, local business operators, staff of environmental orga- nizations, local residents, industry representatives, and others","Three workshops in May 2005, October 2005 and March 2006",NA,NA,NA,"This paper reports the series of three workshops, among which they implemented the Q methodology study reported in Chamberlain E.C., Rutherford M.B., Gibeau M.L.. Because this study is already reported in this database, we decide to exclude it. Two Q-sets: a set of statements about the problems of grizzly bear management in Banff National Park and the surrounding areas, and a second set of statements about possible solutions to those problems. The study design is complicacted, in three workshops. The study reports little about the Q analysis",Statements,From earlier interviews we conducted with many of the participants,NA,Not stated,NA,Not stated,4,4|3, 'Factor analysis' (unspecified),(unspecified whether PCA or centroid),Not stated,(search of varimax/ judg/ manual does not return results),Unspecified (likely automatic),Not labelled,Not stated,NA,Not stated,Not stated (likely purposive),NA,Not specified (likely most disagree - most agree,Agreement,NA,Banff National Park,Canada,Sub-national,51.4968464,-115.9280561,"Banff National Park, Canada","Banff National Park, Improvement District No. 9, AB T0L, Canada",establishment,North America
"Swaffield S.R., Fairweather J.R.",Investigation of attitudes towards the effects of land use change using image editing and Q sort method,10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00320-9,Investigate public preferences for the effects of proposed changes to land use in the New Zealand high country,"Results were integrated into a comprehensive decision support system that provides information on socio-economic effects of land use change. The method was successful in integrating stakeholder preference into resource planning for a complex set of potential environmental effects, but some problems have been identified, and these are discussed. ||  DIFFERENCES: NA ||  COMMONALITIES: some land use options, typically not extreme ones, could have general appeal.",Land use,Policy appraisal,6,Policy acceptability,77,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,"whether people are able to respond effectively and consistently to complex combinations of visual and non visual data; ||  whether expert predictions undertaken in conditions of uncertainty are acceptable to stakeholders, and what effect non acceptance by some might have on the results of the study;  ||  whether the computer based visualisation provides sufficiently consistent and valid information upon which to base social research; ||  whether it is possible to effectively combine the results of individual land form Q sorts into an overall Q sort array.",Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Provincial agencies, scientists, local business operators, staff of environmental orga- nizations, local residents, industry representatives, and others",Fieldwork during May and June 1993,NA,2,NA,"The analysis, results and implementation could be clearer. The authors analyse the data in two different ways. It's not fully clear which one refers to the standard Q analysis","Composite cards of land uses, combining an image and information about the specific land use and the changes in 'Income and employment' and in 'Soil status'","Modelling of land-use change effects, selected by the researchers",NA,Not stated,36,NA,NA,Unclear,Not stated,(search of principal or centroid does not return results),Not stated,(search of varimax/ judg/ manual does not return results),Unspecified (likely automatic),Unclear,Factors with five or more significant loadings,NA,Not stated,Purposive,NA,Least acceptable - most acceptable,Acceptable,0.467532467532468,South Island,New Zealand,Sub-national,-45.1526707,169.8926333,"South Island, New Zealand","South Island, New Zealand",colloquial_area,Oceania
"Mattson D.J., Clark S.G., Byrd K.L., Brown S.R., Robinson B.",Leaders' perspectives in the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative,10.1007/s11077-011-9127-5,Elucidate perspectives on challenges and solutions for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y),"Workshop results were consistent with an apparent trend toward organizational maturation focused on stabilizing revenues, developing formal organizational arrangements, and focusing strategies. Consolidation of power in Y2Y around a long-standing formula does not bode well for the effectiveness of Y2Y. We recommend that leaders in Y2Y and similar organizations focused on large-scale conservation to create and maintain an open system—philosophically and operationally— that capitalizes on the diverse perspectives and skills of individuals who are attracted to such efforts. We also recommend that the Y2Y initiative be followed closely to harvest additional lessons for potential application to large-scale conservation efforts elsewhere. This trend toward greater homogeneity of outlook and simplicity of operations is evidenced in shrinkage of Y2Y’s board. The perspectives found in the Q study were consistent with posterior changes in personnel in the management board. During the workshop, Y2Y’s formal leaders expressed perspectives that were consistent with an organization approaching maturity, signaled by increased centralization and closure (cf. Chester 2006). Since the 2004 workshop, Y2Y has become almost exclusively dominated by those identified with Y2Y Adherents. Shortly after the 2004 workshop, the single adherent to the Y2Y Adherents narrative who did not have formal power was recruited to the board, and the only board member who aligned with the Adaptive Learners narrative resigned. Almost all of those who aligned with the narrative of Adaptive Learners either voluntarily left Y2Y or were encouraged to do so by those with formal authority. DIFFERENCES: Participants were differentiated by four models for effecting change—vision-based advocacy, practice-based learning, political engagement, and scientific management—with emphasis on the first three. COMMONALITIES: everyone agreed that Y2Y needed to engage more effectively with communities and decision makers within the region if the group’s vision was to be achieved; everyone also expressed concern about the adequacies of Y2Y board diversity and skills",Land use,Management options,42857,NA,21,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Leaders and others with with influence over Y2Y: five current or former board members, four current or past executive directors, three funders, four experts on conservation organizations and policy, and five other participants",Fieldwork during April-May 2004,NA,2,NA,"Two Q-sets, one on problems and another on solutions",Statements,"Group method (participants to write down statements, exchanged them, and voted)",250,250/161,63,63|58,4,4|3,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),"I Y2Y Guardians; II Frustrated Inquirers; III Conditional Supporters; IV Political Encouragers; A Y2Y Adherents, B Adaptive Learners; C Political Institutionalists",Not stated,NA,Not stated,Purposive,(24 invited),‘‘Those I least agree with’’ - ‘‘those I most agree with’’ / ‘‘those I think would be least effective’ - ‘‘those I think would be most effective’,Agreement,3,Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,US,Sub-national,43.130026,-82.7982634,"Yale, US","Yale, MI 48097, USA",city/town,North America
"Bredin Y.K., Lindhjem H., van Dijk J., Linnell J.D.C.",Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis,10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.005,"Identify and classify arguments in the wildlife management debate following the ecosystem services framework, to analyse the perceived and actual trade-offs related to Norwegian wildlife management, in the frame of the need to understand value plurality of key stakeholders to develop acceptable policies, where standard monetary valuation may be methodologically difficult and not always meaningful.","DIFFERENCES: stakeholders disagreed on the issues that related to wolf and sheep management COMMONALITIES: they agreed that today's policy regarding wolf and sheep management practices were unsatisfactory. They also agreed that government wavering is negative, i.e. a clearer direction and spatial prioritisation is better than muddling through to try to please everyone.",Wildlife,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,26,NA,Face-to-face,NA,lends itself well to the study of the importance of ES and associated values across,"Given the inherent complexity of socio-ecological systems, it is useful to draw from a diverse toolbox of methods, including the Q method for ES analysis. Applying the Q method can provide a more in-depth understanding of the resource conflict and the diversity of arguments and values underlying the ES and biodiversity management problem provide a better basis for sorting out which services and values are in (strong) conflict, and where trade-offs are critical and difficult to navigate in designing polices areas of common ground or relatively less disagreementmay be identified,were service trade-offs are either non-existent or possibly less important","it does not, by design, allow for generalisations within larger populations",Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Most relevant stakeholder organisations considering their relative importance and interests in the management of sheep, moose, roe deer, wolf, lynx and bears",Q-sorting between May and July 2013,NA,3,NA,Innovative visualization of factors and statements in a Venn diagram,Statements,"Analysis of printed and online publications, informal conservations",NA,Not stated,40,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic with one manual correction,Pro-sheep grazing (cultural); pro-carnivore conservation (intrinsic); middle position emphasising recreational hunting (utilitarian),Statistical criteria and interpretability,0.64,0.64,Purposive,NA,Disagree most - agree most,Agreement,1.53846153846154,NA,Norway,National,60.472024,8.468946,Norway,Norway,country,Europe
"Winkler K.J., Nicholas K.A.",More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California,10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.013,"Assess perspectives of wine producers and residents regarding cultural ecosystem services provided by vineyards in two wine regions: Southeast England, an emerging wine area; and the counties of Sonoma and Napa, California","We found that wine producers and local residents have different perceptions. Our findings show that perspectives on CES are experienceand context-dependent, as the perspectives on vineyards of residents and wine producers are strongly held but vary widely. Understanding these perspectives will help land use planners and regional politicians make better decisions for optimizing available CES. ||  DIFFERENCES: The appreciation of heritage and symbolic CES widely varies between the perspectives. In Southeast England, wine producers are more positive about vineyard landscapes than residents. Wine producers in Sonoma and Napa value CES directly connected with wine production, while residents emphasize CES that benefit nature conservation or entertainment. Comparing the regions, we conclude that Southeast England vineyards represent sometimes unwelcome development to residents,while in Sonoma and Napa they represent conservation of nature and tradition.  ||  COMMONALITIES: peoplemost strongly appreciate CES in vineyard landscapes of the entertainment and especially bequest classes. Scientificand symbolic CES are only sporadically value",Farming,Management options,0-1,"Not so strictly about decision making. The study identifies opportunities, rather than a problem",42,(20+22),Online,NA,"researchers have started to use Q-method as a form of socio-cultural valuation in ES research and have concluded that Q-method is useful to understand personal ES perceptions, and thus should be part of a toolbox of ES assessment methods",useful to understand the variety of valued CES,"Q-method results cannot be generalized ||  the given set of Q-statements and the forced normal-distribution can give Q participants the feeling that they cannot completely express their view ||  for Q-method the only existing validity criterion is its replicability (vanExel and deGraaf, 2005). So far, no standardized Q-statements exist for any research question and there are no standards for selecting Q-statements (Webler et al., 2009).","To generalize, future researchwould need to do a quantitative, randomized survey to achieve representativeness ||  we were careful to selectQ-statements fromthe current discourse that representeda full range of views, this selectionprocess is inherently subjective. To further reduce bias andmake results more comparable among different studies,more standardized Q-statements could be helpful.",NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,24,18,0,1,"Government (local administration, elected councils (e.g., parish council)), business (tourism and housing industry), nonprofit societies (nature conser- vation, heritage, local societies), and wine industry (winegrowers, winemakers, and winery owners, collectively called wine producers)",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"Another useful visualization of the process of a Q study. They run the analysis using R (psych and GPArotation packages) and do a sui-generis flagging. Additional descriptive stats for each factor by gender, and time of residence. They correlate the perspectives from the two places by correlating (Pearson) the statement rankings (not z-scores)",Statements,Invited wine producers to participate (it is unclear what they invite them for...). The authors derived 108 initial statements base on previous studies and from statements from homepages of wine producers,108,NA,44,NA,4,4|4,PCA,NA,Not stated,"Unspecified (although they state using GPArotation package in R, which means they probably used Varimax)",Manually assigned each participant to a factor acording to their highest factor loading,Souteast England: Science; Experience; Conservation; Wine culture. California: Terroir; Tradition; Instrumental; Entertainment,EV >1,NA,Not stated,Unclear,"They indicate receiving 42 responses, but don't specify to how many they sent the survey",Least like how I think - most like how I think,Like one's way of thinking,1.04761904761905,Southeast England and Sonoma & Napa,UK & US,Multi-country,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA
