This art icle was downloaded by: [ The Library at Queens] On: 03 Sept em ber 2012, At : 03: 47 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion informat ion: ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ cj ep20 Northern Visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability a b Robin Curry , John Barry & Andew McClenaghan c a Inst it ut e for a Sust ainable World (ISW), Queens Universit y Belfast , David Kier Building, St ranmillis Road, Belfast , BT9 5AG, Nort hern Ireland b Cent re for Sust ainabilit y and Environment al Governance, Queens Universit y Belfast , Universit y Road, Belfast , BT7 1NN, Nort hern Ireland c NILGA (Nort hern Ireland Local Government Associat ion) Unit 5B Cast lereagh Business Park, 478 Cast lereagh Road, Belfast , BT5 6BQ, Nort hern Ireland Version of record first published: 03 Sep 2012 To cite this article: Robin Curry, John Barry & Andew McClenaghan (2012): Nort hern Visions? Applying Q met hodology t o underst and st akeholder views on t he environment al and resource dimensions of sust ainabilit y, Journal of Environment al Planning and Management , DOI:10.1080/ 09640568.2012.693453 To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 09640568.2012.693453 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- andcondit ions This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2012, 1–26, iFirst article Northern Visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability Robin Currya*, John Barryb and Andew McClenaghanc Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 a Institute for a Sustainable World (ISW), Queens University Belfast, David Kier Building, Stranmillis Road, Belfast BT9 5AG, Northern Ireland; bCentre for Sustainability and Environmental Governance, Queens University Belfast, University Road, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland; cNILGA (Northern Ireland Local Government Association) Unit 5B Castlereagh Business Park, 478 Castlereagh Road, Belfast BT5 6BQ, Northern Ireland (Received 28 July 2011; final version received 10 May 2012) Q methodology was used to enable the identification of discourses among stakeholders to the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability policies and to gain an understanding of the usefulness of Q methodology in informing sustainability policy development. The application of Q methodology has been useful in identifying shared discourses between different stakeholder groups, and providing insights into how stakeholders ‘frame’ or understand policy issues; and recommendations are made for ongoing research priorities. These insights, in turn, informed the choice of scenarios for an in parallel process of policy evaluation using Ecological and Carbon Footprinting. Keywords: Q development methodology; sustainability; stakeholder analysis; policy 1. Introduction Identifying discourses within and across different sustainability stakeholders (viewed as more or less coherent ways that people understand a specific issue) can aid progress in developing and implementing sustainability and resource management policies, through identifying barriers to, or potential alignments with, policy. Q methodology is a research methodology which has received increasing attention in recent years. It can offer a range of potential benefits in improving the understanding of the attitudes of stakeholders and, as such, the research has built on the existing knowledge base of the benefits of the use of Q, including Q methodology’s capacity to explore the effectiveness of policy and plans, and identify potential barriers or alignments (Frantzi et al. 2009); improve public participation and facilitate selection of participants for a stakeholder dialogue (Cuppen et al. 2010); provide a useful way to understand, and potentially resolve, contentious issues which the transition to sustainability cannot avoid (Barry et al. 2008, Durning 2005); and exploring subjectivity, beliefs and defining group values (Baker et al. 2006). This research has employed Q methodology to assess stakeholder attitudes to sustainability and resource policies in Northern Ireland. It is hoped that the *Corresponding author. Email: r.curry@qub.ac.uk ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online Ó 2012 University of Newcastle upon Tyne http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.693453 http://www.tandfonline.com 2 R. Curry et al. application of the methodology can improve the understanding of how stakeholders view and understand issues of sustainability and resource management, and provide an indication of the efficacy of the method as a tool for improved policy development. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 2. Background The first Material Flow Analysis and Ecological Footprint of Northern Ireland (Northern Limits), produced the first regional analysis of the impacts of resource use (Curry et al. 2004, 2011). This research was influential in the development of the first sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland (Group 2006), in particular, in the adoption of the Ecological Footprint as a headline indicator. Northern Limits had identified a number of ongoing research needs, including capacity building for policy makers and a programme of stakeholder analysis to identify the views of stakeholders in Northern Ireland on environmental and sustainability policies, with a view to optimising both the development and implementation of these policies. This research has sought to build on the previous sustainability research, by combining the evaluation of policies and policy scenarios using Ecological and Carbon Footprinting (Curry and Maguire 2008, 2011, Curry 2011), with a parallel process of stakeholder analysis and consultation. In this paper, we outline the stakeholder analysis approach chosen (Q methodology) and give an overview of the results, the contribution to the knowledge base for sustainable development decision making and identify further research needs. Thus, while we focus on a Northern Ireland case study, the application of Q methodology to the identification of discourses among stakeholders and the results in terms of policy implementation are applicable to sustainability research and policy more generally. The paper describes the background to the research, sets out the research aims and objectives, the origins and development of Q methodology and examples of its use in a range of areas, with a particular focus on the field of sustainability and resource management. The application of Q methodology to the identification of discourses among stakeholders on sustainability and resource management is described, including identification of the research topic, respondents and interviews, identification of key statements and Q sort and factor analysis. The results identify four discourses which are analysed using both the Q methodology and representative statements drawn from the earlier interview stage. The discussion draws out the reasons for the differences between discourses and it is concluded that the Q methodology approach has been useful in identifying perspectives of the stakeholder groups and priorities for ongoing research. The next subsection sets out the research aims and objectives. The following section describes the Q methodology, identification of research topic, respondents and interviews and key statements, and the Q sort and factor analysis. The next section describes the results and the four discourses identified, followed by a discussion of the results. The final section provides conclusions and identifies priorities for ongoing research. 2.1. Research aims and objectives In developing an evidence base for policy, it is important to understand the attitudes of stakeholders from all sectors of the economy and society. Numerous discussions and definitions exist in the literature on what constitutes a stakeholder, often taking Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 3 as their starting point the Freeman definition of ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected’ and applying some form of classification system, with stakeholder groups for this study being identified and classified through the application of boundary-setting questions adapted from Ulrich, which is described in more detail in section 3.2 (Achterkamp and Vos 2007). Meadowcroft (2004, p. 168) stated that incorporating the different viewpoints of a wide range of groups and individuals ‘‘improves the informational basis of decision-making’’, while other authors have categorised the benefits as substantive (lay judgements are as sound, or more so, than those of experts), normative (that citizens are the best judge of their own interests), and instrumental (lay participation in risk decisions makes them more legitimate and leads to better results) (Fiorino 1990, Stirling 2008). The overall aim of the research was to gain an understanding of the perceptions and underlying worldviews of stakeholders through the application of an innovative stakeholder analysis method. The underlying research objectives were: (1) to identify ‘discourses’, or how stakeholders view and talk about sustainability and resource management policies; (2) to gain an understanding of the usefulness of Q methodology in informing the development of sustainability and resource management policies. 