Articles | Volume 12, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1097-2008
© Author(s) 2008. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1097-2008
© Author(s) 2008. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Identification of stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q methodology
G. T. Raadgever
Water Resources Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
E. Mostert
Water Resources Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
N. C. van de Giesen
Water Resources Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
Viewed
Total article views: 3,693 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 01 Feb 2013, article published on 18 Feb 2008)
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,688 | 1,870 | 135 | 3,693 | 142 | 124 |
- HTML: 1,688
- PDF: 1,870
- XML: 135
- Total: 3,693
- BibTeX: 142
- EndNote: 124
Total article views: 2,964 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 01 Feb 2013, article published on 12 Aug 2008)
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,421 | 1,428 | 115 | 2,964 | 126 | 115 |
- HTML: 1,421
- PDF: 1,428
- XML: 115
- Total: 2,964
- BibTeX: 126
- EndNote: 115
Total article views: 729 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 01 Feb 2013, article published on 18 Feb 2008)
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
267 | 442 | 20 | 729 | 16 | 9 |
- HTML: 267
- PDF: 442
- XML: 20
- Total: 729
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 9
Cited
65 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Identifying diverging sustainability meanings for water policy: a Q-method study in Phoenix, Arizona M. Iribarnegaray et al. 10.2166/wp.2021.033
- Stakeholder Value Orientations in Water Management P. Vugteveen et al. 10.1080/08941920903496952
- 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
- Agricultural water poverty: Using Q-methodology to understand stakeholders' perceptions M. Forouzani et al. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.07.003
- 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
- Integrating “Experience Economy” into Orthodontic Practice Management: A current perspective on internal marketing V. Meghna et al. 10.1053/j.sodo.2016.08.011
- Unpacking viewpoints on water security: lessons from the South Saskatchewan River Basin G. Strickert et al. 10.2166/wp.2015.195
- 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
- Quem são, o que fazem e como interagem: compreendendo os stakeholders em Pequenas Centrais Hidrelétricas D. Pagnussatt et al. 10.1590/0104-530x3676-18
- 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
- “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
- 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
- Identifying conflicts and opportunities for collaboration in the management of a wildlife resource: a mixed-methods approach Z. Austin et al. 10.1071/WR10057
- Mineral Resources and Localised Development: Q-Methodology for Rapid Assessment of Socioeconomic Impacts in Rwanda F. Weldegiorgis et al. 10.2139/ssrn.2697371
- Stakeholder perceptions of uncertainty matter in megaprojects: The Flemish A102 infrastructure project T. Machiels et al. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102437
- 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
- Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities M. Wolsink 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.001
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives M. Wolsink & S. Breukers 10.1080/09640561003633581
- Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: A pilot study of consumers’ perceptions of impacts W. Liu et al. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102523
- Climate change discourse among Iranian farmers T. Zobeidi et al. 10.1007/s10584-016-1741-y
- A Case Study Investigating the Influence of Deliberative Discussion on Environmental Preferences M. Walton 10.1080/08941920.2012.689932
- 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
- Measuring community disaster resilience at local levels: An adaptable resilience framework H. Tariq et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102358
- How Urban Forest Managers Evaluate Management and Governance Challenges in Their Decision-Making C. Ordóñez et al. 10.3390/f11090963
- Learning from Collaborative Research in Water Management Practice G. Raadgever et al. 10.1007/s11269-012-0070-9
- 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
- Perspectives beyond the meter: a Q-study for modern segmentation of drinking water customers S. Brouwer et al. 10.2166/wp.2019.078
- Sowing Q methodology in the rural global South: a review of challenges and good practices J. Intriago Zambrano et al. 10.1080/23311886.2024.2359018
- Assessing the success factors of organized crime groups J. H. Ratcliffe et al. 10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2012-0095
- Intelligence-Led Policing in Honduras: Applying Sleipnir and Social Psychology to Understand Gang Proliferation J. Ratcliffe et al. 10.1007/s11896-014-9143-4
- Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review G. Sneegas et al. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
- Resilience in the dust: The influence of sand and dust storms (SDSs) on residents' perception of urban green spaces: A qualitative study A. Lak et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104572
- Stakeholders' contradicting perceptions on the effects of agroforestry and monocropping systems on water use R. Rijneveld & H. Marhaento 10.2166/wpt.2020.024
- Measuring Environmental Resilience Using Q-Methods: A Malaysian Perspective H. Tariq et al. 10.3390/su142214749
- Measuring community disaster resilience using Q-methods: a physical resilience perspective H. Tariq et al. 10.1108/BEPAM-03-2020-0053
- Culture, climate change and mobility decisions in Pacific Small Island Developing States R. Oakes 10.1007/s11111-019-00321-w
- 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
- 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
- Three faces of climate change: Using Q-methodology to understand farmers’ perspectives of climate change and adaptive capacity in Bangladesh’s wetland areas K. Kabir et al. 10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100497
- 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
- Flood risk management, an approach to managing cross-border hazards L. Bracken et al. 10.1007/s11069-016-2284-2
- 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
- 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
- Using Q-methodology to discover disaster resilience perspectives from local residents J. Ma et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104353
- 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
- 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
- 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
- A social-economic-engineering combined framework for decision making in water resources planning E. Chung & K. Lee 10.5194/hess-13-675-2009
- 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
- Stakeholders' perceptions of marine fish farming in Catalonia (Spain): A Q-methodology approach K. Bacher et al. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.028
- The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe T. Venus et al. 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111422