"Milcu A.I., Sherren K., Hanspach J., Abson D., Fischer J.",Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: Application of a photo-based Q-method in Transylvania (Central Romania),10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.019,"Understand and explore the diverse range of landscape preferences held by locals in Southern Transylvania, in the frame of the choice between development based on a “production for profit” logic, with the risks of a liberalized land market, versus a largely untested development pathway based on sustainability, landscape multifunctionality and conservation",Our systematic assessment of narratives showed areas of consensus and disagreement among participants. We relate the five preference narratives to current management approaches targeting rural landscapes. We conclude by suggesting policy approaches to tackle the diversity of opinions and interests found in this culturally and ecologically diverse landscape. Greater understanding of the diversity of viewpoints could help to facilitate the design of effective management strategies – whether these target economic competitiveness or the conservation of cultural landscapes. Navigating Important policy priorities include fostering economic diversification and improving social capital. DIFFERENCES: considerable disagreement between preferences for traditions and multifunctionality and views on modernization and intensificatio COMMONALITIES: there were no consensus photographs,Land use,Management options,0-1,NA,129,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,This study proposes the use of Q methodology with photographs as a promising and empowering method for revealing landscape preferences: individuals assert deeply held values and concerns without being overlooked during the research process (Robbins,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,83,46,1,1,"Different local ethnicities (e.g. Romanians, Hungarians, Roma, Saxons), diverse stakeholder groups such as farmers, subsis- tence farmers, town hall officials, local activists, people engaged in tourism, and other important rural occupations (e.g. priest, doctor, teacher, policeman, forester)",Photos collected during field studies in 2011; Q-sorting on average 45 minutes. ,NA,NA,45,"They extract descriptive statistics by factor, of demographic (gender, ethnic group, occupation) and qualitative variables (themes mentioned by % of participants). Useful visualization of the workflow depicting the stages of the study. Innovative visualization of results for categories of statements, by type",Photographs,Prior fieldwork and other sources and contacts,NA,Not stated,33,NA,5,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),(1) landscapes for prosperity and economic growth; (2) landscapes for traditions and balanced lifestyles; (3) landscapes for human benefit; (4) landscapes for farming; (5) landscapes for nature,"EV >1, screeplot and interpretability",0.58,0.58,Convenience and snowball,'Mere availability' and snowball sampling,What they would least like to see in their village or village surroundings - what they would most like to see (with sad face - smiley face),Like to see in their village,0.255813953488372,"Sighisoara, in Southern Transylvania",Romania,Sub-national,46.2197025,24.7963878,"Sighisoara, Southern Transylvania, Romania","Sighișoara, Romania",city/town,Europe
Bischof B.G.,"Negotiating uncertainty: Framing attitudes, prioritizing issues, and finding consensus in the coral reef environment management ""crisis""",10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.06.020,"Delineates the socially constructed attitudes, perceptions, and foundations of coral conservation science, regarding management issues that are tied to the science of coral reef environments and their conservation “crisis”. Study to inform decisions on mitigation of reef decline and attendant questions of territorial and resource-access rights","Distilling the subjective features of those who comprise the social network allows some anticipation on what basis practical and logistical contentions will be made and may offer an effective tool in negotiations and dispute resolution in the current crisis-context of continuing environmental declines, increasingly unsustainable resource extraction and rampant development and over-population of coastal communities. DIFFERENCES: highest degree of contentionwas seen in scalar issues such as human-environment feedback systems that are inherent in solving environmental crises COMMONALITIES: high degree of consensus regarding the relative importance of community input in the role of successful reef management",Marine,Critical reflection,42857,The study is a bit vague in its goals,31,NA,Online,FlashQ,"provides a tool to de-emphasize the uncertainty that has paralyzed cooperative policy action [21,31e33] and determine which issues comprise core tensions in the scientific debates by separating what is accepted as truth and what topics are still churning through the mill of “normative” positivist science Q is rapidly achieved and easily applied, and particularly in environmental issues, has the power to inform debates that are constituted by the interaction between historical constructs, social network structure, and paradigms of mitigation strategies shows great potential as a new way forward in addressing scientifically-grounded environmental management efforts. A methodology was therefore needed for this work that could distill the subjectivities within statements claimed as fact and determine the subjective tendencies or basic viewpoints that run through the community that is discovering and arguing them particularly useful for the purposes of this research because of its ability to reveal the foundations that construct the ways in which scientific findings are expressed; and also offers a way to determine which issues are highly contentious and which issues have a high level of consensus and rank their relative priority or urgency as delineated by the resulting factors [32,156].","By applying Q-methodology to subjective scientific state- ments, it becomes possible to extricate the value-judgements (expressed as factors) from truth-claims that are generally presumed value-free, “neutral” facts and gain insight in how facts are viewed within the epistemic community. Q provides clarity about which topics fuel debate and contention and which topics have been settled as accepted ontologies and stepping stones on which to negotiate environmental action finding contention may offer a guide into what issues require greater attention in the scientific arena as research before being effectively applied in policy efforts offers a legitimate, operant-defined method to disentangle and prioritize the vast collection of intertwined scientific and management concerns regarding reef ecosystem decline and recovery. Re-organizing environmental knowledges and debated issues provides informative guidance on how to better organize conservation missions, focus research, and structure expectations regarding management initiatives in an atmosphere of environmental crisis and urgency",Not stated,Not stated,"Likerttype surveys are commonly applied to determine the opinions among a network, this survey structure reveals little about the beliefs and subjective filters that steer interpretations of empirical finding",Likert scale,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Professional engagement with the discipline of coral reef science and conservation; geologists, biologists, chemists, ecologists, social scientists, and management official",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,This long paper does not provide details about the analytical decisions. They use R for the analysis,Statements,"Key publications, conversations in the literature, conferences, and other publicly accessible sources",NA,Not stated,43,NA,4,NA,Not stated,(search of principal or centroid does not return results),Not stated,(search of varimax/ judg/ manual does not return results),Unspecified (likely automatic),Community and Locally-centered Humanists; Scientific Idealists; Skeptical and Utilitarian Pragmatists; Politically-oriented Positivists,Iterative process of interpretation and re-examination of factor loadings,NA,Not stated,Purposive,"(240 contacted, 87 responded, 31 completed the survey)",Scale of agreement,Agreement,1.38709677419355,NA,NA,Global,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA
Gruber J.S.,Perspectives of effective and sustainable community-based natural resource management: An application of Q methodology to forest projects,10.4103/0972-4923.83725,"Understand the perspectives of groups associated with three successful forestry community-based natural resource management case studies, to understand the principles and key characteristics that are needed to ensure long-term effective and sustainable CBNRM programmes?","The four perspectives revealed in this research on what is needed for a successful CBNRM programme may be helpful for others in pre-programme site assessment, strategic planning, and working with the public and a wide range of stakeholder groups involved in sustainably protecting their ecological commons. The fi ndings support the supposition that a successful and sustainable forestry-based CBNRM programme is achieved, at least in part, through building a shared value system that transcends the specific societal roles of the participants. Some of these findings transcend cultural differences, while others are directly associated with specific local conditions and cultural characteristics. there is a primary association of each perspective to one site/culture (except perspective D) DIFFERENCES: NA COMMONALITIES: NA",Forests,Policy appraisal,6,What are the design features for successful impact,30,NA,Face-to-face and online,FlashQ,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),is a practical and useful research tool that can assist in these types of efforts by revealing hidden values and perspectives of those involved in these community-based efforts.,Not stated,Not stated,"basic difference between Q-methodology and standard survey analysis is its design to establish patterns within and across individuals rather than patterns across individual traits, such as age, class, etc.",Standard surveys,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"All major stakeholder groups, such as local elected officials, members of local or regional environmental NGOs, regional/national governmental offi cials, external experts/consultants, citizens, and business owners",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"The Q study is part of a broader study that included surveys and analysis of published case studies, which is not reported in the paper. No anonymity",Statements,Literature review (peer-reviewed papers) and previous fieldwork analysing case studies,238,NA,36,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),A: A Successful CBNRM Programme Builds Social Capital Including Partnerships; B: A Successful CBNRM Programme Focuses on Ownership and Economic Concerns; C: A Successful CBNRM Programme Enhances Local Knowledge and Understanding; D: A Successful CBNRM Programme Draws Upon External Experts and Knowledge,Not stated,0.53,0.53,Stratified purposive,"Stratified sample of sites, purposive sampling of individuals within each site",Least important - most important,Importance,1.2,"Apuseni Mountains, Romania, Randolph, New Hampshire, and Ixtlán de Juárez, Oaxaca, Mexico","Romania, US, Mexico",Multi-country,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA
"Urquhart J., Courtney P., Slee B.",Private woodland owners' perspectives on multifunctionality in english woodlands,10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.08.006,"Investigate the perceptions and attitudes of private woodland owners to multifunctional woodland management in three study areas in England, in the frame of how woodland owners themselves perceive their role in delivering public goods such as biodiversity, recreation, landscape and carbon sequestration, alongside timber production","The four owner groups identified in this study suggest that private woodland owners in England have diverse motivations and attitudes towards woodland management and the delivery of public benefits in their woodlands. The findings of this study suggest that certain owner types, such as Multifunctional Owners and Custodians are more likely to enrol in grant schemes than others. Barriers to the delivery of public goods in private woodlands include perceived property rights, conflicts with other objectives (such as biodiversity, game shooting or privacy) and the complexity of grant applications (especially for owners of small woodlands). Classifications such as the one described in this study may provide useful tools for policy makers in designing appropriate incentives and extension services for influencing and supporting the delivery of multifunctional forest objectives in private woodlands in England. DIFFERENCES: NA COMMONALITIES: NA",Forests,Management options,6,Vaguely related to adoption,30,NA,Face-to-face,NA,"it shifts the focus from looking for correlations between variables across a range of subjects, to looking for correlations between subjects across a set of variables. This allows individuals to be grouped and categorised according to the similarity in their responses to the statements presented in the Q survey. Categorizing subjective individual interpretations can offer a fresh approach for understanding perspectives on multifunctionality in private woodlands",Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,1,1,"Size of their woodland, distance to an urban centre and their participation in a government grant scheme",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,"from a variety of sources, including semi-structured interviews with 20 private woodland owners conducted in a preliminary scoping study, academic literature, Forestry Commission reports and researcher knowledge",124,NA,36,NA,4,NA,Centroid,NA,Varimax and judgmental,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Hobby Conservationist; the Individualist; the Custodian and the Multifunctional Owner,EV >1,0.52,0.52,Purposive,NA,Strongly disagree - strongly agree,Agreement,1.2,"Cornwall, the Lake District and the HighWeald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty","England, UK",Sub-national,52.3555177,-1.1743197,England,"England, UK",state/province,Europe