3. Methodology 3.1. Q methodology Q methodology aims to analyse subjectivity in a structured and statistically interpretable form, and was invented by the physicist/psychologist William Stephenson in 1935. In addition to the application of Q methodology in an expanding range of fields such as political science (Dryzek and Berejikian 1993), human geography (Eden et al. 2005), nature conservation (Mattson et al. 2006), risk communication (Tuler et al. 2005) and health economics (Baker et al. 2006), Q methodology is increasingly being applied to stakeholder analysis in the field of sustainability, renewable energy and resource management. Examples include: . Wind farms and renewable energy infrastructure: (Ellis et al. 2007, Barry et al. 2008, Cuppen 2009, Fisher and Brown 2009, Wolsink and Breukers 2010, Cuppen et al. 2010, Cotton and Devine-Wright 2011); . Rural Research (Previte et al. 2007); . Flood Risk Management (Kenyon 2007); . Environmental citizenship amongst Local Employment and Trading Systems (Barry and Proops 1999); . National Forest and Public Land Management (Steelman and Maguire 1999, Martin and Steelman 2004, Swedeen 2006); . Environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture (Davies and Hodge 2007); and . Sustainable development’s influence on environmental policy-making in the context of other emergent environmental perspectives (Hooker Clarke 2002). Q methodology offers the potential of a range of strengths and benefits relative to other traditional approaches. Barry and Proops (1999, p. 338) described the Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 4 R. Curry et al. potential for Q to identify ‘‘how individuals think about environmental issues’’, by revealing patterns within and across individuals, rather than traditional traits or categories. Durning suggested that policy analysts and policy researchers can be classified using Q, based on their value orientations (Durning and Osuna 1994), and described how through its use ‘‘analysts will find themselves exploring and understanding in more depth the subjective perceptions of clients and stakeholders, and even themselves’’ (Durning 1999, p. 403). It has been suggested that the development of environmental and sustainable development policy could benefit from making greater use of Q methodology and that it could ‘‘contribute to better problem identification and definition; estimation and specification of policy options’’ (Steelman and Maguire 1999, p. 386). This viewpoint is further supported by the editors of a definitive book on Q and environmental policy, who concluded that ‘‘Q may be almost a perfect technique for the initial stages of environmental policy analysis’’ (Addams and Proops 2000b, p. xi (preface)). Ockwell (2008) highlighted the fundamental distinction between traditional R techniques and Q as being, respectively, researcher-led and based around the testing of pre-conceived hypotheses, and participant-led, seeking to understand subjective expressions and viewpoints; while Focht and Lawler (2000) suggested that for policydialogue in Environmental Dispute Resolution (EDR) ‘other techniques’ (including opinion polling, mail questionnaires and convenience sampling in public places, or consultation with elite groups) are not as effective as Q. R techniques and Q have been described as complementary types of factor analyses (Martin and Steelman 2004), with Q analysis being a more contextual mode of analysis, which can provide insight into how various sub-groups perceive values and objectives and facilitate the identification of fine-grained distinctions in perspectives or views within each sub-group. There are seven stages involved in conducting Q methodology research: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 3.2. Identification of research topic; Identification of respondents; Interviews with respondents; Identification of key statements from interview transcripts; Respondent completion of Q Sort exercises; Factor analysis of Q Sorts; and Interpretation of factor analysis results. Identification of research topic, respondents and interviews The research aimed to identify and examine discourses towards the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability across all sectors of the Northern Ireland economy and society. The initial stakeholder selection was structured by the use of tools from soft systems thinking, including boundary setting questions adapted from Ulrich (1996) and Achterkamp and Vos (2007), and a systems map, as a means of challenging the assumptions and values of the stakeholders relevant to the subject area of the study (Carr and Levidow 2000). Nine questions (set out below) were applied to generate a system of interests specific to the context of sustainable development and resource management in Northern Ireland, and the stakeholder analysis generated the Northern Visions-specific grouping set out in Table 1. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Table 1. Boundary-setting question and stakeholder groups. Boundary-setting question Client/beneficiary Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 Who is decision taker? Who is the designer of the system? Sources of expertise/knowledge? Who is the guarantor Witnesses 5 NV-specific stakeholder groups EHS (as funders) Environmental Policy Division (SD Strategy and Towards Resource Management) Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (SD Strategy) NI Assembly People of Northern Ireland Voluntary and Community Sector Business Sector Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (SD Strategy) NI Assembly European Commission UK Government Northern Ireland Assembly Government Environmental NGOs Universities and Colleges and Research Centres Higher education and schools Education and library boards Health Sector Professional Institutions Voluntary and Community Sector Business Sector European Commission UK Government Northern Ireland Assembly Church institutions Political parties Environmental NGOs Voluntary and Community Sector Business Sector . Who is the client/beneficiary – The people of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly and policy and decision makers? . What is the purpose/motivation – To ensure that Northern Ireland develops good policies for resource management and sustainability? . Who is the decision taker – Northern Ireland Assembly and policy and decision makers, UK Government, European Commission? . What are the resources and constraints – Governance structures, SD policymaking capacity, SD knowledge base among policy makers, capacity for change, lack of awareness regarding policy and capacity to change within the business sector, and the lack of awareness of sustainability issues amongst the public? . What is the environment – What aspects of the System of Interest are not controlled by decision takers – illegal dumping, paramilitary involvement, nondevolved policy? . Who is the designer of the System – UK Government, Northern Ireland Assembly, European Commission? 6 R. Curry et al. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 . What are the sources of expertise/knowledge – government, universities and research centres, NGO’s, local community organisations, business? . Who is the Guarantor – UK Government, Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, European Commission? . Who are the witnesses/those affected – Northern Ireland Assembly, general public, local communities, local government? The organisations who participated in the analysis are listed in Table 2. A series of semi- structured face-to-face interviews were held with 30 stakeholders in which the interviewees were told they were speaking as themselves, not as representatives of their organisation. These were designed to be respondent-led and began with questions asking how the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability impacted upon the activities of the interviewee’s organisation. The answers given would direct the course of the interview. It was not the intention to engage the respondent in answering a prescriptive set of standardised questions, but to allow the interview to be directed in accordance with the issues considered most significant by the interviewee. This approach allowed the stakeholder group to Table 2. Organisations involved in the stakeholder engagement exercise. AES Kilroot Invest Northern Ireland Agri-food and Biosciences Institute General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland Housing Advisory Branch Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action Northern Ireland Environment Link Northern Ireland Local Government Association Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Office of the First and Deputy First Minister Phoenix Natural Gas Arena Network Armagh City and District Council Belfast City Council Belfast City Airport Bombardier Aerospace Bryson Charitable Group Confederation of Passenger Transport Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Department of the Environment (Climate Change Unit) Department of the Environment (Environmental Policy Group) Department of Regional Development Environmental Education Forum Environment and Heritage Service Envirowise Farrans Construction Federation of Small Businesses Friends of the Earth PricewaterhouseCoopers Queens University Belfast Rural Community Network Southern Group Environmental Health Committee Sustainable NI Sustainable Development Commission (NI) Translink University of Ulster World Wildlife Fund Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 7 determine the scope of issues to be considered. During each interview, however, the interviewee was encouraged to consider their views in relation to the issues of energy consumption, waste management, transport and food production-the areas flagged up by the previous research as being the major contributors to the size of Northern Ireland’s Ecological Footprint. With the permission of the interviewees, each interview was tape-recorded and transcribed with the agreement that no statements would be attributed to the individuals that made them and none of the information received would be attributed to any individual without their consent. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 3.3. Identification of key statements The information from the interviews was used to provide statements for the Q sort stage of the research. This approach to statement generation was used so that the research focused on issues which were raised by the participants rather than the researcher. In analysing the interview transcripts, the research team were looking for statements relating to both the practicalities of improving resource efficiency, as well as statements indicating the ways in which respondents understood resource efficiency and sustainable development and their interrelationships. Any statements relating to specific areas, for example, transport, or relating to specific groups or sectors or institutions, such as government agencies, were highlighted. Any statements suggesting areas in which resource efficiency should be most readily improved, techniques by which improvements could be made, and any statements commenting on the responsibility of particular sectors, were also singled out for consideration. A number of common themes emerged; and the statements were categorised in accordance with these, as shown in Table 3. Following the identification of all potential statements, the statements had to be reduced in number to ensure a manageable quantity were left for respondents to rank in the Q sort stage. Following Dryzek and Berejikian (1993), statements were categorised according to a four-by-four matrix grid. The first four categories ensure a balance of statements between: . statements entity; . statements . statements . statements revealing their ontology through the introduction of a category or discussing the agency or ‘capacity to act’ of those entities; describing the motivation or drivers of the entities; and describing the naturalised relationships between entities. This balance of statements enhances