IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/enviro/v3y2015i4p1-10n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran

Author

Listed:
  • Ghoochani Omid M.

    (Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Iran)

  • Bakhshi Azadeh

    (Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Iran)

  • Cotton Matthew

    (Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom)

  • Nejad Azar Hashemi

    (Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Iran)

  • Ghanian Mansour

    (Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Iran)

Abstract

Achieving sustainable development in different regional and cultural contexts is dependent, in part, upon an understanding of key actors’ underlying environmental, social and economic values. The social research technique called Q-methodology presents an effective means to explore such values as a matter of discourse: revealing the typologies of stakeholder perspectives within a given debate. Q-method involves factor analysis of participant rank-ordered preselected statements on a topic. The resultant factors are then reinterpreted as social discourses. In this study we use Q-methodology to explore the environmental values of Health Safety and Environmental (HSE) managers in petrochemical companies in Khuzestan province in southwest Iran. Khuzestan is a key region of petrochemical product development, with significant associated environmental pollution effects. Understanding HSE managers’ attitudes to environmental protection is of value in predicting broader environmental impacts to the region, given the relative importance of their role in regulating the environmental performance of this industry. Our results reveal four distinct and varied perspectives on environmental protection labelled: ‘Environmental stewardship’, ‘Environmental presentism’, ‘Technological optimism’ and ‘Enlightened anthropocentrism’. We then discuss how these four emergent perspectives correspond to broader environmental discourses as categorized by John Dryzek: i.e. green rationalism, economic rationalism, prometheanism and ecological modernization respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:enviro:v:3:y:2015:i:4:p:1-10:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/environ-2015-0068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/environ-2015-0068
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/environ-2015-0068?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hornsby, Jeffrey S. & Kuratko, Donald F. & Zahra, Shaker A., 2002. "Middle managers' perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 253-273, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Arthur P. J. Mol, 2002. "Ecological Modernization and the Global Economy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 2(2), pages 92-115, May.
    5. John Gowdy & Jon D. Erickson, 2005. "The approach of ecological economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(2), pages 207-222, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Patricia Perkins, 2007. "Feminist Ecological Economics and Sustainability," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 227-244, December.
    8. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    9. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Unknown, 2005. "Forward," 2005 Conference: Slovenia in the EU - Challenges for Agriculture, Food Science and Rural Affairs, November 10-11, 2005, Moravske Toplice, Slovenia 183804, Slovenian Association of Agricultural Economists (DAES).
    12. Costanza, Robert, 1989. "What is ecological economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, February.
    13. Dibrell, Clay & Craig, Justin B. & Hansen, Eric N., 2011. "How managerial attitudes toward the natural environment affect market orientation and innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 401-407, April.
    14. Matthew David Cotton & Ahmed A. Mahroos-Alsaiari, 2015. "Key actor perspectives on stakeholder engagement in Omani Environmental Impact Assessment: an application of Q-Methodology," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(1), pages 91-112, January.
    15. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    16. Hosseini, Seyed Ehsan & Andwari, Amin Mahmoudzadeh & Wahid, Mazlan Abdul & Bagheri, Ghobad, 2013. "A review on green energy potentials in Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 533-545.
    17. Iizuka, Michiko, 2000. "Role of environmental awareness in achieving sustainable development," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 31562, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    18. Robin Curry & John Barry & Andew McClenaghan, 2013. "Northern Visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(5), pages 624-649, June.
    19. 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.
    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. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    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. 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.
    4. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & Ynke Feenstra, 2015. "How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    10. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    11. Buckley, Cathal, 2012. "Implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in the Republic of Ireland — A view from the farm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 29-36.
    12. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    13. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    14. Remig, Moritz C., 2017. "Structured pluralism in ecological economics — A reply to Peter Söderbaum's commentary," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 533-537.
    15. Turhan, Ethemcan, 2016. "Value-based adaptation to climate change and divergent developmentalisms in Turkish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 140-148.
    16. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    18. Zagata, Lukas & Uhnak, Tomas & Hrabák, Jiří, 2021. "Moderately radical? Stakeholders' perspectives on societal roles and transformative potential of organic agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Sarah-Louise Ruder & Sophia Rose Sanniti, 2019. "Transcending the Learned Ignorance of Predatory Ontologies: A Research Agenda for an Ecofeminist-Informed Ecological Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-29, March.

    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:vrs:enviro:v:3:y:2015:i:4:p:1-10:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.