IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v57y2006i2p190-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Swedeen, Paula

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:57:y:2006:i:2:p:190-208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(05)00188-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    2. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    3. Dryzek, John S., 1997. "Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195106008, Decembrie.
    4. O'Hara, Sabine U., 1996. "Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 95-107, February.
    5. Strassert, Gunter & Prato, Tony, 2002. "Selecting farming systems using a new multiple criteria decision model: the balancing and ranking method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 269-277, February.
    6. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    7. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    8. Faucheux, Sylvie & Froger, Geraldine, 1995. "Decision-making under environmental uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 29-42, October.
    9. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    10. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    11. Muller, Adrian, 2003. "A flower in full blossom?: Ecological economics at the crossroads between normal and post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 19-27, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Farrell, Katharine N., 2011. "Framing the Valuation of Ecosystem Services: A Theoretical Discussion of the Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Articulating Values that Reflect the Economic Contributions of Ecological Phen," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114362, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Schiller, Frank, 2009. "Linking material and energy flow analyses and social theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1676-1686, April.
    3. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Lehtonen, Markku, 2009. "OECD organisational discourse, peer reviews and sustainable development: An ecological-institutionalist perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 389-397, December.
    5. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    6. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    7. Lo, Alex, 2014. "The Problem of Methodological Pluralism in Ecological Economics," MPRA Paper 49543, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Saez, Carmen Almansa & Requena, Javier Calatrava, 2007. "Reconciling sustainability and discounting in Cost-Benefit Analysis: A methodological proposal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 712-725, February.
    9. Rodela, Romina & Cundill, Georgina & Wals, Arjen E.J., 2012. "An analysis of the methodological underpinnings of social learning research in natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 16-26.
    10. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    11. Gowdy, John M. & Ferreri Carbonell, Ada, 1999. "Toward consilience between biology and economics: the contribution of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 337-348, June.
    12. Chiesura, Anna & de Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 219-231, March.
    13. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Luks, Fred & Siebenhuner, Bernd, 2007. "Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 418-426, August.
    15. Ramos-Martin, Jesus, 2003. "Empiricism in ecological economics: a perspective from complex systems theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 387-398, October.
    16. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    18. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Becker, Christian, 2006. "The human actor in ecological economics: Philosophical approach and research perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 17-23, November.
    20. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:57:y:2006:i:2:p:190-208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.