- 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
- Learning in multi-level governance of adaptation to climate change – a literature review J. Gonzales-Iwanciw et al. 10.1080/09640568.2019.1594725
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Seven rules for researchers to increase their impact on the policy process E. Mostert & G. Raadgever 10.5194/hess-12-1087-2008
- 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
- 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
- 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
59 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Identifying diverging sustainability meanings for water policy: a Q-method study in Phoenix, Arizona M. Iribarnegaray et al. 10.2166/wp.2021.033
- Stakeholder Value Orientations in Water Management P. Vugteveen et al. 10.1080/08941920903496952
- 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
- Agricultural water poverty: Using Q-methodology to understand stakeholders' perceptions M. Forouzani et al. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.07.003
- 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
- Integrating “Experience Economy” into Orthodontic Practice Management: A current perspective on internal marketing V. Meghna et al. 10.1053/j.sodo.2016.08.011
- Unpacking viewpoints on water security: lessons from the South Saskatchewan River Basin G. Strickert et al. 10.2166/wp.2015.195
- 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
- Quem são, o que fazem e como interagem: compreendendo os stakeholders em Pequenas Centrais Hidrelétricas D. Pagnussatt et al. 10.1590/0104-530x3676-18
- 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
- “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
- 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
- Identifying conflicts and opportunities for collaboration in the management of a wildlife resource: a mixed-methods approach Z. Austin et al. 10.1071/WR10057
- Mineral Resources and Localised Development: Q-Methodology for Rapid Assessment of Socioeconomic Impacts in Rwanda F. Weldegiorgis et al. 10.2139/ssrn.2697371
- Stakeholder perceptions of uncertainty matter in megaprojects: The Flemish A102 infrastructure project T. Machiels et al. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102437
- 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
- Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities M. Wolsink 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.001
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives M. Wolsink & S. Breukers 10.1080/09640561003633581
- Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: A pilot study of consumers’ perceptions of impacts W. Liu et al. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102523
- Climate change discourse among Iranian farmers T. Zobeidi et al. 10.1007/s10584-016-1741-y
- A Case Study Investigating the Influence of Deliberative Discussion on Environmental Preferences M. Walton 10.1080/08941920.2012.689932
- 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
- Measuring community disaster resilience at local levels: An adaptable resilience framework H. Tariq et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102358
- How Urban Forest Managers Evaluate Management and Governance Challenges in Their Decision-Making C. Ordóñez et al. 10.3390/f11090963
- Learning from Collaborative Research in Water Management Practice G. Raadgever et al. 10.1007/s11269-012-0070-9
- 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
- Perspectives beyond the meter: a Q-study for modern segmentation of drinking water customers S. Brouwer et al. 10.2166/wp.2019.078
- Sowing Q methodology in the rural global South: a review of challenges and good practices J. Intriago Zambrano et al. 10.1080/23311886.2024.2359018
- Assessing the success factors of organized crime groups J. H. Ratcliffe et al. 10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2012-0095
- Intelligence-Led Policing in Honduras: Applying Sleipnir and Social Psychology to Understand Gang Proliferation J. Ratcliffe et al. 10.1007/s11896-014-9143-4
- Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review G. Sneegas et al. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
- Resilience in the dust: The influence of sand and dust storms (SDSs) on residents' perception of urban green spaces: A qualitative study A. Lak et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104572
- Stakeholders' contradicting perceptions on the effects of agroforestry and monocropping systems on water use R. Rijneveld & H. Marhaento 10.2166/wpt.2020.024
- Measuring Environmental Resilience Using Q-Methods: A Malaysian Perspective H. Tariq et al. 10.3390/su142214749
- Measuring community disaster resilience using Q-methods: a physical resilience perspective H. Tariq et al. 10.1108/BEPAM-03-2020-0053
- Culture, climate change and mobility decisions in Pacific Small Island Developing States R. Oakes 10.1007/s11111-019-00321-w
- 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
- 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
- Three faces of climate change: Using Q-methodology to understand farmers’ perspectives of climate change and adaptive capacity in Bangladesh’s wetland areas K. Kabir et al. 10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100497
- 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
- Flood risk management, an approach to managing cross-border hazards L. Bracken et al. 10.1007/s11069-016-2284-2
- 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
- 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
- Using Q-methodology to discover disaster resilience perspectives from local residents J. Ma et al. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104353
- 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
- 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
- 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
- A social-economic-engineering combined framework for decision making in water resources planning E. Chung & K. Lee 10.5194/hess-13-675-2009
- 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
- Stakeholders' perceptions of marine fish farming in Catalonia (Spain): A Q-methodology approach K. Bacher et al. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.028
- The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe T. Venus et al. 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111422
- 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
- Learning in multi-level governance of adaptation to climate change – a literature review J. Gonzales-Iwanciw et al. 10.1080/09640568.2019.1594725
- 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
- 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
6 citations as recorded by crossref.
- 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
- 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
- Seven rules for researchers to increase their impact on the policy process E. Mostert & G. Raadgever 10.5194/hess-12-1087-2008
- 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
- 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
- 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
Saved (final revised paper)
Saved (preprint)
Discussed (final revised paper)
Latest update: 17 Aug 2024