IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v18y1999i3p361-388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management

Author

Listed:
  • Toddi A. Steelman

    (Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, Denver)

  • Lynn A. Maguire

    (Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University)

Abstract

Many policy practitioners and theorists have argued that value-free, objective solutions to policy problems do not exist. While participant values and subjective viewpoints influence policy problems, empirically determining participant perspectives and preferences has been a daunting task. This paper demonstrates how Q-methodology, a technique for systematically revealing subjective perspectives, can contribute to better problem identification and definition; estimation and specification of policy option; and selection, implementation, and evaluation of policies. Two case studies in national forest management are reviewed and demonstrate how Q-methodology can (1) identify important internal and external constituencies, (2) define participant viewpoints and perceptions, (3) provide sharper insight into participant-preferred management directions, (4) identify criteria that are important to participants, (5) explicitly outline areas of consensus and conflict, and (6) develop a common view toward the policy. © 1999 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:18:y:1999:i:3:p:361-388
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:3<361::AID-PAM3>3.0.CO;2-K
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
    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. Nigel Martin & John Rice, 2010. "Analysing emission intensive firms as regulatory stakeholders: a role for adaptable business strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 64-75, January.
    2. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 2017. "A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 487-501, March.
    4. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    5. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    6. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    7. Deserai A Crow & Elizabeth A Albright & Elizabeth Koebele, 2016. "Environmental rulemaking across states: Process, procedural access, and regulatory influence," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1222-1240, November.
    8. Badami, Madhav G., 2004. "Environmental policy-making in a difficult context: motorized two-wheeled vehicle emissions in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(16), pages 1861-1877, November.
    9. Kenneth C. Fletcher & Ali E. Abbas, 2018. "A Value Measure for Public‐Sector Enterprise Risk Management: A TSA Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 991-1008, May.
    10. Garrett, Vicki & Koontz, Tomas M., 2008. "Breaking the cycle: Producer and consumer perspectives on the non-adoption of passive solar housing in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1551-1566, April.
    11. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    12. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    13. Leon, Orfelio G., 1999. "Value-Focused Thinking versus Alternative-Focused Thinking: Effects on Generation of Objectives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 213-227, December.
    14. Thomas P. Seager, 2008. "The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(7), pages 444-453, November.
    15. Patrick Smith & Matthew Ferringer & Ryan Kelly & Inki Min, 2012. "Budget‐constrained portfolio trades using multiobjective optimization," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 461-470, December.
    16. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    17. Mónica García-Melón & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Carmen Corona-Sobrino, 2022. "Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1483-1512, December.
    18. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Clarke, Alan & Raffay, Agnes & Wiltshier, Peter, 2009. "Loosing it: Knowledge Management in Tourism Development Projects," MPRA Paper 25438, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Aug 2009.
    20. Johannes S. Timmermans & Giampiero E.G. Beroggi, 2004. "An Experimental Assessment of Coleman's Linear System of Action for Supporting Policy Negotiations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 267-285, November.

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:18:y:1999:i:3:p:361-388. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.