"Kamal S., Kocór M., Grodzińska-Jurczak M.",Quantifying human subjectivity using Q method: When quality meets quantity,ISSN: 17338077,"Attitudes of people towards nature conservation on private land, in the frame of implementation of nature conservation policies such as the EU Ecological Network of Special Areas of Conservation (popularly known as Natura 2000)","The paper is an introduction to the method, and te empirical study is merely illustrative, so there is not thorough discussion and conclusion about the outputs, but rather an account of its advantages, disadvantages and recommendations",Land use,Policy appraisal,42922,NA,10,NA,Face-to-face,NA,one of the potential tools that can help to fill the existing lacunae in incorporating social science knowledge into environmental conservation strategies,"Often, Q methodology is criticized on the ground that it limits and controls the respondents’ opinions. It is important, however, to remember that because of this constraint it is possible to evaluate each statement with respect to the other, which makes it possible to draw an overall inference and co-relate opinions. ||  Conducting the Q study and completing its analysis is a fairly easy task, with the methodology being clearly defined and relatively easy to follow ||  Analysis does not need any sophisticated statistical knowledge other than the basics of PCA/FA","researcher’s bias being incorporated into the results ||  due to the method of sample selection in a Q study (which is non-random), results cannot be statistically generalized for the whole population","Since every other step of the methodology is highly dependent on the statements, it is of utmost importance that the statements be as diverse, inclusive, and exhaustive as possible. Any form of biases, overlooking, or ignorance while drafting the statements could divert the study in one direction or another ||  more effort needs to be put in the qualitative interpretation of “hard” statistical results, where the experience of researcher and knowledge about topic are key factors. ||  take precautionary approach to not let subjectivity take over the interpretation completely","It is a more sophisticated scale of measuring different human attitudes than other conventional scales, such as Likert’s scale used in social sciences.",Likert scale,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"The paper is focused in explaining Q methodology, and the application is an illlustration of its use",Statements,"Secondary sources: conclusions of scientific research articles on the topic, articles in popular magazines, discus- sions and interviews in international and national newspapers, Internet websites and forums.",NA,Not stated,35,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Orthogonal,(likely varimax),Unspecified (likely automatic),"1 – Conservation is a need and a benefit, but needs some financial and policy support; 2 – Conserve when it is a dire necessity: people matter!; 3 – A mixed model of structure and functioning of conservation strategies: partner with authorities;",EV>1,0.69,0.69,Not stated (likely purposive),NA,Strongly disagree - strongly agree,Agreement,3.5,NA,Poland,National,51.919438,19.145136,Poland,Poland,country,Europe
Neff M.W.,Research Prioritization and the Potential Pitfall of Path Dependencies in Coral Reef Science,10.1007/s11024-014-9250-5,"Uncover schools of thought amongst researchers and knowledge-users about the merits of possible research priorities for coral reefs, on the basis that, when scientists select research problems, they weigh a number of factors, including funding availability, likelihood of success versus failure, and perceived publishability of likely results, or a strong personal interest in conducting science to bring about particular social and environmental outcomes","The results reveal that perceived severity of reef stressors plays a role for some participants. Disciplinary training does not appear to be a major influence on research priority evaluation. ||  Influences on and processes in research prioritization uncovered in this study have the potential to lead to counter-productive disciplinary path dependencies. ||  Better coordination and communication about research priorities across disciplines and with broader stakeholders – including knowledge users – could improve the research enterprise’s ability to contribute to meaningful societal and conservation goals. ||  Forums for deliberating research priorities could help to ensure that research is optimally effective in contributing to better outcomes: the different understandings of research priorities derive from variety in participants’ understandings of how research does and should contribute to change on the ground; neither individual scientists nor the scientific enterprise as a whole inherently represent the values of the citizens who fund their work; participants reported that disciplinary norms and pressures created mismatches between what some scientists do professionally and what they feel is likely to lead to better outcomes ||  Priority setting processes open to genuine discussion with broader communities could help to ameliorate the path dependence problem. ||  DIFFERENCES: variability in the assessment of importance of stressors on reef health ||  COMMONALITIES: no consensus statements, although participants unanimously felt that coral reefs face unprecedented challenges to their long-term health and survival",Marine,Critical reflection,42857,Decisions over researchn priorities,48,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,Participants in a scientific conference,In July 2008 (with a team),NA,1,NA,"They add an additional factor by copying one and inverting it, which is innovative but unclear: ""two participants were negatively associated with Factor 3, indicating that their beliefs were best represented in this initial analysis as being the opposite of those associated with that factor. In order to isolate the differences between those positively and negatively associated with this factor, I duplicated factor three, inverted one copy, and repeated the analysis""",Statements,"From scientific, funding agency, and management literatures on coral reef science and management",582,NA,59,NA,5,5(1 factor is a duplicate),PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),"1: Understand and Interact with Local Communities to Save the Reefs; 2: Basic Reef Science First; 3A: Humans are Responsible! Let’s Do Research That Will Lead to Change; 3B: Ecosystems Are Dynamic; Policy Affects People, and People Affect Reefs; 4: Develop and Refine Management Tools",Screeplot,NA,Not stated,Convenience,Convenience sampling from the list of symposium participants,Most unimportant - most important,Importance,1.22916666666667,"International Coral Reef Symposium, held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida",US,Global,26.1224386,-80.1373174,"Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, US","Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA",city/town,North America
"Neff M.W., Larson B.M.H.","Scientists, managers, and assisted colonization: Four contrasting perspectives entangle science and policy",10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.001,"To understand the terms of the debate about assisted colonization as a climate change adaptation strategy, among individuals with a key role in decision-making and implementation","Based upon our findings and the relevant literature, we conclude that disputes surrounding assisted colonization will likely not be settled by additional scientific research. Rather, underlying non-technical considerations need to be brought to the fore and addressed. ||  DIFFERENCES: defined by value-based and policy-strategic considerations at least as much as they were by varied understandings of technical issues. Tightly-held and contested ideas (bold statements), the single most salient statement (#1) deals with who should be allowed to conduct assisted colonization activities, and the most contested one concerns the role of endangered species laws in species conservation (Statement 5). Conflict not only concerning the likely outcome of assisted colonization (Statement 13), but also over human ethical obligations toward nature, and appropriate actions to pursue under conditions of uncertainty ||  COMMONALITIES: relative agreement that assisted colonization carries disease and genetic risks to recipient ecosystems (Statement 3) and that ecosystems will change regardless of management activities (Statement 4)",Wildlife,Policy appraisal,6,"the option is chosen, and the study looks at what people think about it",50,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,"Rather than employing a traditional survey, a method useful for evaluating the attitudes of investigator-defined groups of people along theory-derived axes, we utilized Q method (Watts and Stenner, 2012). Q method inductively elicits individuals’ understanding of a topic in a way that allows their concerns to define the axes along which they are compared",Not stated,the results should not be taken as representative of managers in other contexts,Not stated,"In contrast to typical surveys, the results are not intended to be quantitatively generalizable because the method utilizes small and non-random participant samples",Standard survey,0,0,0,0,1,14,10,0,1,Forest managers and top-publishing ecologists and conservation biologists,Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"Nice visualization of the research process. The forest managers were from Ontario, the scientists were selected from top journals (undefined location). Uses the standard deviation and the average salience as an additional lense to interpret the results. They do additional stats on the z-scores across factors: salience = (mean(abs(zscores))), and their standard deviation",Statements,From published literature and other relevant sources,781,NA,33,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Ecological Interventionist; Nativist Technocrat; Interventionist Technocrat; and Reluctant Interventionist,Minimum correlation among factors and explainability,0.54,0.54,Purposive and snowball,"Purposive sample of scientists (contacted 159, responded 24); snowball sampling of forest managers (contacted 54 and responded 26)",Strongly disagree - strongly agree,Agreement,0.66,Ontario,Canada,Sub-national,51.253775,-85.3232139,"Ontario, Canada","Ontario, Canada",state/province,North America
"Kamal S., Grodzinska-Jurczak M.",Should conservation of biodiversity involve private land? A Q methodological study in Poland to assess stakeholders' attitude,10.1007/s10531-014-0744-0,Classifies the diverse attitudes among stakeholder groups in Poland toward biodiversity conservation on private land that are part of protected areas,"The analysis yielded three predominant factors which highlighted the diversity in attitudes among the stakeholder groups based on their knowledge, concerns and experience in the subject. Additionally, it underlined the common recognition among all stakeholder groups for better policy support, stronger collaboration among stakeholder and more financial or compensatory support for landowners to make private land conservation more feasible. Understanding the differences in attitudes will help bridge the gap between conservation priority and conservation opportunity—a current challenge in the field of biodiversity conservation. ||  DIFFERENCES: dichotomy in the perception of the importance of private land conservation, with NGOs, government institutions and park officials at one end of the spectrum and the landowners at the other;  ||  COMMONALITIES: private land conservation is a top down national or regional policy directly prescribed without taking local context into account and everyone, including local authorities feels wronged in the process",Land use,Management options,6,The option is chosen (private land conservation within protected areas) and the study looks at how this can be facilitated,28,"28 full Q-sorts, 30 responses (10 from each site)",Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),"Socio-ecological researches, especially related to investigating human attitudes, have been at a disadvantage because of its often subjective nature but tools such as Q methodology provide a unique opportunity that allows for quantifying human subjectivity","while Q methodology is very useful to explore and classify the attitudes based on their similarities and differences, but its findings cannot be extrapolated to the whole population",Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,16,12,0,1,"Conservation and park authorities, local administrative officials, local conservation based NGOs and private landowners",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,This study seems similar but not exactly the same as the other by Kamal et al,Statements,"exhaustive literature review on the topic of private land conservation. This included research and review articles published in peer reviewed journals, articles and opinions published in newspapers (national and international) and other popular media such as internet and television",NA,"45* (not really the concourse, but the Q-set for piloting)",35,NA,3,NA,Centroid,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),1: The Skeptic—biodiversity conservation on private land is at a cost that landowners have to bear; 2: The Supporter—Private land is important to biodiversity conservation; 3: The Uncertain—Private land can conserve biodiversity but can threaten landowners’ rights in the process,"EV >1, minimum two sorts flagged",0.51,0.51,Purposive,NA,Not specified (likely most disagree - most agree,NA,1.60714285714286,"A national park, a landscape park and a Natura 2000 site: Biebrzanski National Park in north-east Poland (Podlaskie voivodship/state), Skierbieszowski Landscape Park in south-east Poland (Lubelskie voi- vodship/state) and Dolina Gornej Wisly Natura 2000 site in southern Poland",Poland,National,51.919438,19.145136,Poland,Poland,country,Europe