interpretation of the discourses following the factor analysis stage. On the vertical axis, the sampling grid offered by Dryzek and Berkikian ensures an equal balance between descriptive, factual, value judgements and normative prescriptions. In doing so, it was essential to ensure that all relevant topics raised in the interview stage were included in the final selection. Feedback from respondents following an initial round of pilot testing allowed the research team to eradicate any ambiguous, and potentially confusing, statements and indicated that 50 statements was a manageable number to include in the final Q sort stage. The statements were chosen to ensure coverage of the range of categories set out in Table 2, with the categorisation employed as a means of minimising, but of course not eradicating, researcher bias. A list of the 50 statements chosen is provided in Tables 4a and 4b. 8 R. Curry et al. Table 3. Categories of Q sort statements. Behaviour Business Consumers Education Energy Food Global Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 Government Transport Waste General 3.4. Statements relating to the role of individual behavioural change in improving resource efficiency. Statements relating to the role businesses have to play in improving resource efficiency. Statements regarding individual consumption behaviour and the responsibility consumers have for improving resource efficiency. Statements regarding the need for educating the public. Statements regarding the various options available for energy generation. Statements about food production and transport and range of foods available to consumers. Statements relating to the global implications of resource use in Northern Ireland. Statements relating to the role government have to play in improving resource efficiency. Statements mentioning public transport, private car use and ways in which emissions from transport could be avoided or offset. Statements that mentioned ways that materials recycling could be maximised, waste generation minimised and waste management options. This category was made up of statements that did not fall neatly into any other category but offered interesting views regarding the topic of resources, climate change and consumption. These were mostly statements relating to worldviews rather than specific issues. Q sort and factor analysis In any Q sort exercise, respondents are asked to rank statements in accordance with a ‘condition of instruction’ – the context in which the statements are to be ranked. In this study, participants were asked to rank the 50 statements according to how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each one. Ranking was a ‘forced ranking’, and took place on a pyramid shaped grid with a nine-point scale from þ 4 ‘agree most strongly’ to –4 ‘disagree most strongly’ (Figure 1). As this is a relative rather than an absolute scale, it is possible that some respondents would agree with all the statements, whilst others may disagree with all the statements. To avoid respondents agreeing or disagreeing with all of the statements, a pyramid shaped grid is used, as it requires respondents to rank the statements in a forced normal distribution. Whilst a respondent may initially think they disagree equally with all the statements they wish to place on the disagree side of the grid, by allowing only two statements to be placed into the 74 ‘disagree most strongly’ section, respondents are forced to evaluate with a greater deal of accuracy how they think about each statement in the Q sort, in relation to all the other statements. The key here is that the ranking of statements is relative to how they rank other statements, thus ensuring the overall ranking is specific to that respondent. Respondents are also instructed that they must not leave any spaces on the grid blank, therefore ensuring they express their subjective viewpoint on every statement. The sorting sheet also provided space for respondents to make written comments on the statements they placed into the þ4 and –4 columns, thus providing additional information as to why they made these choices. Respondents could swap and change where they placed statements on the Likert scale until they were satisfied with their ranking. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Table 4a. No. 1 2 3 4 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 Q sort statements 1–25. Statement Business is greatly suspicious of government at the moment and government I think, by and large, does not understand the language of business. Economic philosophy, capitalist philosophy is all about growth, but you can’t have endless growth on a finite planet. Food miles are a really serious issue and it should be costed into food products, we pay too little for food really. Government could put a small tax on flights and pay that tax straight into projects which offset the carbon emitted. I don’t have a problem with incineration as long as recycling has been done maximally. I look at some of the plastics and I hear people say ‘we can only recycle certain ones of those’, then why do they permit the others if we can’t recycle them, why doesn’t everybody use the type of plastic that can be recycled? I think it is a fundamental role of government to raise the debate surrounding resource use efficiency and raise awareness of the issue. I think it is primarily the responsibility of business to provide products and services that are not damaging to the environment or society. I think it’s up to bodies like the Sustainable Development Commission and the NGOs to push the sustainable development agenda forward. I think the government should be promoting working from home to a greater extent to reduce its own carbon footprint and lead by example. I would like to see a rebate on rates for waste minimisation at the household level or some kind of positive incentive. I would like to see more environmentally friendly buses because you see buses and you think these are supposed to be environmentally friendly to travel in, but then you see the smoke they are pumping out. If you believe all that you hear about the impending doom and gloom scenarios of greenhouse gases and global warming, nuclear would answer those problems very quickly. If you have incineration it can undermine a recycling regime because you’ve got to keep feeding the incineration plant. If you want to change public behaviour in any of these areas, in resource efficiency or waste, if you make it easy, or easier for people to do then they will do it. It is inappropriate for the government to restrict people’s use of their cars, whether it be by means of higher road taxing or congestion charging; it is an infringement on personal freedom. It is very much the people who will determine what a sustainable community is. Its businesses’ duty to become more efficient, otherwise they will not be able to compete in the marketplace. Kerbside recycling has to step up a gear; some of the things that can be recycled aren’t being recycled because people just don’t have access to the civic amenity sites. Look at China, look at India and their economic growth; what can I do? I mean whatever I do in NI will be dwarfed. People are confused about food issues; they don’t know if it’s better to buy organic food imported from across the globe or better to buy local food which may have been produced using chemical fertilisers and pesticides. People might try to change their behaviour, but in the grand scheme of things it’s not going to make a big difference unless government led change from the top. People say if you want to talk green, if you want to talk sustainability you give up your car, but there’s no point in any individual doing it; it has to be a collective thing. Promoting energy efficiency in the home is incredibly important because for the majority of people their home is so important to them and there are so many lessons people can learn and engage with in terms of the environment in their day-to-day living. Promoting the food miles agenda is a bit of a two edged sword; yes it opens up opportunities to buy local food, but if it’s applied at a national level you could potentially start to close down outlets for NI produced food. 10 R. Curry et al. Table 4b. No. 26 27 28 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Q sort statements 26–50. Statement Putting extra tax on cars or charging people for using the road achieves nothing except hit the poor; the wealthier people will pay whatever charges they have to and they will keep driving, and it will achieve absolutely nothing in terms of lessening the carbon dioxide problem. Tesco’s car park is full and if people wanted to be sustainable they would go to the local greengrocers who have dug the stuff out of the ground a mile away from where it is being sold. The big problem with governments is they cannot think long term and that has to change because this is a long game that we have to play if we are going to cure the sustainability problems. The dominance of the public sector means a massive waste of time, effort, money, energy, resources. The private sector wouldn’t use half of the resources the public sector use. The economic benefits of improved resource use efficiency are more important than the environmental benefits. The market will not change from being a consumption-led market, so that being the case you have to work with those who are leading the market and supplying the market to ensure what they do is best for the environment. The population are seriously lacking in knowledge and information as to the issues that we face, why we are facing them and what we should be doing to help. There is no need to reduce the amount of resources we consume; technological solutions will be developed in the future to cope with any negative environmental effects arising from our current consumption. There is no reason why we should be importing beef and milk and eggs and products like that which we could grow locally. There needs to be much more support for the home owner because, I suspect, there are quite a number who would like to do things like solar panels, but it really is quite prohibitively expensive to install the things. Things just now are disposable, and if something breaks down you don’t think about getting it fixed, you just dump it and get a new one. To really get over a message to the public about efficiency it has to be in an area where inefficiency is going to hurt them and hurt them in their pockets. We are already involved in the research and development of tidal and wind power technologies, therefore we should develop our manufacturing industries in these areas. We are the windiest part of Europe so we really