63 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Identifying diverging sustainability meanings for water policy: a Q-method study in Phoenix, Arizona M. Iribarnegaray et al. 10.2166/wp.2021.033
2. Stakeholder Value Orientations in Water Management P. Vugteveen et al. 10.1080/08941920903496952
3. A Study on the Subjectivity of Parents Regarding “0th-Period Physical Education Class” of Middle Schools in Korea Using Q-Methodology W. Choi & W. Jeon 10.3390/ijerph19137760
4. Agricultural water poverty: Using Q-methodology to understand stakeholders' perceptions M. Forouzani et al. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.07.003
5. Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems J. Forrester et al. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019
6. Integrating “Experience Economy” into Orthodontic Practice Management: A current perspective on internal marketing V. Meghna et al. 10.1053/j.sodo.2016.08.011
7. Unpacking viewpoints on water security: lessons from the South Saskatchewan River Basin G. Strickert et al. 10.2166/wp.2015.195
8. Risk communication and adaptive behaviour in flood-prone areas of Austria: A Q-methodology study on opinions of affected homeowners M. Attems et al. 10.1371/journal.pone.0233551
9. Quem são, o que fazem e como interagem: compreendendo os stakeholders em Pequenas Centrais Hidrelétricas D. Pagnussatt et al. 10.1590/0104-530x3676-18
10. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action D. Hegger et al. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002
11. “We Don’t Take the Pledge”: Environmentality and environmental skepticism at the epicenter of US wind energy development W. Jepson et al. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.002
12. Do African and European energy stakeholders agree on key energy drivers in Africa? Using Q methodology to understand perceptions on energy access debates M. Matinga et al. 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.041
13. Identifying conflicts and opportunities for collaboration in the management of a wildlife resource: a mixed-methods approach Z. Austin et al. 10.1071/WR10057
14. Mineral Resources and Localised Development: Q-Methodology for Rapid Assessment of Socioeconomic Impacts in Rwanda F. Weldegiorgis et al. 10.2139/ssrn.2697371
15. Stakeholder perceptions of uncertainty matter in megaprojects: The Flemish A102 infrastructure project T. Machiels et al. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102437
16. Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about climate change adaptation – A Q-method application in Serbia I. Živojinović & B. Wolfslehner 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.007
17. Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities M. Wolsink 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.001
18. Mineral resources and localised development: Q-methodology for rapid assessment of socioeconomic impacts in Rwanda F. Weldegiorgis & S. Ali 10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.03.006
19. Identifying Uncertainty Guidelines for Supporting Policy Making in Water Management Illustrated for Upper Guadiana and Rhine Basins P. van der Keur et al. 10.1007/s11269-010-9640-x
20. Semi-quantitative actor-based modelling as a tool to assess the drivers of change and physical variables in participatory integrated assessments C. Döll et al. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.01.016
21. Practitioners' viewpoints on citizen science in water management: a case study in Dutch regional water resource management E. Minkman et al. 10.5194/hess-21-153-2017
22. Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives M. Wolsink & S. Breukers 10.1080/09640561003633581
23. Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: A pilot study of consumers’ perceptions of impacts W. Liu et al. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102523
24. Climate change discourse among Iranian farmers T. Zobeidi et al. 10.1007/s10584-016-1741-y
25. A Case Study Investigating the Influence of Deliberative Discussion on Environmental Preferences M. Walton 10.1080/08941920.2012.689932
26. What do local stakeholders think about the impacts of small hydroelectric plants? Using Q methodology to understand different perspectives D. Pagnussatt et al. 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.029
27. Measuring community disaster resilience at local levels: An adaptable resilience framework H. Tariq et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102358
28. How Urban Forest Managers Evaluate Management and Governance Challenges in Their Decision-Making C. Ordóñez et al. 10.3390/f11090963
29. Learning from Collaborative Research in Water Management Practice G. Raadgever et al. 10.1007/s11269-012-0070-9
30. How will climate change affect spatial planning in agricultural and natural environments? Examples from three Dutch case study regions M. Blom-Zandstra et al. 10.1088/1755-1315/8/1/012018
31. Perspectives beyond the meter: a Q-study for modern segmentation of drinking water customers S. Brouwer et al. 10.2166/wp.2019.078
32. Assessing the success factors of organized crime groups J. H. Ratcliffe et al. 10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2012-0095