"Kindermann G., Gormally M.J.",Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems: A comparison of three European countries,10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.011,"Determine the degree of differences in opinion regarding recreational management in coastal conservation areas and assess whether there are examples of perceived best management practice that could be applied to some or all of these countries (Ireland, Scotland, Germany). On the basis that coastal dune systems are particularly susceptible to destabilisation through recreational pressure and because of this, conflicts frequently arise between those who want to use the dunes for recreational purposes and those who wish to see these fragile ecosystems protected","while there is much agreement overall (particularly relating to the protection of dune systems while still supporting recreation), stakeholder opinion can be separated according to country of origin ||  We suggest that given Irish stakeholder opinions regarding the potential loss of naturalness through strict recreational management, the Scottish rather than the German model would be more suitable in the Irish context. ||  DIFFERENCES: stakeholder opinion can be separated according to country of origin; differences in opinion are most apparent in the sections concerned with restricting access for recreation and the provision of facilities (less accept- able in Scotland and Ireland) ||  COMMONALITIES: (particularly relating to the protection of dune systems while still supporting recreation",Land use,Management options,42857,NA,36,36 (12 in each country),Face-to-face and online,NA,Its advantages over other methods are that it combines the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research methods by providing insights into attitudes while providing statistical rigour ||  it is replicable and provides empirical rigour while being participant driven,Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Landowners, conservation managers, archae- ologists, NGO members and landusers including farmers and members of the tourism and recreation industry",Concourse development between January 2006 and August 2006;,8,NA,NA,"Sui-generis analysis, manually using GraphPad. The study doesn’t specify rotation or flagging. The study doesn’t calculate weights or z-scores (mean values for statements) but rather median values for statements. The study compares groups of stakeholders by running Kruskal-Wallis followed by psot-hoc tests (Nemenyi and Dunn's multiple comparisons tests for between countries; Mann-Whitney for conservationists/ non-conservationists). Visualization of pseudo-zscores (median values of respondents) in a fashion similar to the plot in qmethod R package. Good summary of the pros and cons of the method, according to the literature",Statements,meeting the stakeholders and conducting semi-structured interviews where the topics of conservation but not the exact questions were predefine,320,NA,36,NA,2,NA,PCA,NA,Not stated,"(likely NONE, because the variance explained is concentrated in a single factor, and they did the analysis manually in GraphPad)","Unspecified (likely NONE, see comment in rotation method)",No labelsl; the study speaks directly about agreements and disagreements,Explained variance,0.583,"58.3% (most of it in the first component, with 48.7%!)",Purposive,NA,Most disagree -  most agree,Agreement,1,NA,"Ireland, Scotland, Germany",Multi-country,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Europe
"Cavanagh R.D., Hill S.L., Knowland C.A., Grant S.M.",Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem-based management of the Antarctic krill fishery,10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.006,"Explore the views of three stakeholder sectors, about ecosystem-based management of the Antarctic krill fishery, on the basis of a high-profile debate","This analysis provides insight into the detailed views of a diverse and relevant sample of stakeholders, showing that although opinions differ, there is far greater common purpose than the debate implies. ||  Most participants in the study agree that management should improve but do not perceive a major problem in the ecosystem's ability to support current catch levels.  ||  Cooperation to identify shared management objectives based on stakeholder aspirations for the ecosystem might enhance progress, whereas polarised discussions about preferred management measures or ambiguous concepts are likely to impede progress. ||  It suggests that a diverse group of stakeholders share concerns about the future management of the krill fishery. Nonetheless, different sectors have different preferred methods for managing the fisher ||  This provides a stronger basis for developing practical management solutions than debate around polarised positions. ||  DIFFERENCES: priority given to different management measures, and to continued commercial fishin ||  COMMONALITIES: Both groups prioritised the maintenance of ecosystem health and recognised the importance of defining management objectives. Also, neither group prioritised a decrease in catch limits.",Marine,Management options,42857,Identify shared management objectives,22,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"The fishing industry, conservation-focused non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and scientists from seven countries involved in research on the krill-based ecosystem",Fieldwork in a two-day stakeholder workshop,NA,0.066666666666667,NA,NA,Statements,Informed by both author experience and published information from a wide range of relevant sources (the academic and technical literature and popular media),NA,Not stated,34,NA,2,NA, 'Factor analysis' (unspecified),(unspecified whether PCA or centroid),Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),They don't label; they speak directly about agreements and disagreements; one of which included the views of all NGO participants while the other included the views of fishing industry participants and a subset of the scientists,"Compared solutions of 2-4 factors, selected finally based on EV>1 and 2 sorts significantly loading, not much additional variation captured in additional factors",0.54,0.54,Purposive,"Purposive (self-selected subset of a wider group, since not all attended the workshop)",Least important - most important (for achieving my objectives and aspirations for the krill-based ecosystem and fisher),Importance,1.54545454545455,Antarctic Peninsula,Antarctic Ocean,Multi-country,-63.397301,-56.9974192,Fortin Sargento CAbral,"Fortín Sgto Cabral, Antarctica",city/town,Antarctica
"Clare S., Krogman N., Caine K.J.",The balance discourse: A case study of power and wetland management,10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.007,"Uncover whether key decision makers subscribe to the dominant public discourse of ‘balance’ (economics to be ‘balanced’ with wetland conservation) about wetland management in Alberta, Canada, and where key decision makers are positioned within the discourse relative to one another","As the number of intractable environmental problems grows, so too does the rhetoric that asserts environmental protection must be ‘balanced’ with jobs and the economy. This ‘balance discourse’ has become a privileged account that seeks to frame controversial policy issues in simplistic terms, thereby marginalizing voices calling for limits to growth. The prevalence of this discourse begs for a deeper examination into what ‘balance’ really means, and in particular, requires that more scrutiny be given to who has been given the power to define what ‘balance’ is within the context in which it is being used.  ||  In Alberta, the ‘balance discourse’ has reduced the policy debate over wetland management into to a dichotomous choice: wetlands or the economy. ||  We suggest that the ‘balance discourse’ has become a privileged account that obscures what is being balanced and by whom. ||  DIFFERENCES: disagreement between policy actors instead lies in the process for governing wetlands. On key issues of governance, we find a discursive coalition between industry and key government decision makers, which favors a ‘business as usual’ approach to wetland management that includes minimal regulation and an increased use of market-based instruments. This perspective is in contrast to other voices that expressed concern over current rates of wetland loss, with calls for stronger laws and policies for managing these losses. ||  COMMONALITIES: in contrast to the dominant public discourse, there is a strong consensus amongst key policy actors that a more robust wetland policy will not unduly impact the economy",Wetlands,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,36,NA,Face-to-face and post mail,"Face-to-face (32), post mail (4)","it allows for a more structured analysis of discourse, and can effectively uncover viewpoints that may be marginalized by more dominant discourses (Barry and Proops, 1999)  ||  it can reveal a more diverse discursive landscape and can facilitate the search for compromise and common ground in seemingly intractable policy discussions",Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,"ability to identify and explore shared perceptions, or social discourses, in a more structured way than can be achieved with other methods of discourse analysis",Discourse analysis,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Key informants from Industry (8 individuals), Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) (8), and the federal, provincial, and municipal government (20)",Fieldwork at a workshop in march 2011,NA,NA,NA,"The justification of why varimax is not used is unclear. It does an additional analysis ""non-metric multidimensional scaling to explore the structure in the Q sort data"" but not fully clear",Statements,"Informed by 34 semi-structured interviews conducted with a range of policy actors representing government (municipal, provincial, and federal; 17 interviews), not for profit environmental groups (5), consultants (6), and industry (oil and gas, land developers, agriculture; 6). Interviews were transcribed and coded by a single researcher into conceptual themes",90,NA,36,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,None ,"(the justification is dodgy: ""because all participants significantly loaded on the first factor; thus, applying varimax rotation would have resulted in an undesirably high factor correlation"")",Unspecified (likely automatic),1. ‘Public Good’ –Wetlands are a public good that should be managed with a more robust policy; 2. The role of government in managing wetlands; 2a. ‘Business as Usual’ – Neoliberal approaches to wetland management; 2b. ‘Concerned Conservationist’ – Stronger law and policy required to prevent wetland loss; 3. ‘Incentives Based Conservation’ – Protection of private property rights and incentives for wetland protection,"EV > 1, at least 2 Qs-rts significantly loading",0.7,70% (55% in the first factor),Purposive,NA,"Least representative (of their organization) - most representative (according to how well each statement represented their organization’s perspective. If participants felt they could not sort the statements from their organization’s viewpoint, they were instructed to sort the statements from their own personal perspective)",Representative of the organization's view,1,"Edmonton, Alberta",Canada,Sub-national,53.544389,-113.4909267,"Edmonton, Alberta, Canada","Edmonton, AB, Canada",city/town,North America
