Advances in Qualitative Methods in Environmental Research

Literature Cited

1. 1.

   Bercht AL. 2021. How qualitative approaches matter in climate and ocean change research: uncovering contradictions about climate concern. Glob. Environ. Change 70:102326
   [Google Scholar]
2. 2.

   Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. 2013. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers London: SAGE
3. 3.

   Mahoney J, Goertz G. 2006. A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Polit. Anal. 14:3227–49
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4.

   Seamon D, Gill HK. 2016. Qualitative approaches to environment-behavior research. Research Methods for Environmental Psychology, ed. R Gifford115–35. Chichester, UK: Wiley
   [Google Scholar]
5. 5.

   Gerring J. 2012. Mere description. . Br. J. Polit. Sci. 42:4721–46
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6.

   King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
7. 7.

   Brady HE, Collier D. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
8. 8.

   George AL, Bennett A. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
9. 9.

   Gerring J. 2017. Qualitative methods. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20:15–36
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10.

    Haverland M. 2010. Conceiving and designing political science research: perspectives from Europe. Eur. Polit. Sci. 9:4488–94
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11.

    Flyvbjerg B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
12. 12.

    Lincoln YS, Guba EG. 1985.. Naturalistic Inquiry Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
13. 13.

    Yin RK. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications London: SAGE:
14. 14.

    Maxwell JA. 2021. Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qual. Psychol. 8:1111–18
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15.

    O'Neill K, Weinthal E, Marion Suiseeya KR, Bernstein S, Cohn A et al. 2013. Methods and global environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38:441–71
    [Google Scholar]
16. 16.

    Stake RE. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research London: SAGE
17. 17.

    Schelly C. 2016. Understanding energy practices: a case for qualitative research. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29:6744–49
    [Google Scholar]
18. 18.

    Brown P. 2003. Qualitative methods in environmental health research. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:141789–98
    [Google Scholar]
19. 19.

    Erikson K. 1976. Everything in Its Path New York: Simon & Schuster
20. 20.

    Ford JD, Keskitalo ECH, Smith T, Pearce T, Berrang-Ford L et al. 2010. Case study and analogue methodologies in climate change vulnerability research. WIREs Clim. Change 1:3374–92
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21.

    Skocpol T 1984. Strategies in historical sociology. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, ed. T Skocpol356–91. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
22. 22.

    Huntington HP. 2000. Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol. Appl. 10:51270–74
    [Google Scholar]
23. 23.

    Weinthal E. 2002. State Making and Environmental Cooperation: Linking Domestic and International Politics in Central Asia Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
24. 24.

    Sullivan R, Gouldson A. 2017. The governance of corporate responses to climate change: an international comparison. Bus. Strategy Environ. 26:4413–25
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25.

    Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Dallas, TX: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1st ed..
26. 26.

    Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts JT. 2009. Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34:405–30
    [Google Scholar]
27. 27.

    Rudel TK. 2008. Meta-analyses of case studies: a method for studying regional and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 18:118–25
    [Google Scholar]
28. 28.

    Rudel T. 2005. Tropical Forests: Regional Paths of Destruction and Regeneration in the Late Twentieth Century New York: Columbia Univ. Press
29. 29.

    Bennett A, Checkel JT. 2015. Process Tracing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
30. 30.

    Beach D, Pedersen RB. 2019. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
31. 31.

    Motta MJ. 2018. Policy diffusion and directionality: tracing early adoption of offshore wind policy. Rev. Policy Res. 35:3398–421
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32.

    Stokes LC. 2020. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
33. 33.

    Samper JA, Schockling A, Islar M. 2021. Climate politics in green deals: exposing the political frontiers of the European Green Deal. Polit. Gov. 9:28–16
    [Google Scholar]
34. 34.

    Orach K, Schlüter M, Österblom H. 2017. Tracing a pathway to success: how competing interest groups influenced the 2013 EU Common Fisheries Policy reform. Environ. Sci. Policy 76:90–102
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35.

    Maskey S. 2022. Using process tracing to evaluate stakeholder disputes: the case of tender award dispute in Nepal's forestry. Asian J. Comp. Polit. 7:4907–21
    [Google Scholar]
36. 36.

    Baird J, Schultz L, Plummer R, Armitage D, Bodin Ö. 2019. Emergence of collaborative environmental governance: What are the causal mechanisms?. Environ. Manag 63:116–31
    [Google Scholar]
37. 37.

    Ide T. 2017. Research methods for exploring the links between climate change and conflict. WIREs Clim. Change 8:3e456
    [Google Scholar]
38. 38.

    Muradova L, Walker H, Colli F. 2020. Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly. Clim. Policy 20:101322–35
    [Google Scholar]
39. 39.

    Baggio JA, Barnett A, Perez-Ibarra I, Brady U, Ratajczyk E et al. 2016. Explaining success and failure in the commons: the configural nature of Ostrom's institutional design principles. Int. J. Commons 10:2417–39
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40.

    Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C. 2014. The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 29:139–54
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41.