should expand our use of wind. We can’t all go gas and we can’t all go wind, so there is a place for fossil fuel fired power stations We have a legacy in terms of transport of a dispersed population; until land use planning and transport come together over the next 20, 25 years, we’re not going to have the public transport infrastructure we need. We have come to such a stage now where we think it’s our right to consume unquestionably. We have got into a culture of flying overseas for short breaks and government has to do something about that, because people don’t understand the cost to countries like Bangladesh every time the sea level rises; they don’t make the global connections. We need to ensure we get the basics right, that people are using energy efficient equipment, that they have straight forward things like good construction, decent roof insulation and things like that; and then when we’ve hit all those things we garnish it with the renewables. We probably don’t need the range of foods that we have. We’re concerned whether the voice of business is listened to; there is a very strong influence between the government departments and the green lobby and we wonder how much businesses are listened to. (continued) Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Table 4b. (Continued). No. 47 48 49 Statement What the government are doing is they are taxing waste, rather than putting incentives into renewal and the sustainability of reuse. What the government have actually done is they have said let’s go to renewables and spend £8-10 million developing and pushing renewables and it’s actually going to have very little impact on the carbon footprint. Why couldn’t you have, for example in Magherafelt or Banbridge, a little government hub centre where people could come into and link into the Department of Agriculture network or the DRD network, you know look at more innovative ways to reduce travel. You’ve got to make the public transport system good and attractive because the bottom line of it will be you will only switch if it is better for you. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 50 11 Figure 1. Q sort grid. A total of 39 Q-sorts were posted out to a range of stakeholders, of which 36 were completed and returned. The Q sort sheets included space for respondents to include a written explanation as to why they selected the statements which they included; and these explanations and these statements have been incorporated into the results. The Q sorts were analysed using the free software programme, PQMethod 2.11. Principal component factor analysis and Varimax factor rotation were performed on the correlation matrix. In keeping with the protocols of Q methodology, factors with an Eigenvalue greater than 1.00 were considered statistically significant. The four factors or discourses which emerged were then analysed, enabling the identification of perceptions and underlying values; potential options uptake and behavioural 12 R. Curry et al. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 change; and priority areas for action and policy implementation to be considered and interpreted by the research team. 4. Results First, the correlation matrix of all the Q sorts was calculated. This represents the level of (dis)agreement between the individual sorts, that is, the degree of (dis)similarity in points of view between the respondents. Next, this correlation matrix is subject to factor analysis, with the objective to identify the number of groupings of Q sorts by virtue of being similar or dissimilar to one another, that is, to examine how many basically different Q sorts are in evidence (Brown 1983). People with similar views on the topic will share the same factor, thus enabling the calculation of the variance amongst the respondents in terms of how many factors explain the degree of agreement and disagreement amongst them. A factor loading is determined for each Q sort, expressing the extent to which each Q sort is associated with each factor. In this study, a four-factor solution explained 52% of the total variance, with 29 of the respondents loading onto one of the four factors. The number of respondents loading onto each factor, along with the total amount of variance explained by each factor, is shown in Table 5. The four discourses are summarised below, in conjunction with Tables setting out the defining statements for each of the four factors. Each discourse is unlikely to represent any one individual; rather, they are an idealised type or view of the world shared across a number of individuals. In line with Q methodology convention, the discourses have been assigned titles, to aid communication and understanding of the result, these are: Discourse 1: One planet living; Discourse 2: Sustainability through green business and technology; Discourse 3: Greening government; and Discourse 4: Sustainability via choice editing and incentivising pro-environmental behaviours. The analysis of each discourse below is derived from both the use of Q methodology and representative statements drawn from the earlier interview stage. 4.1. Discourse 1: One planet living This explained 20% of the total variance – therefore by far the most dominant discourse, within the participating stakeholders – and its distinguishing statements were: agreement (2, 50, 7, 15, 34, 24, 21 and 38) and disagreement (48, 23, 8, 9, 13, 27, 30, 29, 20, 16 and 33). The statistically significant statements for Discourse 1 are set out in Table 6. Table 5. Respondent numbers by factor and total variance for each. Factor 1 2 3 4 Number of respondents loading onto factor Percentage of total variance accounted for by factor 13 20 3 7 9 16 4 9 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Table 6. Statement number 2 50 7 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 15 34 24 21 38 48 23 8 9 13 27 30 29 20 16 33 13 Factor 1. Statement Economic philosophy, capitalist philosophy is all about growth, but you can’t have endless growth on a finite planet You’ve got to make the public transport system good and attractive, because the bottom line of it will be you will only switch if it is better for you I think it is a fundamental role of government to raise the debate surrounding resource use efficiency and raise awareness of the issue If you want to change public behaviour in any of these areas, in resource efficiency or waste, if you make it easy, or easier for people to do then they will do it There is no reason why we should be importing beef and milk and eggs and products like that which we could grow locally Promoting energy efficiency in the home is incredibly important because, for the majority of people, their home is so important to them and there are so many lessons people can learn and engage with in terms of the environment in their day-to-day living People are confused about food issues; they don’t know if its better to buy organic food imported from across the globe or better to buy local food which may have been produced using chemical fertilisers and pesticides We are already involved in the research and development of tidal and wind power technologies, therefore we should develop our manufacturing industries in these areas What the government have actually done is they have said let’s go to renewables and spend £8–10 million developing and pushing renewables and it’s actually going to have very little impact on the carbon footprint People say if you want to talk green; if you want to talk sustainability you give up your car, but there’s no point in any individual doing it, it has to be a collective thing I think it is primarily the responsibility of business to provide products and services that are not damaging to the environment or society I think its up to bodies like the Sustainable Development Commission and the NGOs to push the sustainable development agenda forward If you believe all that you hear about the impending doom and gloom scenarios of greenhouse gases and global warming, nuclear would answer those problems very quickly Tesco’s car park is full and if people wanted to be sustainable they would go to the local greengrocers who have dug the stuff out of the ground a mile away from where it is being sold The economic benefits of improved resource use efficiency are more important than the environmental benefits The dominance of the public sector means a massive waste of time, effort, money, energy, resources. The private sector wouldn’t use half of the resources the public sector use Look at China, look at India and their economic growth; what can I do? I mean whatever I do in NI will be dwarfed It is inappropriate for the government to restrict people’s use of their cars, whether it be by means of higher road taxing or congestion charging; it is an infringement on personal freedom There is no need to reduce the amount of resources we consume; technological solutions will be developed in the future to cope with any negative environmental effects arising from our current consumption z-score 1.678 1.5 1.472 1.408 1.211 1.193 1.182 1.056 -1.045 -1.092 71.214 71.232 71.251 71.338 71.398 71.569 71.806 71.846 72.280 14 R. Curry et al. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 This discourse emphasised environmental limits and the finite capacity of the planet, and highlighted the need for the provision of services and information to allow people to live more sustainability. The focus was on government to lead the way to a more sustainable future, raising awareness of the issues and making sustainable options more convenient, rather than relying on individuals to make the first move. This discourse stressed that government has to intervene to make unsustainable choices less attractive; explaining this role in relation to private car use, one respondent commented, ‘‘Government should lead and find incentives/ disincentives to change people’s behaviour’’. The suggestion that future technological improvements will deal with the negative environmental impacts of current resource consumption was rejected, with one respondent commenting: We can only offset negative environmental impacts to some extent and it is an ‘end of pipe solution’; we’re better not to create or minimize the impact in the first place and there is also a strong economic argument for doing this as well. This discourse was characterised by support for initiatives enabling people to learn to live sustainably, whilst not requiring any radical behavioural changes, such as support for promotion of energy efficiency in the home as this will allow the public to learn more about the wider need for improved resource efficiency. The argument that government investment in renewable energy technology will have little impact in terms of reducing Northern Ireland’s Carbon Footprint was rejected, and there was strong disagreement with the view that nuclear power holds the potential for reducing global warming. The theme of what might be termed ‘passive sustainability’ is further expressed in this discourse, which emphasised that shopping in supermarkets does not mean that consumers are not interested in living sustainably. Rather, greater provision needs to be made to allow the public to live more sustainably without significant changes in their everyday behaviour. In this discourse, individuals passively become more sustainable through changes brought about for them by government, for example, rather than individuals having to actively change their lifestyles. Thus it is associated with ‘green consumerism’ as opposed to notions of ‘green citizenship’ (Barry and Eckersley, 2005). Support was shown for improved public transport services pioneered by central government. This discourse did not consider businesses and NGOs to have equal responsibility with government to ensure the implementation of sustainable development in Northern Ireland. The view that the dominance of the public sector is a problem, because the public sector is less efficient than the private sector, was rejected. This discourse contended that Northern Ireland should do more to promote sustainability within its own borders. Where food can be produced domestically, people should not take the cheaper option of imported products. In addition, Northern Ireland should strive to benefit economically by manufacturing renewable technologies; however, it was stressed that the economic benefits of improved resource efficiency are not more important than the environmental benefits. The importance of domestically promoting sustainability was further highlighted by support for Northern Ireland ‘doing its bit’, even if that will have a small impact on the global scale. The respondents who were grouped in this discourse included individuals from local and central government, the environmental NGO sector and the education sector. In policy terms it can be viewed as a mainstream, reformist sustainability policy discourse, in that it is, for example, consistent with most Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 15 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 government ‘sustainable development’ strategies. As such, in policy terms it is a form of ‘greening’ business as usual in articulating a broadly ‘ecological modernisation’ understanding of sustainable development (Barry 2004). 4.2. Discourse 2: Sustainability through green business and technology This explained 7% of the total variance and the defining statements of this discourse were: agreement (18, 46, 5, 13, 1, 40 and 11) and disagreement (3, 20, 32, 43, 4, and 33). The statistically significant statements for Discourse 2 are set out in Table 7. This discourse emphasised the use of technology (although not uncritically) as well as reducing the amount of resources we consume. The importance of positive incentives for waste minimisation at the household level, along with maximising recycling and the use of incineration, were stressed. Nuclear power was advocated as a low carbon approach to tackling climate change and the importance of fossil fuel Table 7. Statement number 18 46 5 13 1 40 11 3 20 32 43 4 33 Factor 2. Statement Its businesses’ duty to become more efficient, otherwise they will not be able to compete in the marketplace We’re concerned whether the voice of business is listened to; there is a very strong influence between the government departments and the green lobby and we wonder how much businesses are listened to I don’t have a problem with incineration as long as recycling has been done maximally If you believe all that you hear about the impending doom and gloom scenarios of greenhouse gases and global warming, nuclear would answer those problems very quickly Business is greatly suspicious of government at the moment and government I think, by and large, does not understand the language of business We can’t all go gas and we can’t all go wind, so there is a place for fossil fuel fired power stations I would like to see a rebate on rates for waste minimisation at the household level, or some kind of positive incentive Food miles is a really serious issue and it should be costed into food products; we pay too little for food really Look at China, look at India and their economic growth; what can I do? I mean whatever I do in NI will be dwarfed The population are seriously lacking in knowledge and information as to the issues that we face, why we are facing them and what we should be doing to help We have got into a culture of flying overseas for short breaks and government has to do something about that, because people don’t understand the cost to countries like Bangladesh every time the sea level rises; they don’t make the global connections Government could put a small tax on flights and pay that tax straight into projects which offset the carbon emitted There is no need to reduce the amount of resources we consume; technological solutions will be developed in the future to cope with any negative environmental effects arising from our current consumption z-score 2.811 1.407 1.285 1.281 1.256 1.097 1.069 71.071 71.560 71.802 71.956 72.110 72.260 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 16 R. Curry et al. power stations was emphasised, suggesting that the less carbon intensive options of gas and wind power would be unable to provide for all of Northern Ireland’s energy needs. This discourse did not support the view that there was no need to reduce the amount of resources consumed as future technological solutions will mitigate any negative environmental consequences of our current consumption. Government intervention and a regulatory approach to reducing the environmental impacts of our actions were also rejected. This discourse disagreed with the view that people lack relevant knowledge and information about the environmental issues we face and what actions individuals should be taking. There was strong disagreement with measures such as costing the impact of food miles into food, or taxing air travel. Nevertheless, the need for behavioural change was not rejected; and the importance of making changes in Northern Ireland was stressed, despite the very small impact these alterations will have on a global scale. This discourse emphasised the importance of improving the resource efficiency of businesses, so they could compete in the marketplace. Like the previous discourse it represents, in policy terms, a variant of a greening of business as usual, but is distinguished from the previous discourse in representing a form of ‘technological optimism’, which Dryzek described as a policy discourse of ‘Prometheanism’ or ‘growth forever’ (Dryzek 2005, p. 51). It highlighted tensions between government and business, stating that business interests were not considered as important by government, as the voices of ‘the green lobby’, and that business is suspicious of government, and government ‘‘by and large does not understand the language of business’’. The respondents grouped into this discourse were from the business and energy provision sectors. 4.3. Discourse 3: Greening government This explained 16% of the total variance, and its defining statements were: agreement (7, 42, 22, 15, 36, 2, 50 and 31) and disagreement (48, 20, 30, 16, 23, 26 and 33). The statistically significant statements for Discourse 3 are set out in Table 8. This discourse was characterised by the emphasis on the leadership role of government in addressing issues of unsustainable patterns of consumption, resource and energy use. The throw-away culture and disposable nature of many goods was thought to lead to a wasteful mindset. This discourse emphasised that the steps that need to be taken to improve sustainability need to be led by government, but one which minimises excessive disruption to the general public. People were viewed as consumers and it was stressed that sustainable options must be as attractive to the consumer as less sustainable ones, suggesting, for example, that consumers will only use public transport if it is more convenient for them than driving. This discourse recognised that people consider it their ‘right’ to consume unquestionably. However, this discourse pointed out that this right to consume is not possible within the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. Emphasising the centrality of the consumer mentality, the importance of working with those leading and supplying the market to ensure the goods and services provided are best for the environment, was stressed. Recognising that people’s desire to consume will be difficult to alter, one respondent commented, ‘‘I agree that it is the market that does, and will continue to, drive things. One way to introduce sustainability is taxes and subsidies, rather than appealing to people’s concerns’’. This was supported by others Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Table 8. Statement Number 7 42 22 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 15 36 2 50 31 48 20 30 16 23 26 33 17 Factor 3. Statement I think it is a fundamental role of government to raise the debate surrounding resource use efficiency and raise awareness of the issue We have come to such a stage now where we think it’s our right to consume unquestionably People might try to change their behaviour but, in the grand scheme of things, its not going to make a big difference unless government lead change from the top If you want to change public behaviour in any of these areas, in resource efficiency or waste, if you make it easy, or easier for people to do then they will do it Things just now are disposable, and if something breaks down you don’t think about getting it fixed, you just dump it and get a new one Economic philosophy, capitalist philosophy is all about growth, but you can’t have endless growth on a finite planet You’ve got to make the public transport system good and attractive, because the bottom line of it will be you will only switch if it is better for you The market will not change from being a consumption-led market, so that being the case you have to work with those who are leading the market and supplying the market to ensure what they do is best for the environment What the Government have actually done is they have said let’s go to renewables, and spend £8–10 million developing and pushing renewables and it’s actually going to have very little impact on the carbon footprint Look at China, look at India and their economic growth; what can I do? I mean whatever I