"Visser M., Moran J., Regan E., Gormally M., Skeffington M.S.",The Irish agri-environment: How turlough users and non-users view converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP,10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.04.004,"Understand perspectives about the viability of the farming systems in which turlough (a pastured karst surface) is embedded (aim of reformed CAP), i.e. whether farmers want/can maintain the summer grazing required to maintain turloughs (the way they respond to the implementation of Natura 2000, to the changing agenda of CAP, and how this influences turlough management), a Special Area of Conservation and EU Natura 2000 Priority Habitat in Ireland","Opinions on turlough management are shown not to correlate with opinions on wider agri-environmental issues. Instead, turlough management rather is terra incognita for non-users. ||  The results show that farmers’ and conservationists’ perspectives are less opposed than expected and that this opposition is better described as mutual ignorance of each other’s expertise. This calls for a better communication strategy to turn conflict into compromise. We suggest three pathways to do this: making better use of the local farmers’ press, fostering users’ input by the close collaboration with an agriculturalist and an ecologist on a farm-to-farm basis and a marketing approach that values agricultural produce from marginal land for its intrinsic qualities. ||  DIFFERENCES: There is indeed opposition in perspectives about those wider issues, especially when it comes to policies and designation, which are perceived by landowners as infringements on their freedom of enterprise. Farmers express, on the one hand, a strong conviction that farming should be passed down from generation to generation but on the other, a strong feeling of losing control over the land to ‘‘outsiders in offices’’, uncertainty about the fate of farming under the growing conservation lobby and the changing agenda of CAP, and frustration about the growing load of paperwork ||  COMMONALITIES: Both groups prefer a kind of nature that is not abandoned (symbolised by scrub invasion), but farmed",Farming,Management options,6,The option is identified (sheep in turlough) and this is about whether/how to implement it,45,NA,Face-to-face and post mail,NA,particularly appealing because it involves a statistical multivariate study of opinions with minimal researcher’s bias,Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Turlough experts (both users and non-users) as well as spokespersons of various interest groups and research bodies, and farmers","Concourse development in march-May 2003, Sep-Oct 2003; face-to-face Q-sorting Nov-Dec 2003, by post in Jan-May 2004",3,2,NA,"They use SPSS for the analysis. They compare the results by group of stakeholders by using non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney), and include a boxplot to compare non-farmers and farmers. In factor 2, turlough users load positively and non-users negatively",Statements,Semi-structured interviews of turlough experts (both users and non-users) as well as spokespersons of various interest groups and research bodies,300,NA,60,NA,2,NA,PCA,NA,Not stated,"(likely NONE, because they did not do the analysis in a Q-specific software)","Unspecified (likely NONE, see comment in rotation method)",No labels,Explained variance,0.37,0.37,Purposive and random,Purposive of experts and random selection of farmers,I could not disagree more - I could not agree more,Agreement,1.33333333333333,"Ballinrobe, County Mayo and Gort area, County Galway",Ireland,Sub-national,53.41291,-8.24389,Ireland,Ireland,country,Europe
Cairns R.,Understanding science in conservation: A Q method approach on the galpagos Islands,10.4103/0972-4923.101835,Uncover the range of perspectives on the science/ conservation interface currently held by scientists and conservation managers working on the Galápagos Islands,"The results illustrate a range of divergent views of the nature of both science and conservation and the boundaries between them, and show that despite concerted efforts by certain groups, it is difficult or impossible to draw an unproblematic and universally accepted line between the conservation and science sectors on Galápagos. ||  It is hoped that the results will contribute to greater self-awareness between proponents of the various views and thus facilitate more meaningful dialogue and interdisciplinary collaboration in conservation. ||  DIFFERENCES: diversity of opinion as to the role of science in conservation and in policy making more generally; divergent views about exactly what conservation is, based on deeply entrenched differences regarding conceptualisations of humans and nature ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Values,Critical reflection,0-1,Defining broadly conservation management options,27,NA,Face-to-face and post mail,Face-to-face (23) and postal mail (4),Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),a tool to provide a more detailed and richer account of the characteristics of science and conservation,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,Scientists and conservation managers working on the Galápagos Islands,Concourse in May-June 2010; Q sorts in June-July 2010; interviewslasted 30-60 minutes each,2,2,30-60min/Q-sort,"The paper reports all the details of analysis fantastically clear, and gives very solid justification for all the research decisions",Statements,"Through a ‘semi- naturalistic approach’ (Robbins and Krueger 2000), whereby opinion statements were gathered from a combination of document review and semi-structured interviews with scientists and conservation managers on Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos. Secondary sources included academic literature, grey literature (e.g., pamphlets, technical reports, annual reports, and management plans), websites of NGOs working in Galápagos, proceedings of events held by conservation NGOs, and clippings",200,NA,34,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),1) Science for management; 2) Freedom of science; 3) Limits of science; and 4. Separation of science and conservation,"Maximise the variance explained, and the number of participants whose sorts correlated significantly with just one factor, minimise the number of ‘confounders’ (participants whose sorts correlated with more than one factor) or ‘non-loaders’ (participants whose sorts did not correlate with any factor), and ensure that each factor contained at least two sorts that correlated with that factor alone",0.59,0.59,Purposive and snowball,Purposive followed by snowball sampling,Least like my point of view - most like my point of view,Like one's view,1.25925925925926,"Santa Cruz island, Galapagos",Ecuador,Sub-national,-0.6393592,-90.3371889,"Santa Cruz island, Galapagos, Ecuador","Santa Cruz Island, Ecuador",establishment,Latin America
Clarke A.H.,Understanding sustainable development in the context of other emergent environmental perspectives,10.1023/A:1016067819764,"Identify opinions about the relationship of the individual to society and forests, to understand the emergence of sustainable development as one of several beliefs in a more complex framework of perspectives on forest use, in US environmental policy (the introduction talks about the evolution of these perspectives about environmental policy and forests, since the XIX century). Particularly, within the context of Federally funded state-wide forest planning initiatives authorized under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)","The set of belief types identified in this study describes distinctly different ways of viewing the relationship of the individual person to nature and society, and distinctly different approaches to decision-making. ||  In addition to sustainable development, this new framework [of sustainabl development] included beliefs in nature as a community to be respected, a place for personal growth, a means for demonstrating self-reliance, and a rallying point for grassroots activism.This paper examines sustainable development in the context of these other belief types and concludes by cautioning policymakers to consider these additional policy arguments and define the policy agenda more fully. ||  DIFFERENCES: NA ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Values,Critical reflection,0-1,Defining broadly conservation management options,189,"189 (512 selected, 295 agreed, 211 returned the post but some were not usable or were incomplete)",Post mail,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,Not stated,Not stated,0,1,"Forest landowners, government o⁄cials, scientists, academicians, forest industry rep- resentatives, foresters, and trade association o⁄cials, leaders of conservation and public interest organizations, and others",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"""The application of the study is detailed in a separate paper (Hooker, 2001)"". Hooker, A.M. (2001). ‘Beliefs regarding society and nature: A framework for listening in forest and environmental policy,’Operant Subjectivity 24 (4): 159^177. The paper is published in 2002, but it presents results of a Q study conducted in 1989. In the Method section, the paper mentions Vermont as if a previous study had been conducted there on the topic, but Vermont is not mentioned earlier or elsewhere in the paper, so the context is not clear. The analysis is a bit sui-generis: ""the 189 responses were divided into 4 subsets. Each subset of responses was factored, and the resulting factors were also factored in a technique called second-order factoring. Subsequently, the 189 responses were factored as a whole"". I understand that they experimented with two ways of analysing (full sample and second order factoring based on four splits) and they ended up selecting ""Three factors, explaining the most total variance, [that] emerged regardless of approach to managing the dataset"". The first three factors from the two approaches (full sample and the second order factoring based on four splits) seemed to have been similar. There were two additional ""fourth factors""",Statements,"From historic writings (such as Thoreau’s Walden (see e.g., Stanley, ed., 1973), Gi¡ord Pinchot’s Breaking New Ground (1947), Aldo Leopold’s ASand County Almanac (1949), contemporary writings (such as Christropher Stone’s Earth and Other Ethics (1987), and the World Commission of Conservation and Development’s Our Common Future, 1986), government reports (such as those of the U.S. Forest Service), industry statements, and articles in scienti¢c jour- nals (such as ‘Bioscience’)",400,NA,60,NA,5,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),‘New Steward’ (Nature-as-a-community); ‘New Conservationist’ (Sustainable development); ‘Individualist' (Personal growth); ‘Traditional Steward’ (Self reliance); ‘Activist’ (Collective action),Factors that explained more than 1% variance,0.75,0.75,Stratified random and purposive,"Stratified (region, gender, size of forest owned) and random (if the stratum was large enough), plus additional 10 respondents identified by the author as concerned citizens",Least characteristic (of the respondent's viewpoint) - most characteristic,Characteristic,0.317460317460317,Connecticut,US,Sub-national,41.6032207,-73.087749,"Connecticut, US","Connecticut, USA",state/province,North America
"West S., Cairns R., Schultz L.","What constitutes a successful biodiversity corridor? A Q-study in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa",10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.019,"Explore perceptions of what constitutes a successful biodiversity corridor in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa, in the frame of the scarcity of 'success' studies that focus on qualitative, normative choices in decisions about what to measure","Our results demonstrate that distinct understandings of what a corridor is— a planning tool, a process of governing, a territorialized place—produce divergent framings of ‘successful’ corridors that embody diverse, inherently contestable visions of conservation. These framings emerge from global conservation discourses and distinctly local ecologies, politics, cultures and histories. We conclude that visions of conservation success will be inherently plural, and that ininevitably contested and diverse social contexts success on any terms rests upon recognition of and negotiation with alternative visions. ||  DIFFERENCES: important tensions and differences between the framings in relation to a) conceptions of human-nature relationships, b) understandings of biodiversity corridors, and c) the implications of these varied understandings for visions and measures of conservationsuccess ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Land use,Management options,0-1,NA,20,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,10,10,0,1,"Key sectors and stakeholder groups responsible for designing, implementing, and participating in CFR biodiversity corridors: local and provincial government bodies, NGOs, landowners, and community representatives. To maximize the diversity of opinions, we ensured that participants were chosen from a range of landscape types, including urban, peri-urban and rural",Q-sorts generally took between 1 and 1½ h to complete,NA,NA,60-90 min/Q-sort,NA,Statements,"From a wide range of sources, including seven semi-structured interviews with conservation practitioners, scientists, landowners, and community representatives; observa- tional data fromCFR biodiversity corridor workshops andmeetings; scientific conference presentations and discussions at the 2013 Fynbos Forum and the 2013 International Sustainable Development Research Conference; published scientific articles; corridor newslet- ters, work plans and promotional material; and newspaper reports. The aim was to develop a comprehensive concourse that captured the diversity of opinions about success in CFR biodiversity corridors",160,NA,50,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),"‘A successful biodiversity corridor is one in which…: 1) ‘a last line of defence for biodiversity under threat’; 2) ‘a creative process to develop integrative, inclusive visions of biodiversity and humanwellbeing’; and 3) ‘a stimulus for place-based cultural identity and economic development’","EV > 1, at least 2 Qs-rts significantly loading, that explained significant degrees of variance, that they were distinct, had internal coherence and were relevant to existing discourses",NA,Not stated,Purposive and snowball,NA,Most like my point of view - least like my point of view,Like one's view,2.5,Cape Town,South Africa,Sub-national,-33.9248685,18.4240553,"Cape Town, South Africa","Cape Town, South Africa",city/town,Africa