    Kirchherr J, Charles KJ, Walton MJ. 2016. Multi-causal pathways of public opposition to dam projects in Asia: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Glob. Environ. Change 41:33–45
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42.

    Bretthauer JM. 2015. Conditions for peace and conflict: applying a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to cases of resource scarcity. J. Confl. Resolut. 59:4593–616
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43.

    Mapfumo P, Adjei-Nsiah S, Mtambanengwe F, Chikowo R, Giller KE. 2013. Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. Environ. Dev. 5:6–22
    [Google Scholar]
44. 44.

    Haraway D. 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 14:3575–99
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45.

    Hausermann H, Adomako J. 2022. Positionality, ‘the field,’ and implications for knowledge production and research ethics in land change science. J. Land Use Sci. 17:1211–25
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46.

    Boyce P, Bhattacharyya J, Linklater W. 2021. The need for formal reflexivity in conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 36:2e13840
    [Google Scholar]
47. 47.

    Ross A, Van Alstine J, Cotton M, Middlemiss L. 2021. Deliberative democracy and environmental justice: evaluating the role of citizens’ juries in urban climate governance. Local Environ 26:121512–31
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48.

    Rose G. 1997. Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 21:3305–20
    [Google Scholar]
49. 49.

    Joa B, Winkel G, Primmer E. 2018. The unknown known—a review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy 79:520–30
    [Google Scholar]
50. 50.

    Middlemiss L, Gillard R. 2015. Fuel poverty from the bottom-up: characterising household energy vulnerability through the lived experience of the fuel poor. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6:146–54
    [Google Scholar]
51. 51.

    Soler M, Gómez A. 2020. A citizen's claim: science with and for society. Qual. Inq. 26:8–9943–47
    [Google Scholar]
52. 52.

    Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N. 2016. Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ. Sci. Policy 62:90–98
    [Google Scholar]
53. 53.

    McIntyre A. 2007. Participatory Action Research London: SAGE
54. 54.

    Godden NJ, Macnish P, Chakma T, Naidu K. 2020. Feminist Participatory Action Research as a tool for climate justice. Gend. Dev. 28:3593–615
    [Google Scholar]
55. 55.

    Reitan R, Gibson S. 2012. Climate change or social change? Environmental and leftist praxis and participatory action research. Globalizations 9:3395–410
    [Google Scholar]
56. 56.

    Nussey C, Frediani AA, Lagi R, Mazutti J, Nyerere J. 2022. Building university capabilities to respond to climate change through participatory action research: towards a comparative analytical framework. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 23:195–115
    [Google Scholar]
57. 57.

    Mijin Cha J, Stevis D, Vachon TE, Price V, Brescia-Weiler M 2022. A Green New Deal for all: the centrality of a worker and community-led just transition in the US. Polit. Geogr. 95:102594
    [Google Scholar]
58. 58.

    Calvert K, Jahns R. 2021. Participatory mapping and spatial planning for renewable energy development: the case of ground-mount solar in rural Ontario. Can. Plan. Policy Aménage Polit. Can. 2021:89–100
    [Google Scholar]
59. 59.

    Constantino SM, Weber EU. 2021. Decision-making under the deep uncertainty of climate change: the psychological and political agency of narratives. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42:151–59
    [Google Scholar]
60. 60.

    Taylor C. 2002. Modern social imaginaries. Public Cult. 14:191–124
    [Google Scholar]
61. 61.

    Jasanoff S. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory Cult. Soc. 27:2–3233–53
    [Google Scholar]
62. 62.

    Deubelli TM, Mechler R. 2021. Perspectives on transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:5053002
    [Google Scholar]
63. 63.

    Fenton-O'Creevy M, Tuckett D. 2022. Selecting futures: the role of conviction, narratives, ambivalence, and constructive doubt. Futures Foresight Sci. 4:e111
    [Google Scholar]
64. 64.

    O'Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K et al. 2017. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42:169–80
    [Google Scholar]
65. 65.

    Carrington D. 2019. Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment. The Guardian May 17. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
    [Google Scholar]
66. 66.

    Weber EU, Ames DR, Blais A-R. 2005. ‘How do I choose thee? Let me count the ways’: a textual analysis of similarities and differences in modes of decision-making in China and the United States. Manag. Organ. Rev. 1:187–118
    [Google Scholar]
67. 67.

    Whiteley A, Chiang A, Einsiedel E. 2016. Climate change imaginaries? Examining expectation narratives in cli-fi novels. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 36:128–37
    [Google Scholar]
68. 68.

    Robinson KS. 2020. The Ministry for the Future London: Orbit
69. 69.

    Roanhorse R. 2018. Trail of Lightning New York: Simon & Schuster
70. 70.

    Powers R. 2018. The Overstory New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
71. 71.

    Machin A. 2022. Climates of democracy: skeptical, rational, and radical imaginaries. WIREs Clim. Change 13:4e774
    [Google Scholar]
72. 72.

    Haraway DJ. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
73. 73.

    Mourik RM, Sonetti G, Robison RAV. 2021. The same old story—or not? How storytelling can support inclusive local energy policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 73:101940
    [Google Scholar]
74. 74.