do in NI will be dwarfed The economic benefits of improved resource use efficiency are more important than the environmental benefits It is inappropriate for the government to restrict people’s use of their cars, whether it be by means of higher road taxing or congestion charging; it is an infringement on personal freedom People say if you want to talk green’ if you want to talk sustainability you give up your car, but there’s no point in any individual doing it; it has to be a collective thing Putting extra tax on cars or charging people for using the road achieves nothing except hit the poor; the wealthier people will pay whatever charges they have to and they will keep driving, and it will achieve absolutely nothing in terms of lessening the carbon dioxide problem There is no need to reduce the amount of resources we consume; technological solutions will be developed in the future to cope with any negative environmental effects arising from our current consumption z - score 1.967 1.493 1.285 1.233 1.201 1.183 1.141 1.026 71.448 71.589 71.654 71.769 71.961 72.223 72.422 who argued, ‘‘in the present situation, a useful way to conserve resources would be to make renewable energy and recycled goods less expensive than other less sustainable alternatives’’. There was strong support for government to lead society towards a sustainable future, and this discourse suggested that individual behavioural change will have 18 R. Curry et al. little impact unless government leads change from the top. One respondent commented that: Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 Government has a responsibility to intervene when there is market failure. Resource efficiency is a clear example of this failure. Private organisations will never draw their customer’s attention to the issue. It is simply not in their commercial interest – therefore it becomes the responsibility of government. This highlights belief in the need for partnership between government and business to achieve sustainable development. Although pointing to the importance of working with the market, the economic benefits of improved resource efficiency were not considered to be more important than the environmental benefits. This discourse was also characterised by strong disagreement with the view that technology will provide the solution; one respondent commented that, ‘‘technological advance requires more consumption, relying on technology to bail us out is not realistic; it doesn’t promote responsible consumption’’. The promotion of renewable energy technologies was advocated as a useful means by which we can reduce the amount of resources consumed and support was shown for the government’s investment in renewable energy technologies. Importance was placed on reducing the level of car transport through a regulatory approach. This discourse supported the claim that increasing taxation on car usage would lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, hence refuting the idea that it is inappropriate for government to restrict car use by means of higher road taxing or congestion charging. There was disagreement with the view that only collective actions are worthwhile and changes in car use by individuals were considered important. Alongside stressing the value of action at the individual level, this discourse highlighted the importance of Northern Ireland making a contribution to sustainability as a small player on the global stage. Overall, this discourse expressed a view that key to tackling unsustainable patterns of resource use and environmental degradation is the ‘greening of government’, consistent with those who suggest that what dealing with sustainable issues requires is the emergence of a ‘green state’ (Barry and Eckersley 2005). In terms of sustainability policy, this discourse is very close to what Dryzek (2005) termed ‘administrative rationalism’ in that it both accords a leading (indeed dominant) role and responsibility to the state in dealing with and devising solutions to the challenge of the transition towards sustainability, and is not averse to the state using its legitimate coercive power to enable that transition. At the same time, the strong partnership ethos which distinguishes this discourse also points towards one of the animating features of the early 1990s emergence and subsequent evolution of ‘sustainable development’, perhaps best expressed in terms of ‘Local Agenda 21’ in relation to the leading role of the local state level in coordinating sustainability policies and initiatives. The respondents grouped into this discourse included individuals from local and central government, financial institutions, NonDepartmental Public Bodies and the aviation sector. 4.4. Discourse 4: Sustainability via choice editing and incentivising pro-environmental behaviours This explained 9% of the total variance and the most important statements were: agreement (11, 34, 6, 19, 12, 7, 22, 26 and 44) and disagreement (43, 17, 37, 3, 33 and 13). The statistically significant statements for Discourse 4 are set out in Table 9. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Table 9. Statement Number 11 34 6 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 19 12 7 22 26 44 43 17 37 3 33 13 19 Factor 4. Statement I would like to see a rebate on rates for waste minimisation at the household level, or some kind of positive incentive There is no reason why we should be importing beef and milk and eggs and products like that which we could grow locally I look at some of the plastics and I hear people say ‘we can only recycle certain ones of those’; then why do they permit the others if we can’t recycle them; why doesn’t everybody use the type of plastic that can be recycled Kerbside recycling has to step up a gear; some of the things that can be recycled aren’t being recycled because people just don’t have access to the civic amenity sites I would like to see more environmentally friendly buses because you see buses and you think these are supposed to be environmentally friendly to travel in, but then you see the smoke they are pumping out I think it is a fundamental role of government to raise the debate surrounding resource use efficiency and raise awareness of the issue People might try to change their behaviour but, in the grand scheme of things, its not going to make a big difference unless government lead change from the top Putting extra tax on cars or charging people for using the road achieves nothing except hit the poor; the wealthier people will pay whatever charges they have to and they will keep driving, and it will achieve absolutely nothing in terms of lessening the carbon dioxide problem We need to ensure we get the basics right, that people are using energy efficient equipment, that they have straight forward things like good construction, decent roof insulation and things like that; and then when we’ve hit all those things, we garnish it with the renewables We have got into a culture of flying overseas for short breaks and government has to do something about that, because people don’t understand the cost to countries like Bangladesh every time the sea level rises; they don’t make the global connections It is very much the people who will determine what a sustainable community is To really get over a message to the public about efficiency it has to be in an area where inefficiency is going to hurt them and hurt them in their pockets Food miles is a really serious issue and it should be costed into food products; we pay too little for food really There is no need to reduce the amount of resources we consume; technological solutions will be developed in the future to cope with any negative environmental effects arising from our current consumption If you believe all that you hear about the impending doom and gloom scenarios of greenhouse gases and global warming, nuclear would answer those problems very quickly z-score 2.090 1.538 1.426 1.285 1.249 1.103 1.064 1.024 1.013 71.385 71.543 71.708 71.920 72.010 72.444 This discourse supported a practical, low cost approach to improving resource efficiency and sustainability in Northern Ireland. There was support for initiatives such as incentives to encourage waste minimisation at the household level. Support for ensuring that positive environmental behaviour rewards the individual was indicated by the rejection of the view that the public should suffer financially if they Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 20 R. Curry et al. choose to purchase inefficient products. The desire to avoid increases in costs for the individual was further indicated by support for the statement that increasing the tax levied on cars will not result in reductions of carbon dioxide emissions as people will continue to drive; yet the less wealthy will be disproportionately disadvantaged in comparison to the wealthy. There was support for growing food products locally, where feasible, rather than importing these products, yet opposition to the idea of costing food miles into food products, which indicates unwillingness to pass increased costs on to the consumer. The support for actions that make it easy to improve resource efficiency was demonstrated through support for using only plastics that can be recycled, rather than non-recyclable alternatives; better provision of kerb-side recycling schemes; improving environmental performance of buses to ensure public transport is as efficient as possible. However, there was disagreement with the view that government should intervene to mitigate against environmental damage resulting from short flights for overseas breaks, with this discourse unwilling to curtail consumer choice. This discourse emphasised that consumers should be free to choose whether or not to act sustainably based on their own knowledge and values. However, there was a strong sense that there was a role for the government to set the ‘frame’ for consumption decisions – both through incentivising positive sustainability decisions and also by removing unsustainable options (such as non-recyclable plastics being an option to purchase). The latter is significant, not least in that this discourse does seem to give some support to those who claim that what consumers want in order to make sustainable decisions is ‘choice editing’, i.e. the removal of non-sustainable options. Choice editing by government would make it more convenient for consumers to be sustainable since all or most consumer goods and services available for them to choose between would already have had the non-sustainable ones ‘edited out’, thus combining consumer freedom and sustainability. This discourse considered that it was important to make basic changes to improve