"Sandbrook C.G., Fisher J.A., Vira B.",What do conservationists think about markets?,10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.009,Establish empirically what a sample of conservation professionals actually think about market instruments in conservation,"The results show that our respondents are circumspect about the growing use of markets in conservation. ||  Neither of these perspectives indicates strong, or uncritical, support for market approaches, and the views of our respondents appear to recognise the limitations of markets both in theory and practice. ||  Lack of a strong pro-markets perspective among our respondents, even though a number of them are associated with organisations that strongly advocate, and adopt, market-oriented conservation activ- ities ||  Those studying conservation need to be cautious about over-generalising the perspectives and values held by conservation professionals, as there appears to be far less consensus about the adoption of market-led approaches in this sector than has been suggested. ||  DIFFERENCES: ||  COMMONALITIES: considerable convergence towards a position that we label ‘cautious pragmatism’; consensus is based both on scepticism about the underlying rationales for mar- ket-based conservation and on the ways that markets operate in practice",Values,Critical reflection,0-1,Defining broadly conservation management options,12,NA,Face-to-face,NA,"sup- ports an understanding of the detailed composition of positions, making it suitable for our aim to understand the perspectives of conservation professionals",Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,8,4,0,1,"Participants drawn from delegates at the 25th International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB), seleceted if they ""had a strong view on the research topic"" after an informal conversation: one former and four current employees of large international conservation organisations, one social entrepreneur, one employee of an animal welfare organisation, one govern- ment advisor and four academics, of whom two were conservation scientists and two economists",Fieldwork between 5-9 December 2011,NA,0.166666666666667,NA,Very few details about the analytical decisions are explained in the paper. ,Statements,"Using a combination of literature review, interview data (derived from an author’s PhD study (2011)) and our own experience of extensive interactions with conservation practitioners and scholars",NA,Not stated,34,NA,2,NA, 'Factor analysis' (unspecified),(unspecified whether PCA or centroid),Not stated,(search of varimax/ judg/ manual does not return results),Unspecified (likely automatic),outcome focused enthusiasm; ideological scepticism,"Compared 2-5 factors: (1) the Eigenvalue should be greater than or equal to 1 (the Kaiser-Guttman criterion described by Watts and Stenner, 2012) and (2) there should be at least 2 Q-sorts with sig- nificant factor loadings for each factor (Brown",NA,Not stated,Purposive,NA,Disagree most strongly - agree most strongly,Agreement,2.83333333333333,Auckland,New Zealand (but global),Global,-36.8484597,174.7633315,"Auckland, New Zealand","Auckland, New Zealand",city/town,NA
"Fisher J.A., Brown K.","Reprint of ""Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical tool?""",10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.009,Examine how conservation practitioners and organisations are interpreting and using ecosystem services concepts and associated approaches,"We find that ES concepts are being adopted for instrumental imperatives to broaden constituencies and with an expectation of extending funding sources.  ||  We uncover concerns within conservation that the utilitarian emphases of ES concepts may compromise the ability to make non-utilitarian arguments for nature in the future. ||  ES ideas provide a shared language about flows of value, apparently accelerating the integration of conservation and the private sector. ||  The adoption of ES concepts cannot be presented as solely rhetorical, given that these increasingly underpin and inform planning tools and policy instruments. ||  These findings are important because the positioning of the conservation sector is under scrutiny ||  DIFFERENCES: Divergence between discourses is demonstrated by the fourthmost ||  divisiveQstatement(Q-23) regarding theutility of services concepts for thinking strategically about the environment ||  COMMONALITIES: NA",Values,Critical reflection,42922,NA,19,NA,Online,WebQ,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,1,1,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,Professionalswithin civil society organisations representing trop- ical conservation or forest peoples' interests,Data collection between August 2008 andMarch 2010,NA,24,NA,NA,Statements,"Not explicit, likely interviews",150,NA,33,NA,3,NA,Not stated,(search of principal or centroid does not return results),Not stated,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Pragmatist; sceptic; enthusiast,"""the criteria ofWatts and Stenner (2012)""",NA,Not stated,Purposive and snowball,NA,Disagree most strongly - agree most strongly,Agreement,1.73684210526316,NA,Worldwide,Global,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA
"Sickler J., Fraser J., Webler T., Reiss D., Boyle P., Lyn H., Lemcke K., Gruber S.",Social narratives surrounding dolphins: Q method study,10.1163/156853006778882457,"Determine social perspectives about dolphin intelligence, and how these beliefs might influence acceptance of scientific information, in preparation for development of an exhibit on the cognitive abilities of dolphins at the New York Aquarium","The perspectives found are used to inform the development of the visitors' experience at the zoo. ||  Agreement among all of these perspectives, particularly on the topic of communication, suggests powerful common ways to begin thinking about dolphin cognition. Conversely, the unique attributes of each perspective, and the potential for interaction between individuals with differing perspectives in an exhibit setting, provide opportunities to engage visitors in discussion about animal intelligence. ||  The finding that dogs are often used as a reference point within public dis- cussion of dolphin intelligence, proved to be unique but not clearly a useful schema for an exhibit context. ||  DIFFERENCES: adults differed in their acceptance of the extent of self-awareness, learning capacity, and affinity for humans shown by dolphins; children differed in belief regarding instinctive versus intentional behavior, mystical connections, and dolphins’ relationship to humans ||  COMMONALITIES: among adults, consensus emerged among adults on points about dolphins’ high intelligence and communication abilities; among children, consensus emerged about dolphins’ physical abilities",Marine,Management options,0-1,NA,39,39 adults/ 24 students of 8-12yrs,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,1,0,"People who live in and around the city, potential Aquarium visitors",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,"Interviews, content analysis of popular media",150,approx. 150/ approx. 80#,32,32|28,3,3|3,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Not labelled,based on the substantive importance of the factors (Brown 1980: 42).,NA,Not stated,Purposive,NA,What you least believe - what you most believe,Belief,0.794871794871795,New York,US,Sub-national,40.7127837,-74.0059413,"New York, US","New York, NY, USA",city/town,North America
"Sandbrook, C.G., Scales, I.R., Vira, B., Adams, W.M., ",Value plurality among conservation professionals,10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01592.x,Investigate the values that underpin conservation science held by international conservation professionals,"Our results provide an empirical challenge to the portrayal of conservation as a monolithic activity ||  The junior conservation professionals attending the conference did not share a unifying set of core values; rather, they held a complex series of ideas and a plurality of opinions about conservation and how it should be pursued.  ||  This diversity of values empirically challenges recent proposals for conservation professionals to unite behind a single philosophy. Attempts to forge an artificial consensus may be counterproductive to the overall goals conservation professionals are pursuing. ||  By acknowledging different viewpoints, we believe conservation actors can build more honest and ultimately effective relationships with each other and the wider public. ||  DIFFERENCES: widely divergent views on conservation values, priorities, strategies, and actions ||  COMMONALITIES: no consensus statements",Values,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,64,64 (17% of those invited),Online,WebQ,provides a systematic and rigorous way to examine human subjectivity,Not stated,There is inevitably some subjectivity associated with the way in which results from Q methodology are interpreted,Not stated,"Attempts have been made to understand conservation attitudes through either quantitative meth- odswith large numbers of respondents, such as attitudes surveys (Winter et al. 2005), or through qualitativemeth- ods that focus on an analysis of key discourses in the field (Nelson 2007). Both approaches have caveats, the former because it can fail to capture the complexities inherent in the way people think and the viewpoints of the indi- vidual (Brown 1996), and the latter because the number of respondents is typically small. Use of Q methodology provides a systematic and rigorous way to examine hu- mansubjectivity",Survey/ discourse analysis,0,0,0,0,1,0.3,0.7,0,1,"Conservation professionals who attended the annual Student Conference in Conservation Science at the University of Cambridge (U.K.) in 2008 and 2009: 27 were delegates at the 2008 conference, and 37 participated in the 2009 conference. 66% were students. Sixty- four percent stated their home continent was Europe, and over 23% were from Asia, South America, and Africa combined",Data collection between 13 March and 27 April 2009,NA,1.5,NA,"The authors are very honest about potential researchers bias, and invite the reader to make their own interpretation",Statements,"Authors' engagement with professional networks, the literature, and cor- respondence on listservs, all of which reflected their cumulative experience with conservation research and policy making in the United Kingdom, Africa, and South Asia. Each author produced a list of possible statements.",73,NA,32,NA,4,NA,Not stated,"(""we an- alyzed factors in the correlation matrix (i.e., extracted factors with either principal components analysis or the centroid method)"")",Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Not labelled,"Amount of variation explained, plus sensitivity analysis included an examination of Eigenvalues and the number of defining sorts and statements in each factor and our personal judgment of the meaning of each factor",NA,Not stated,Self-selected,Non random internet-based self-selection process,Agree the least - agree the most,Agreement,0.5,"Cambridge, UK",UK,Global,52.205337,0.121817,"Cambridge, UK","Cambridge, UK",city/town,Europe
"Davies, B.B., Hodge, I.D., ",Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures,10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.013,Understand the evolution of attitudes (identified in the study by Davies & Hodge 2007) over time,"A rare longitudinal Q study. Results show changes in perspectives of farmers across time. ||  The set of farmers’ perspectives identified in 2001 appears to be still adequate to summarise the range of views present in 2008; thus substantially new sets of concerns do not appear to be forming over this period. ||  The proportions of farmers aligning themselves with particular perspectives appear to have shifted, indicating some clear reorientations of attitudes. ||  These shifts indicate a small number of specific directions of change, oriented towards more productivist positions and away from more environmental interests.",Farming,Management options,0-1,NA,34,34 (out of 102 approached in the previous study),Post mail,NA,Not explicitly stated. Likely explained in their paper of 2007,"Q method has the advantage of working with small samples, based on the principle that there are a limited number of coherent perceptual frameworks or constructs which can be used to describe any population, though these may be combined in a number of ways in practice","Attitudinal variations reflect coherent shifts observable amongst the sample of repeat survey respondents, who represent a subsection of the original survey respondents; The survey itself was not intended to be statistically representative of the farming population, and the repeat sub-sample was itself self-selecting to those who agreed to take part in the re-survey ||  to what extent these movements in attachment to particular positions are merely short term oscillations, longer term oscillations, ormore or less permanent changes in the ways of thinking of individuals ||  the original Q sorts were completed following a longer structured interview related to farming and environmental policy. It has to be recognised that this created a particular context for the Q sort, and it is therefore conceivable that some of the original respondents’ orientations were more an artefact of this survey context ||  Q studies are constrained by necessity by the choice of the original Q statement set, some themes may be eclipsed in absolute relevance by new or emerging issues ||  small sample sizes employed create respondent attrition concerns in longitudinal research ||  The interpretive nature of Qmethod in relation to the stages of initial statement selection, extraction of factors and criterion sort interpretation also presents further challenges for use of the method in policy research","a potential further step would be reflection on the perspectives identified by respondents themselves [...] respondent-led typologies. This would enable respondents to reflect on whether they would recognise both their own orientations within the perspectives characterised by the method, and the range of perspectives across the wider agricultural community","This approach is therefore significantly different from index scale measures which independently establish a measurement instrument against which a single characteristic is measured. In a Q study, by completing a Q sort a participant is identifying his or her own unique perspective on the relative importance of the issues presented in the Q statements",Likert,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,0,Repeated sample from that of Davies & Hodge 2007,Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"They don't analyse the data as usual, but rather correlate directly the two responses of each individual",Statements,As in Davies & Hodge 2007,NA,As in Davies & Hodge 2007,NA,As in Davies & Hodge 2007,5,NA,Not performed,(see Note),None ,Not performed (see comment),Not performed (see comment),As in Davies & Hodge 2007,Not performed (see comment),NA,Not performed (see comment),Purposive and self-selected,NA,As in davies & hodge 2007,NA,0.970588235294118,Eastern UK (principally East Anglia),UK,Sub-national,52.3555177,-1.1743197,"East Anglia, UK","England, UK",state/province,Europe
