IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v141y2024ics0264837724001200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping of community perspectives on land acquisition for biofuel investment in northern Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Kupabado, Moses Mananyi
  • Mensah-Bonsu, Akwasi

Abstract

We apply Q methodology, a model with a qualitative background, albeit with rigorous quantitative analysis, to map community perspectives (concerns, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and perceptions) towards the acquisition of communal land for a biofuel project in northern Ghana. We extracted four community perspectives, in the order of importance as follows: (1) pro-biofuel project, but pessimistic (2) against the biofuel project (pro-environmental) (3) strong against and (4) optimistic. Taken together, the perspectives suggest the local people believe the biofuel project has no potential to improve their livelihoods, meanwhile, there is a consensus that the project destroyed trees of economic importance and provided poor working conditions for the local employees. We recommend (1) the establishment of enforceable economic and social contracts between the employees, local land users and the biofuel investors (2) direct monetary compensation for the affected communal land users (3) investigation of allegations of late or partial-payment of salaries of the biofuel project’s employees (4) future considerations for acquiring communal land should include broad community consultations and incorporate the local land users’ interests, concerns, and viewpoints and (5) the local bioenergy policy of the government of Ghana must include checks on communal land sale decisions, which directly or indirectly impact the welfare of the people.

Suggested Citation

  • Kupabado, Moses Mananyi & Mensah-Bonsu, Akwasi, 2024. "Mapping of community perspectives on land acquisition for biofuel investment in northern Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:141:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724001200
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724001200
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    3. Sorola, Matthew, 2022. "Q methodology to conduct a critical study in accounting: A Q study on accountants’ perspectives of social and environmental reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Giovannetti, Giorgia & Ticci, Elisa, 2016. "Determinants of biofuel-oriented land acquisitions in Sub-Saharan Africa," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 678-687.
    5. Ahmed, Abubakari, 2021. "Biofuel feedstock plantations closure and land abandonment in Ghana: New directions for land studies in Sub-Saharan Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Zhao, Qiankun & Cai, Ximing & Mischo, William & Ma, Liyuan, 2020. "How do the research and public communities view biofuel development?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Amigun, B. & Musango, J.K. & Brent, A.C., 2011. "Community perspectives on the introduction of biodiesel production in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2502-2508.
    8. Amigun, Bamikole & Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Stafford, William, 2011. "Biofuels and sustainability in Africa," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 1360-1372, February.
    9. I. T. Jolliffe, 1972. "Discarding Variables in a Principal Component Analysis. I: Artificial Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 21(2), pages 160-173, June.
    10. Goetz, Ariane & German, Laura & Hunsberger, Carol & Schmidt, Oscar, 2017. "Do no harm? Risk perceptions in national bioenergy policies and actual mitigation performance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 776-790.
    11. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    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. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    2. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    3. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    4. Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    6. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    7. 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.
    8. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    9. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    10. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2020. "Perceptions of deforestation in the Argentinean Chaco: Combining Q-method and environmental justice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    11. Robin Hickman & Neil Lopez & Mengqiu Cao & Beatriz Mella Lira & Jose Bienvenido Manuel Biona, 2018. "“I Drive outside of Peak Time to Avoid Traffic Jams—Public Transport Is Not Attractive Here.” Challenging Discourses on Travel to the University Campus in Manila," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    12. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Rajé, Fiona, 2007. "Using Q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 467-477, November.
    14. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.
    15. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    16. Loring, Philip A. & Hinzman, Megan S., 2018. "“They're All Really Important, But…”: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 367-377.
    17. Matthew Cotton, 2015. "Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1944-1962, September.
    18. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Cotton Matthew & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Zabala, Aiora & Pascual, Unai & García-Barrios, Luis, 2017. "Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 234-245.
    20. Chang, Ruidong & Cao, Yuan & Lu, Yujie & Shabunko, Veronika, 2019. "Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions? - Revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 307-318.

    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:lauspo:v:141:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724001200. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.