33. Intelligence-Led Policing in Honduras: Applying Sleipnir and Social Psychology to Understand Gang Proliferation J. Ratcliffe et al. 10.1007/s11896-014-9143-4
34. Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review G. Sneegas et al. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
35. Stakeholders' contradicting perceptions on the effects of agroforestry and monocropping systems on water use R. Rijneveld & H. Marhaento 10.2166/wpt.2020.024
36. Measuring Environmental Resilience Using Q-Methods: A Malaysian Perspective H. Tariq et al. 10.3390/su142214749
37. Measuring community disaster resilience using Q-methods: a physical resilience perspective H. Tariq et al. 10.1108/BEPAM-03-2020-0053
38. Culture, climate change and mobility decisions in Pacific Small Island Developing States R. Oakes 10.1007/s11111-019-00321-w
39. Using legitimacy dialogues to explore responses to flooding issues in a UK catchment M. Gearey & P. Jeffrey 10.1111/j.1747-6593.2009.00190.x
40. How farmers perceive the impact of dust phenomenon on agricultural production activities: A Q-methodology study F. Taheri et al. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2019.104028
41. Using Q Methodology to Explore Risk Perception and Public Concern about Tree Pests and Diseases: The Case of Ash Dieback J. Urquhart et al. 10.3390/f10090761
42. Flood risk management, an approach to managing cross-border hazards L. Bracken et al. 10.1007/s11069-016-2284-2
43. The role of integration for future urban water systems: Identifying Dutch urban water practitioners' perspectives using Q methodology E. Nieuwenhuis et al. 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103659
44. Domain‐based perceptions of risk: a case study of lay and technical community attitudes toward managed aquifer recharge Z. Leviston et al. 10.1111/jasp.12079
45. Using Q-methodology to discover disaster resilience perspectives from local residents J. Ma et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104353
46. Stakeholder perceptions in flood risk assessment: A hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach for Istanbul, Turkey Ö. Ekmekcioğlu et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102327
47. Commercial Seaweed Cultivation in Scotland and the Social Pillar of Sustainability: A Q-Method Approach to Characterizing Key Stakeholder Perspectives M. Bjørkan & S. Billing 10.3389/fsufs.2022.795024
48. Subjective Perceptions and Their Characteristics of Middle School Students Regarding the Effectiveness of the “0th Period Physical Education Class” in South Korea: The Q Methodology Application W. Jeon et al. 10.3390/su132112081
49. A social-economic-engineering combined framework for decision making in water resources planning E. Chung & K. Lee 10.5194/hess-13-675-2009
50. DEMOCRATIC SUBJECTIVITIES IN NETWORK GOVERNANCE: A Q METHODOLOGY STUDY OF ENGLISH AND DUTCH PUBLIC MANAGERS S. JEFFARES & C. SKELCHER 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01888.x
51. Stakeholders' perceptions of marine fish farming in Catalonia (Spain): A Q-methodology approach K. Bacher et al. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.028
52. The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe T. Venus et al. 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111422
53. More than a one-size-fits-all approach – tailoring flood risk communication to plural residents’ perspectives K. Snel et al. 10.1080/02508060.2019.1663825
54. Learning in multi-level governance of adaptation to climate change – a literature review J. Gonzales-Iwanciw et al. 10.1080/09640568.2019.1594725
55. Subjective Perceptions of South Korean Parents Regarding the Effectiveness of Taekwondo Education for Adolescents and Its Characteristics: The Q Methodology Application W. Jeon et al. 10.3390/ijerph18189687
56. Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions? - Revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology R. Chang et al. 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.047
57. Shape of a water crisis: practitioner perspectives on urban water scarcity and ‘Day Zero’ in South Africa Z. Bischoff-Mattson et al. 10.2166/wp.2020.233
58. Public stealth and boundary objects: Coping with integrated water resource management and the post-political condition in Montana’s portion of the Yellowstone River watershed L. Ward et al. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.017
59. Seven rules for researchers to increase their impact on the policy process E. Mostert & G. Raadgever 10.5194/hess-12-1087-2008
60. Cross-Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Across Large River Basins in Europe, Africa and Asia V. Krysanova et al. 10.1007/s11269-010-9650-8
61. Justice, science, or collaboration: divergent perspectives on Indigenous cultural water in Australia's Murray–Darling Basin Z. Bischoff-Mattson et al. 10.2166/wp.2018.145
62. Policy diffusion in arid Basin water management: a Q method approach in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia A. Lynch et al. 10.1007/s10113-014-0602-3
63. Delivering more inclusive public participation in coastal flood management: A case study in Suffolk, UK J. Smith & A. Bond 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.026