"Hamadou, Moula, Siddo, Issa, Marichatou, Leroy, Antoine-Moussiaux",Mapping stakeholder viewpoints in biodiversity management: an application in Niger using Q methodology,10.1007/s10531-016-1175-x,Examine the viewpoints of stakeholders in the management and conservation of farm animal biodiversity in Niger,"Three distinct stakeholder viewpoints on the importance of biodiversity in agriculture and animal husbandry, the balance between progress and preservation and the effectiveness of different methods of conservation. ||  Understanding the different answers and weight attributed to each of the components of the dilemma will guide awareness-raising campaigns and help to pinpoint divergent interests among stakeholders. ||  This study also reopens the debates on the topics of indigenous vs external breeds and on the value of indigenous diversity. ||  Understanding the different answers and weight attributed to each of the components of the dilemma will guide awareness-raising campaigns and help to pinpoint divergent interests among stakeholders. ||  DIFFERENCES: different discourses are defined that all appear divided by the same dilemma between conservation and economic development; and on the different methods of conservation ||  COMMONALITIES: apparent consensus on the importance of biodiversity that is obviously a promoted topic in the country",Farming,Management options,0-1,NA,20,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),can help to identify the characteristics of discourses on the importance of this biodiversity and its conservation,Not stated,Not stated,"Each statement will have to be sorted by the interviewee according to its level of agreement with this statement relative to other statements, which makes the Q methodology fundamentally different from standard opinion surveys",Surveys,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"From among livestock professionals, researchers and local authorities: four represented breeders, four researchers (two from the university and two from the National Institute of Agronomic Research) and three represented herders’ associations",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"The ranking of statement was done ‘a la’ Likert scale, not really over a board",Statements,"on the basis of an extensive review of the academic literature on biodiversity, media and pilot interviews with people working on rural development and animal breeding professionals",NA,NA,48,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic pre-flagging,1. conservationists; 2. moderate productivists; 3. productivists,"EV >1 , at least two defining sorts, interpretability",0.62,0.62,Purposive,NA,Totally disagree - fully agree,Agreement,2.4,Niamey,Niger,Sub-national,13.5115963,2.1253854,"Niamey, Niger","Niamey, Niger",city/town,Africa
"Holmes, Sandbrook, Fisher",Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new conservation debate,10.1111/cobi.12811,"Empirical examination of perspectives about the future direction of biodiversity conservation, particularly centred on the merits of a so-called “New Conservation”. Proponents of the New Conservation advocate a series of positions on key conservation ideas, such as the importance of human-dominated landscapes and conservation engagement with capitalism","Our results reveal important differences between the New Conservation debate in the literature and views held within a wider, but still limited, conservation community, and demonstrate the existence of at least one viewpoint (Factor 1) that is almost absent from the published debate. We hope that the fuller understanding this paper presents of the variety of views that exist, but have not yet been heard, will improve the quality and tone of debates on the New Conservation.",Values,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,30,"Purposive sample to choose a range of seniority, based on initial conversations to explore whether they had a position in the debate, and stopped sampling when saturation was detected",Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,18,12,0,1,"Attendees at the 2015 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB), held in Montpellier, France, 2nd - 6th August, 2015, from two thousand delegates from around 100 countries. Breakdown by continent; 13 from NGO, 17 from academia; 18 researchers, 5 practitioners, 7 both",Four days of fieldwork,NA,7.5,NA,NA,Statements,"from the peer reviewed literature that introduces, critiques and defends ideas associated with the New Conservation (see Appendix S1 for a full list of reviewed literature). To identify material to review, we started with the key articles that launched the New Conservation debate (e.g. Kareiva et al. 2012; Kareiva & Marvier, 2012), and then used Google Scholar to identify all articles citing this work, discarding those that were clearly not relevant. We selected candidate Q statements from the articles covering the major themes of the New Conservation literature",108,NA,38,NA,3,NA,Centroid,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic,"Factor 1 is in favour of conservation to benefit people but opposes links with capitalism and corporations, Factor 2 favours biocentric approaches but with less emphasis on protecting wilderness than prominent opponents of New Conservation, and Factor 3 has strong links to the published New Conservation perspective but places less emphasis on increasing human wellbeing as a goal of conservation",following criteria in Watts and Stenner (2012; 92-110). This was based on a holistic judgement of the quantitative results of the analysis and our qualitative interpretation based on our understanding of the respondents and their viewpoints,NA,Not stated,Purposive,NA,"""Most like I think"" - ""least like I think""",Like one's way of thinking,1.26666666666667,Montpellier,France,Sub-national,43.610769,3.876716,"Montpellier, France","Montpellier, France",city/town,Europe
Huge et al.,"Mapping discourses using Q methodology in Matang Mangrove Forest, Malaysia",10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.046,Map the diversity of subjective viewpoints among a range of stakeholders on the management of Matang Mangrove Forest in peninsular Malaysia,"The ‘optimization’, ‘change for the better’ and ‘business as usual’ discourses all contain original elements but also exhibit similarities which we term ‘points of connection’ ||  No obvious polarization ||  discourses seem to be situated along a continuum ||  These discourses may enrich and improve the current management approach in a constructive and non-conflictual setting ||  provide opportunities for dialogue, mutual learning and experimenting",Values,Management options,0-1,NA,29,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),"Face-to-face (not explicity, but likely)",Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),allowed us to map and characterize the discourses,"interviewing some respondents and making them use the Q sorting template proved difficult to impossible because of social, educational and cultural barriers ||  The will of some respondents to ‘please’ the research team was apparent in some instances ||  Designing and administering a Q is a work of progressing insight, which means that with hindsight, some statements could have been formulated differently and the forced distribution provided to the participants may have included more scoring options",Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Respondents were of different professional, social and geographical origins and included locals (9, local leaders, charcoal and pole contractors, ecotourism entre- preneurs); government officials (10, from resp. the Forestry Department, the Fisheries Department and the Wildlife Department); NGO staff (5, both in the Matang area and in Kuala Lumpur) and scientists (5, from universities and from the Forestry Research Insti- tute of Malaysia (FRIM))",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,Review of scientific literature and preparatory interviews,159,NA,48,NA,3,NA,Centroid,NA,Varimax,NA,Manual flagging,"i. optimization, stressing the need to improve the current overall satisfactory management regime; ii. ’change for the better’, focused on increasingly participatory management and on ecotourism; iii. conservative ‘business as usual’","5 factors per 6/7 participants, explanatory power and theoretical importance of the perspective (to retain F4), Kaiser-Gutman EV > 1, 2 significantly loading Q sorts per factor",0.41,0.41,Snowball,NA,Least agreement - strongest agreement,Agreement,1.6551724137931,Matang Mangrove Forest,Malaysia,Sub-national,4.8403973,100.6359968,"Matang Mangrove Forest, Malaysia","Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, Kampung Kuala Sepetang, 34650 Kuala Sepetang, Perak, Malaysia",establishment,Asia
Neff,What research should be done and why?Four competing visions among ecologists,10.1890/100035,Assess what ecologists view as important work for their discipline and how they arrive at these conclusions,"Factor 1: document problems and communicate findings to compel change; nFactor 2: ecological theory that includes humans will guide policy, when communicated; Factor 3: stick to the science – build theory, but don’t interact directly with policy; Factor 4: ecology should inform restoration and management",Values,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,77,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,1,1,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Participants at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America in July and August 2008, and 10 participants from among ecology faculty and graduate students at a research-intensive university in the US",Not stated,NA,NA,NA,"Not exactly about conservation, but about ecology research",Statements,"From the literature: from 31 scientific and policy documents written by ecolo- gists, their professional associations, funding agencies, and the US National Research Council",540,NA,32,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified,"Factor 1: document problems and communicate findings to compel change; nFactor 2: ecological theory that includes humans will guide policy, when communicated; Factor 3: stick to the science – build theory, but don’t interact directly with policy; Factor 4: ecology should inform restoration and management",EV screeplot,NA,Not stated,Not stated (likely purposive),"""With the aid of a research team""",“Most agree” to “most disagree”,Agreement,0.415584415584416,NA,US,Global,37.09024,-95.712891,US,United States,country,North America
"Zabala, Pascual, Garcia Barrios (In press)",Payments for pioneers? Revisiting the role of external rewards for sustainable innovation under heterogeneous motivations,10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.011,"Analyse the heterogeneity of motivations to adopt silvopastoral practices, a social-ecological innovation for soil conservation and carbon emission reduction","self-sufficient pioneers, environmentally-conscious followers and payment-dependent conservatives",Farming,Management options,6,NA,32,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,1,1,"Participants in a conservation programme; factorial design to select participants from a variety of livelihood, socio-economic characteristics, and performance in the programme","Fieldwork, two weeks between Aug 2010 and Jan 2011. Each Q-sorting took 30min-2hr",NA,0.444444444444444,NA,NA,Statements,"based on expert consultation, in-depth interviews with four farmers, previous literature, and after extensive fieldwork gathering quantitative and qualitative data on livelihoods, as well as questionnaires about stated preferences on silvopastoral practices to 103 heads of households",66,NA,26,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic pre-flagging,1. self-sufficient pioneer; 2. environmentally-conscious follower; 3. payment-dependent conservative,Standard criteria in Q (Watts & Stenner 2012) and a parsimonious compromise,0.54,0.54,Purposive,(36 sampled),Most disagree - most agree,Agreement,0.787878787878788,"ejido Los Angeles, municipio Villaflores, Chiapas",Mexico,Sub-national,16.5216699,-93.2175,"ejido Los Angeles, municipio Villaflores, Chiapas, Mexico","Los Ángeles, Chis., Mexico",city/town,Latin America