    Rosa AB, Kimpeler S, Schirrmeister E, Warnke P. 2021. Participatory foresight and reflexive innovation: setting policy goals and developing strategies in a bottom-up, mission-oriented, sustainable way. Eur. J. Futur. Res. 9:12
    [Google Scholar]
75. 75.

    Caggiano H, Landau LF, Campbell LK, Johnson ML, Svendsen ES. 2022. Civic stewardship and urban climate governance: opportunities for transboundary planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221104010
    [Google Scholar]
76. 76.

    Tsing AL. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
77. 77.

    Ogden LA, Aoki C, Grove JM, Sonti NF, Hall W et al. 2019. Forest ethnography: an approach to study the environmental history and political ecology of urban forests. Urban Ecosyst 22:149–63
    [Google Scholar]
78. 78.

    Albuquerque UP, Alves AGC. 2016. What is ethnobiology?. Introduction to Ethnobiology UP Albuquerque, RR Nóbrega Alves 3–7. Cham, Switz.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
79. 79.

    Li X, Junqueira AB, Reyes-García V. 2021. At the crossroad of emergency: ethnobiology, climate change, and Indigenous Peoples and local communities. J. Ethnobiol. 41:3307–12
    [Google Scholar]
80. 80.

    Gillespie KA. 2019. For a politicized multispecies ethnography: reflections on a feminist geographic pedagogical experiment. Polit. Anim. 5:17–32
    [Google Scholar]
81. 81.

    Watson MC. 2016. On multispecies mythology: a critique of animal anthropology italicTheory Cult. Soc 335159–72
    [Google Scholar]
82. 82.

    Schlüter M, Orach K, Lindkvist E, Martin R, Wijermans N et al. 2019. Toward a methodology for explaining and theorizing about social-ecological phenomena. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39:44–53
    [Google Scholar]
83. 83.

    Nature Climate Change 2021. Powers of qualitative research. Nat. Clim. Change 11:9717–17
    [Google Scholar]
84. 84.

    Moon K, Brewer TD, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Adams VM, Blackman DA. 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecol. Soc. 21:317
    [Google Scholar]
85. 85.

    Gear C, Eppel E, Koziol-McLain J. 2018. Advancing complexity theory as a qualitative research methodology. Int. J. Qual. Methods 17: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918782557
    [Google Scholar]
86. 86.

    Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R 2013. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5:27–39
    [Google Scholar]
87. 87.

    Supran G, Oreskes N. 2017. Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014). Environ. Res. Lett. 12:8084019
    [Google Scholar]
88. 88.

    Supran G, Oreskes N. 2020. Addendum to ‘Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)’ Supran and Oreskes (2017 Environ. Res. Lett. 12 084019). Environ. Res. Lett. 15:11119401
    [Google Scholar]
89. 89.

    Fisher DR, Waggle J, Leifeld P. 2013. Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. Am. Behav. Sci. 57:170–92
    [Google Scholar]
90. 90.

    Markard J, Rinscheid A, Widdel L. 2021. Analyzing transitions through the lens of discourse networks: coal phase-out in Germany. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 40:315–31
    [Google Scholar]
91. 91.

    Derr V, Simons J. 2020. A review of photovoice applications in environment, sustainability, and conservation contexts: Is the method maintaining its emancipatory intents?. Environ. Educ. Res. 26:3359–80
    [Google Scholar]
92. 92.

    Russo S, Hissa K, Murphy B, Gunson B. 2021. Photovoice, emergency management and climate change: a comparative case-study approach. Qual. Res. 21:4568–85
    [Google Scholar]
93. 93.

    Murray L, Järviluoma H. 2020. Walking as transgenerational methodology. Qual. Res. 20:2229–38
    [Google Scholar]
94. 94.

    Shepherd N. 2023. Walking as embodied research: coloniality, climate change, and the ‘arts of noticing.’. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28:158–67
    [Google Scholar]
95. 95.

    Caggiano H, Landau LF. 2021. A new framework for imagining the climate commons? The case of a Green New Deal in the US. Plan. Theory 21:4380–402
    [Google Scholar]
96. 96.

    Macura B, Suškevičs M, Garside R, Hannes K, Rees R, Rodela R 2019. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ. Evid. 8:124
    [Google Scholar]
97. 97.

    Nielsen JØ, D'haen SAL. 2014. Asking about climate change: reflections on methodology in qualitative climate change research published in Global Environmental Change since 2000. Glob. Environ. Change 24:402–9
    [Google Scholar]
98. 98.

    Alexander SM, Jones K, Bennett NJ, Budden A, Cox M et al. 2020. Qualitative data sharing and synthesis for sustainability science. Nat. Sustain. 3:281–88
    [Google Scholar]
99. 99.

    Fisher DR. 2019. The broader importance of #FridaysForFuture. Nat. Clim. Change 9:6430–31
    [Google Scholar]
100. 100.

     Berkes F, Jolly D. 2002. Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conserv. Ecol. 5:218
     [Google Scholar]