energy efficiency before investing in renewable energy technologies. Only when energy efficiency in terms of equipment, construction and insulation has been maximised should the end result be ‘garnished’ with renewables. This preference for low level changes was highlighted by an outright rejection of nuclear power as a lowcarbon approach to tackling climate change. This discourse highlighted the importance of the role of government in raising awareness and the belief that individual actions to live sustainably will make little difference unless government leads change from the top. There was disagreement with the suggestion that people will determine the nature of a sustainable community, suggesting that for this discourse it is for government, not individuals (viewed as passive consumers, perhaps, rather than active citizens), to do this. Linking the latter to the interpretation of this discourse above as indicating some support for government led ‘choice-editing’, this discourse could also be said to express the view that consumers feel ‘locked into’ making unsustainable decisions (in waste management, transport, energy etc.), since the forces and institutions which provide them with their choices (the market and government principally) are largely outside their individual control. Thus, this discourse can be said to indicate support for government-led choice-editing (which involves regulating and intervening in the market to remove/minimise or ban unsustainable goods and services), which would ‘frame’ their consumption choices in a way which would lessen or remove these Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 21 Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 forms of ‘unsustainable’ locked in/forced consumption. In policy terms, this discourse could be said to express the growing (but not dominant) perspective which sees the transition away from unsustainability in terms of large-scale ‘systemic’ and ‘infrastructural’ changes in relation to major areas of modern life such as our energy system, our food system, our housing system, our transport system etc. Aspects of this sustainability policy discourse can be found in government and non-government policies and proposals around the ‘green new deal’ that can be found in the UK, the US and Northern Ireland, as green responses to both the sustainability crisis and the global economic crisis (Barry 2012). The respondents that were grouped in this discourse were mainly from the energy provision sector, the construction sector and the NGO sector. 5. Discussion All four discourses identified supported the view that environmental sustainability and resource efficiency needs to be improved in Northern Ireland, and that action should be taken domestically even if it only makes a small contribution to global sustainability. All discourses also supported the view that the success of the Northern Ireland economy should not be seen as incompatible with ensuring environmental sustainability. Finally, all discourses rejected the view that there is no need to reduce consumption on the grounds that technological solutions will deal with any negative environmental impacts of higher consumption. The differences among discourses lie in the identification of what actions should be taken and who is responsible. Discourses 1, 3 and 4 strongly supported the view that central, local or regional government should provide leadership and set the framework for individual action. All three discourses advocated a form of passive sustainability and that the right choice should be made more convenient, and unsustainable choices should be made less attractive through higher prices or taxes. However, there were differences in support for the measures to make this happen. Discourse 1 favoured government intervention through incentives and disincentives, but did not express support for particular mechanisms. Discourse 2 also supported incentives and disincentives and stressed the importance of working with the market, favouring mechanisms such as pricing and taxes. Discourse 4 also supported incentives, but strongly favoured mechanisms where positive behaviour is rewarded but costs are not passed onto the individual and freedom of choice, whether to act sustainably or not, is respected and not penalised. Discourse 2 was most distinctive from the others, emphasising the role of technology and did not support government intervention or a regulatory approach, although it did advocate the need for business to become more resource efficient so it could compete effectively. Discourses 1, 3 and 4 supported the role of government in providing leadership and setting the framework which supports individual action. The emphasis on making it easy for people to do the right thing and make more sustainable choices was reflected in the scenario development, which included policies on structural changes such as energy provision, along with specific policies relating to consumer choice and individual actions. With the exception of Discourse 2, which was made up of stakeholders from the business and energy provision sectors, the other stakeholder groups were distributed across the other three discourses. The ability of Q methodology to establish patterns Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 22 R. Curry et al. within and across individuals in a statistically interpretable manner enabled the identification of these different discourses in a way that a questionnaire-based approach, or a purely qualitative approach, would not. This approach therefore offers the potential for improving policy development by providing greater insight into stakeholders’ views. The use of the insights provided by the analysis in the development of policy scenarios, for evaluation using Ecological and Carbon Footprinting, are described below. A key element of the value of the approach is that while the method is researcher and time intensive, it requires relatively few participants to give statistically significant and policy-relevant results. While the small sample size clearly precludes making generalisable inferences about the population as a whole, Q methodology does give objective, statistically robust results (Barry and Proops 1999, Brown 1983). The space on the Q sort sheets included for respondents to include a written explanation as to why they selected the statements which they included was also used by some respondents to comment on their experience of the process. This indicated that Q was well received by stakeholders and confirmed the methodology as a responsive and statistically rigorous approach to obtaining the views of stakeholders on environment and sustainability. Other benefits identified by participants included: the identification of knowledge and capacity building needs; recognising the importance of interdisciplinary research; and the ‘social learning’ facilitated by participation in the Q sorting and interview processes. As such, the research also substantiates and extends the research by others such as Doody et al. (2009), who applied Q methodology in relation to improving public participation in relation to choosing sustainability indicators, and reinforces the findings of other researchers in the potential for the use of Q in the selection of participants for a stakeholder dialogue (Cuppen 2009, Cuppen et al. 2010). The use of soft systems methods, namely Ulrichs’ boundary-setting questions and a systems map, offers potential synergies with the use of Q, in particular, for the identification and/or selection of participants. 6. Conclusions This paper has used Q methodology to gain an understanding of stakeholder views on sustainability and resource management and has set out the following objectives: (1) to identify ‘discourses’, or how stakeholders view and talk about sustainability and resource management policies; (2) to gain an understanding of the usefulness of Q methodology in informing the development of environmental sustainability policies. The application of Q methodology for the stakeholder analysis enabled the identification of four distinct discourses and, thus, proved to be a useful approach for identifying how stakeholders view and talk about the issues surrounding environmental sustainability policies. The Q methodology approach has been useful in identifying discourses within and across different sustainability stakeholders. The analysis of the discourses revealed a more nuanced picture of stakeholder perceptions of sustainability than traditionally presumed by policy makers, indicating a degree of consensus on aims, with the differences among discourses lying in actions and responsibility, thus supporting the views of Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 23 Addams and Proops (2000a, p. 7) on the value of Q as ‘‘a method capable of exploring the nature of discourses which also has the potential to uncover unanticipated attitudes’’. This also supports the findings of others, who have identified the benefits of Q to policy in revealing additional complexity and avoiding assumptions, such as ‘environmentalists’ and business being homogenous and opposed groups (Dayton 2000). In turn, these insights informed the choice of policies and policy scenarios for evaluation using the REAP Ecological and Carbon Footprint model (Curry and Maguire 2011, Curry 2011). Specifically, the choice of scenarios sought to build on the indication of consensus by combining ‘win-wins’ such as housing retrofit maximum and green jobs, and healthy eating and low carbon diets. The usefulness of the method for policy development is further reinforced by its positive reception by stakeholders, identifying potential for the methodology to add value in other areas of decision support such as improving stakeholder participation and the exchange of ideas and values and supporting the findings of other authors who have reported on a positive reception from stakeholders, and hence its positive contribution to the process of policy dialogue (van Eeten 2001). The research has contributed to our understanding of the usefulness of Q in informing policy development, with, in addition to the benefits previously ascribed to Q in the literature, which this research reinforces, we would add those derived directly from the comments of stakeholders who participated in this research, namely ‘‘the identification of knowledge and capacity building needs, recognising the importance of interdisciplinary research and the ‘social learning’ facilitated by participation in the Q sorting and interview processes’’. If we concur with the viewpoint of Ellis et al. (2007, p. 540) ‘‘that the most popularly deployed methodology, the opinion poll, has contributed to the