"Benitez-Capistros, F., Hugé, J., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N.,",Exploring conservation discourses in the Galapagos Islands: A case study of the Galapagos giant tortoises,10.1007/s13280-016-0774-9,Contextualize conservation for science and decision making and to explore the multidimensionality of the conservation concept in Galapagos,NA,Wildlife,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,28,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),"a reliable method- ology which can be replicated, for comparing and studying conservation discourses in different contexts; and possibly also as an approach to foster our understanding of how elements of global conservation discourses can strongly influence or even shape local conservation discourses",Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,16,12,0,1,"Average years lived in Galapagos, place of birh, working sector, working area",NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,(here gathered throughout 54 interviews in the four inhabited Islands and through a literature review,420,NA,60,NA,4,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic pre-flagging,(1) Multi-actor governance; (2) giant tortoise and ecosystems conservation; (3) community governance; and (4) market and tourism centred,"EV, significant loadings, number of respondents loading, scree test, parallel analysis, Humphrey's",NA,EV are given,NA,NA,"""Agreement or disagreement""",Agreement,2.14285714285714,Galapagos,Ecuador,Sub-national,-0.9537691,-90.9656019,NA,"Galápagos Islands, Ecuador",state/province,Latin America
"Blanchard, L., Sandbrook, C.G., Fisher, J., Vira, B.",Investigating consistency of a pro-market perspective amongst conservationists,10.4103/0972-4923.183650,Interrogate the extent to which moves toward market-based conservation resonates with the values held by conservation professionals. The study investigates the consistency of the perspectives identified in the earlier study,a relatively consistent set of pro-market perspectives have permeated the thinking of decision makers and staff of conservation organisations. It also lends some support to the suggestion that a transnational conservation elite may be driving this uptake of market approaches.,Values,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,17,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,1,11,6,0,1,"Conservation professionals working for conservation organisations located in and around Cambridge, UK",February and March 2013,NA,2,NA,Replication of the Sandbrook study of 2011,Statements,literature review and the authors’ extensive interactions with conservation practitioners and organisations,NA,Not stated,34,NA,3,NA,Not stated,NA,Not stated,NA,Automatic pre-flagging,NA,"EV >1, number of flagged Q sorts",NA,NA,Not stated (likely purposive),NA,"""strongly disagree to strongly agree""",Agreement,2,"Cambridge, UK",UK,Global,52.205337,0.121817,NA,"Cambridge, UK",city/town,Europe
"Hagan, K., Williams, S.,","Oceans of Discourses: Utilizing Q Methodology for Analyzing Perceptions on Marine Biodiversity Conservation in the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve, South Africa",10.3389/fmars.2016.00188,"Understand perceptions regarding marine biodiversity conservation among different stakeholders of the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve, South Africa",NA,Marine,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,15,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,"Unlike standard survey analysis, Q methodology is not aimed at establishing patterns across individual characteristics such as age, gender and class. Instead it looks at patterns within and across individuals by focusing on their discursive understanding of a particular issue. It",Surveys,1,1,0,Participant observation,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Eleven key informants were selected; four scientists (two social, two natural scientists), four fishers and the three CapeNature managers responsible for the KBR","The Q sorts and interviews were set up to be no longer than 1 h, therefore the amount of statements had to be reduced accordingly",NA,NA,60,NA,Statements,"key informant interviews with two representatives from each stakeholder group, as well as interviews and informal conversations with othermembers of the identified stakeholders",NA,"""hundreds""",23,NA,2,NA,Centroid,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified,"Science discourse, livelihoods discourse",EV; composite reliability; number of flagged respondents,NA,NA,Purposive,NA,"""Agree to disagree""",Agreement,1.53333333333333,Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve,South Africa,Sub-national,-34.2923379,18.9193685,NA,"Kogelberg Nature Reserve, South Africa",establishment,Africa
"Jacobsen, K.S., Linnell, J.D.C.,",Perceptions of environmental justice and the conflict surrounding large carnivore management in Norway ??? Implications for conflict management,10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.041,"Investigate the perceptions of justice regarding the carnivore conflict in Norway among sheep farmers, environmentalists and indigenous reindeer herders","Carnivore Advocates (containing most environmentalists), the Carnivore Sceptics (containing most of the sheep farmers and reindeer herders) and the Bureaucratic Carnivore Sceptics (containing the remaining sheep farmers and a reindeer herder)",Wildlife,Conflict resolution,0-1,NA,42,94% of 45,Online,NA,Compared with surveys,Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,Traditional survey research measures patterns between people across variables selected apri- ori by the researcher. Instead Q method measures the interrelation of subjective statements across individuals through statistical fac- tor analysis allowing for the holistic modelling and comparison of dominant discourses,Surveys,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Individuals who were practising sheep farmers, reindeer herders or environmentalists",NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,"We used the structured statement approach to Qmethodology, carried out according to the principles of Fisher's balanced-block design. collected from the HWC literature (to make sure that the justice issues most commonly identified by previous studies on the causes of HWC would be represented) and fromthe Norwegian Envi- ronment Agency's news archives",NA,NA,45,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified,"Carnivore Advocates, the Carnivore Sceptics and the Bureaucratic Carnivore Sceptics","EV >1, number of flagged Q sorts",0.58,58% (Factor 1: 29%; Factor 2: 23%; Factor 3: 6%,Purposive,NA,"""most disagree most agree""",Agreement,1.07142857142857,NA,Norway,National,60.472024,8.468946,NA,Norway,country,Europe
"O’Riordan, M., McDonagh, J., Mahon, M.,",Local knowledge and environmentality in legitimacy discourses on Irish peatlands regulation,10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.036,Dissect multi-subjectivities on local environmental knowledge underlying peatland conservation through the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive in Ireland,NA,Land use,Policy appraisal,42922,NA,16,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not stated,Not stated,Not stated,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,Turf cutters,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,Interviews. Lengthy iterative process which adopted the naturalistic approach to statement gen- eration through attention to key stakeholders’ construction of the debate,NA,NA,36,NA,3,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified,F1): Cultural resistors: “only a very small percentage of the way of life has changed”; 2): Market pragmatists: “We think it’s kind of the cheapest to relocate”; 3): Compensation-seekers: “we stopped [cutting] when it was first mooted and we never got compensated in any way”,"Humphrey rule, comprehensiveness",0.54,NA,Purposive,NA,"""most disagree most agree""",Agreement,2.25,NA,Ireland,National,53.1423672,-7.6920536,NA,Ireland,establishment,Europe
"Carmenta, Zabala, Daely, Phelps",Perceptions across scales of governance and the Indonesian peatland fires,10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.001,"Understand perceptions about the costs and the solutions to peatland fires in Indonesia, across stakeholders","Many of the contemporary fire-management initiatives were perceived as among the most effective interventions overall, but were also the most controversial between groups. Clear consensus areas were related to the shared concerns for the local health impacts and the potential of government support for fire-free alternatives as a solution pathway",Forests,Management options,0-1,NA,219,NA,Face-to-face,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Landless farmers, small land holders, large landholders, absentee landowners, policymakers etc.",NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,Statements,NA,NA,NA,30,30|40,4,4|5,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Automatic pre-flagging with manual inspection,"BB1: Fires burden companies, BB2: Fires burden small-scale farmers, BB3: Fires both burden and benefit small-scale farmers, BB4: Fires yield local conflict and impacts abroad; FMI1: Strengthen firefighting, FMI2: Employ hard measures against large actors, FMI3: Raise awareness to prevent fires, FMI4: Employ hard measures against all actors","Combination of EV, interpretability and parsimony",0.47,47% | 39%,Purposive,NA,Least important - most important | least effective - most effective,Importance,0.136986301369863,Sumatra,"Indonesia, Singapore",Multi-country,-0.589724,101.3431058,"Sumatra, Indonesia","Sumatra, Indonesia",establishment,Asia
Berry et al.,Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation,10.1007/s10531-016-1173-z,Understand how different conservation practitioners in nine European countries argue for conservation,"there was a plurality of views about biodiversity and its conservation. A moral argument and some arguments around the intrinsic and ecological value of biodiversity were held by all stakeholder groups. They also shared the view that species valuation does not justify the destruction of nature. However, there were also some differences within and between the groups, which primarily reflected the espousal of either ecocentric or anthropocentric viewpoints. Moral arguments and those around biodiversity’s intrinsic and ecological value could potentially serve as a starting point for building consensus among conservation practitioners",Values,Critical reflection,0-1,NA,121,NA,Unspecified (likely face-to-face),NA,"it enables elicitation of the personal views of stakeholders involved in conservation on arguments associated with biodiversity conservation, and the identification of common- alities and differences in their perspectives in a quantitative manner",Not reviewed,Not reviewed,Not reviewed,Not reviewed,NA,0,0,0,0,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Country and occupation (social and natural science researchers, environmental non-Governmental organisations and decision-makers)",NA,NA,12,NA,They analyse each group of actors separately,Statements,literature review,180,180,42,NA,7,2+2+3,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),"Each combination of researcher, NGO and decision-maker with intrinsic value and utilitarian value, plus mixed","variance explained, flagged Q sorts, correlations between Q-sorts",0.42,Variance explained for each of the three groups,Not stated (likely purposive),NA,"""Like I think""",Like one's view,0.3471,NA,Nine European countries,Multi-country,15.2551187,54.5259614,NA,Europe,NA,Europe
Rust,Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human–carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-methodology and Delphi exercise,10.1017/S0030605315001179,Investigate whether a diverse range of stakeholders could agree on how to mitigate conflict between carnivores and livestock farmers in Namibia,"A strong consensus was reached on using conservation education and husbandry training to reduce livestock depredation. Two narratives emerged: one group preferred non-lethal methods to manage the conflict, whereas a smaller group preferred lethal measures",Wildlife,Conflict resolution,0-1,NA,29,"35 first, 32 second, 29 third, 66% response rate first",Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not reviewed,Not reviewed,Not reviewed,Not reviewed,NA,1,0,0,Delphi,0,NA,NA,0,1,"Farmers, conservationists, landowners, etc.",NA,NA,3,NA,"Participants sorted in three rounds. However, they didn’t sort, they ranked in a 7 point Likert scale",Statements,"content analysis of newspapers, interviews",128,50+78,34,NA,6,2 x 3 times,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),1. Non-lethal narrative; 2. Lethal narrative,EV > 1,0.51,51+45+57,Purposive,NA,"""strongly disagree to strongly agree""",Agreement,1.1724,NA,Namibia,National,-22.95764,18.4904099999999,NA,Namibia,NA,Africa
"Nordhagen, Pascual, Drucker","Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea",10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.025,Examine the motivations for growing diverse crops among semi-subsistence rural farmers in Papua New Guinea,"Marketer-Consumers (A), Pragmatists (B), Proud Exhibitionists (C), Novelty Seekers (D), and Secondary Farmers (E)",Farming,Management options,42857,NA,92,NA,Face-to-face,NA,Not explicitly stated (but rather a standard description of what the methodology does),Not reviewed,Not reviewed,Not reviewed,Not reviewed,NA,0,0,0,0,1,0.46,0.54,1,1,Farmers,NA,NA,NA,NA,Visualization of consensus and distinguishing in spider graphs,Statements,"previous fieldwork with surveys and focus group discussions, newspapers",NA,NA,31,NA,5,NA,PCA,NA,Varimax,NA,Unspecified (likely automatic),Marketer-Consumers (A); Pragmatists (B); Proud Exhibitionists (C); Novelty Seekers (D); and Secondary Farmers (E),Kaiser criterion (flagged Q sorts),NA,NA,Random sampling,NA,"""Don't agree at all - agree very much""",Agreement,0.336956,NA,Papua New Guinea,National,-6.314993,143.95555,Papua New Guinea,Papua New Guinea,NA,Asia