impasse in understanding public perception’’, and that of Focht on the effectiveness of ‘other techniques’ (Focht and Lawler 2000), then this leads us to the conclusion that Q methodology is a useful tool for environmental sustainability and policy making and that, for policy makers and analysts ‘‘it is worthwhile adding Q-method to their toolkits’’ (Weimer 1999, p. 429). Q methodology is an important tool for identifying, engaging and facilitating communication between stakeholders, defining group values and enabling the identification of discourses that can support improved policy development. Given this conclusion, and the evidence from over a decade of related work by other researchers on the benefits and usefulness of Q for improved policy development (Durning 1999, Steelman and Maguire 1999, Martin and Steelman 2004, Doody et al. 2009), it is clear that a growing range of researchers support the views of Weimer on the value of the methodology. We believe that this identifies two interesting and important priorities for ongoing research; first, why, given the benefits outlined in this paper, the use of Q in policy analysis in general, and in particular, environmental policy, has not become more common; and second, where Q-method lies in relation to the range of tools more commonly deployed in the ‘traditional’ policy makers’ ‘toolkit’ and how synergies with these might be developed too, with a view to optimising both the development and implementation of environmental and sustainable development policy. The authors hope that the issues identified and discussed in this paper can provide insights for other researchers and help set out the priorities for research to support this important policy area. 24 R. Curry et al. Acknowledgements The financial support of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is gratefully acknowledged for this research; the views expressed are not in any way attributable to the Department. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and encouraging comments. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 References Achterkamp, M. and Vos, J., 2007. Critically identifying stakeholders. Evaluating boundary critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Systems research and behavioral science, 24, 3–14. Addams, H. and Proops, J., 2000a. Introduction. In: H. Addams and J. Proops, eds. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, p. xi (preface). Addams, H. and Proops, J., 2000b. Preface. In: H. Addams and J. Proops, eds. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 7. Baker, R., et al., 2006. Q methodology in health economics. Journal of health services research & policy, 11 (1), 38–45. Barry, J., 2004. Ecological modernisation. In: J. Dryzek and D. Schlosburg. Debating the Earth. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 303–322. Barry, J., 2012. The politics of actually existing unsustainability: human flourishing in a climate changed, carbon constrained world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barry, J. and Eckersley, R., eds., 2005. The state and the global ecological crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barry, J. and Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological economics, 28 (3), 337–345. Barry, J., et al., 2008. Cool rationalities and hot air: a rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global environmental politics, 8 (2), 67–98. Brown, S., 1983. A primer on Q methodology. Operant subjectivity, 16 (3–4), 91–138. Carr, S. and Levidow, L., 2000. Exploring the links between science, risk, uncertainty, and ethics in regulatory controversies about genetically modified crops. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 12 (1), 29–39. Cotton, M. and Devine-Wright, P., 2011. Discourses of energy infrastructure development: a Q-method study of electricity transmission line siting in the UK. Environment and planning A, 43 (4), 942–960. Cuppen, E., 2009. Stakeholder dialogue on environmental issues: stakeholder perspectives as the basis for participant selection. In: J. Forrester and A. Gerger Swartling, eds. Overcoming the challenges of ‘doing participation’ in environment and development: workshop summary of lessons learned and ways forward. 28–29 May, 2009. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute, 13–17. [online] Available from: http://www.seiinternational.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Sustainable-livelihoods/particip ation%20workshop%20wp%20100308.pdf [Accessed 23 August 2012]. Cuppen, E., et al., 2010. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological economics, 69 (3), 579–591. Curry, R., 2011. The use of Ecological and Carbon Footprint Analysis in regional policy making: application and insights using the REAP model. In: S. Roaf, ed. Surveying and shaping the carbon accounting landscape in Scotland. The 4th international conference on carbon accounting. Edinburgh: Heriot Watt University, Scottish Carbon Accounting Group, 25 November 2011. Curry, R. and Maguire, C., 2008. Northern Visions. Footpaths to sustainability. Belfast: SRI. Curry, R. and Maguire, C., 2011. The use of Ecological and Carbon Footprint Analysis in regional policy making: application and insights using the REAP model. Local environment, 16 (9), 917–936. Curry, R., et al., 2004. Northern limits. A Resource Flow Analysis and Ecological Footprint of Northern Ireland. Belfast: Arena, 70. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 25 Curry, R., et al., 2011. The use of Material Flow Analysis and the Ecological Footprint in regional policy making: application and insights from Northern Ireland. Local environment, 16 (2), 165–179. Davies, B.B. and Hodge, I.D., 2007. Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological economics, 61 (2–3), 323–333. Dayton, B., 2000. Policy frames, policy making and the global climate change discourse. In: H. Addams and J. Proops, eds. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 71–99. Doody, D., et al., 2009. Evaluation of the Q-method as a method of public participation in the selection of sustainable development indicators. Ecological indicators, 9, 1129–1137. Dryzek, J., 2005. The politics of the Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryzek, J. and Berejikian, J., 1993. Reconstructive democratic theory. American political science review, 87 (1), 48–60. Durning, D., 1999. The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: a role for Q-methodology. Journal of policy analysis and management, 18 (3), 389–410. Durning, D., 200. Using Q-methodology to resolve conflicts and find solutions to contentious policy issues. Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG) annual conference 2005. Workshop on conflict resolution and peace-building mechanisms for public administration, 5–7 December, 2005. Beijing: China National School of Administration. Durning, D. and Osuna, W., 1994. Policy analysts’ roles and value orientations: an empirical investigation using Q methodology. Journal of policy analysis and management, 13 (4), 629–657. Eden, S., et al., 2005. Structuring subjectivities: using Q methodology in human geography. Area, 37 (4), 423–422. Ellis, G., et al., 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: applying Qmethodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of environmental planning and management, 50 (4), 517. Fiorino, D., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, technology & human values, 15 (2), 226–243. Fisher, J. and Brown, K., 2009. Wind energy on the Isle of Lewis: implications for deliberative planning. Environment and planning A, 41 (10), 2516–2536. Focht, W. and Lawler, J., 2000. Using Q methodology to facilitate policy dialogue. In: H. Addams and J. Proops, eds. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 102–122. Frantzi, S., et al., 2009. Exploring discourses on international environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: a case study of the Mediterranean Action Plan. Journal of environmental management, 90 (1), 177–186. Group, E.P., 2006. First steps towards sustainability. a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland. Belfast: Environmental Policy Group, 174. Hooker Clarke, A., 2002. Understanding sustainable development in the context of other emergent environmental perspectives. Policy sciences, 35 (1), 69. Kenyon, W., 2007. Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: a participant-led multi-criteria approach. Ecological economics, 64 (1), 70–81. Martin, I. and Steelman, T., 2004. Using multiple methods to understand agency values and objectives: lessons for public lands management. Policy sciences, , 37 (1), 37–69. Mattson, D.J., et al., 2006. Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contending perspectives. Environmental science & policy, 9 (4), 392–405. Meadowcroft, J., 2004. Participation and sustainable development: modes of citizen, community and organisational involvement. In: W. Lafferty, ed. Governance for sustainable development. The challenge of adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 162–190. Ockwell, D., 2008. ‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia. Policy, 41 (4), 263–292. Previte, J., et al., 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia ruralis, 47 (2), 135– 147. Downloaded by [The Library at Queens] at 03:47 03 September 2012 26 R. Curry et al. Steelman, T.A. and Maguire, L.A., 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Qmethodology in national forest management. Journal of policy analysis and management, 18 (3), 361–388. Stephenson, W., 1935. Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136 (34), 297. Stirling, A., 2008. ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science technology human values, 33 (2), 262–294. Swedeen, P., 2006. Post-normal science in practice: a Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecological economics, 57 (2), 190–208. Tuler, S., et al., 2005. Competing perspectives on public involvement: planning for risk characterization and risk communication about radiological contamination from a national laboratory. Health, risk and society, 7 (3), 247–266. Ulrich, W., 1996. Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy. Chichester: Wiley. van Eeten, M.J.G., 2001. Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of The Netherlands civil aviation controversy. Journal of policy analysis and management, 20 (3), 391–414. Weimer, D.L., 1999. Comment: Q-method and the isms. Journal of policy analysis and management, 18 (3), 426–429. Wolsink, M. and Breukers, S., 2010. Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives. Journal of environmental planning and management, 53 (5), 535–558.