Identifying Cultural Service Values of a Small River in the Agricultural Landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand, Using Combined Methods

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1330-1339

  Kerr, Geoffrey N ^a   Swaffield, Simon R ^a  

^a LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

choice experiment; decision support; Q method; river amenity

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; AMENITY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; RIVER; STREAM; WATER MANAGEMENT;

CANTERBURY [SOUTH ISLAND]; NEW ZEALAND; SOUTH ISLAND;

EID: 84867565700     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2012.676723     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Boffa, M. 2009. Riverscape and flow assessment: Guidelines for the selection of methods to determine river flows based on landscape, natural character and visual amenity considerations. Christchurch, New Zealand: Boffa Miskell Ltd.
2. Brown, S. R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q method in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3. Brown, G. 2005. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: Methods and applications. Society Nat. Resources 18: 17-39.
4. Buijs A. 2009. Public support for river restoration: A mixed-method study into local residents' support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (8): 2680-2689.
5. Cortese, C. 2003. Conflicting uses of the river: Anticipated threats to the resource. Society Nat. Resources 16: 1-18.
6. Denzin, N. 1978. The research act, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7. Fairweather, J. 2001. Factor stability, number of significant loadings and interpretation: Results from three case studies and suggested guidelines. Operant Subjectivity 25 (1): 37-58.
8. Fairweather, J., and S. Swaffield. 2000. Q method using photographs to study perceptions of the environment in New Zealand. In Social discourses and environmental policy: Application of Q methodology, ed. H. Addams and J. Proops, 138-151. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
9. Gobster, P. 1999. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape J. 18 (1): 54-64.
10. Hensher, D., J. Rose, and W. Greene. 2005. Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Hensher, D., P. Stopher, and J. Louviere. 2001. An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: An airline choice application. J. Air Transp. Manage. 7 (6): 373-379.
12. Hughey, K., G. Kerr, and R. Cullen. 2007. Public perceptions of New Zealand's environment. Australasian J. Environ. Manage. 14 (2): 82-92.
13. Kaplowitz, M., and S. Witter. 2008. Agricultural and residential stakeholder input for watershed management in a mid-Michigan watershed. Landscape Urban Plan. 84 (1): 20-27.
14. Krinsky, I., and A. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 68 (4): 715-719.
15. Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait. 2000. Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Marchand, N. 2006. Riparian management: An exploration into connecting the biophysical and social sciences. PhD thesis, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand.
17. McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Meador, M., and R. Goldstein. 2003. Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: Relations among land use, water physiochemistry, riparian condition and fish community structure. Environ. Manage.31(4):504-517.
19. Memon P., and J. Selsky. 2004. Stakeholders and the management of freshwater resources in New Zealand: A critical perspective. In Stakeholders, the environment and society, ed. A. Sharma and M. Starik, 23-61. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.
20. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Our human planet: Summary for decisionmakers. Washington, DC: Island Press.
21. Ministry for the Environment. 2004. Water programme of action: The effects of rural land use on water quality. Ministry for the Environment Technical Working Paper No. 563. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment.
22. Nassauer, J. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape J. 14 (2): 161-170
23. Newton, B., S. Swaffield, and J. Fairweather. 2002. Public perceptions of natural character in New Zealand: Wild nature versus cultured nature. N. Z. Geogr. 58 (2): 14-25.
24. Organisation for Economic Cooperation, and Development. 2007. Environmental report: New Zealand. Paris: OECD.
25. Painter, B., and A. Memon. 2008. Enhancing the policy for freshwater management in New Zealand through adaptive governance. In Adaptive and integrated water management: Coping with complexity and uncertainty, ed. C. Pahl-Wostl, P. Kabat, and J. Moltgen, 227-248. Berlin: Springer.
26. Pfluger, Y., A. Rackham, and S. Larned. 2010. The aesthetic value of river flows: An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers. Landscape Urban Plan. 95 (1-2): 68-78.
27. Silverman, D. 2005. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook, 2nd ed. London: Sage.
28. Sneddon, C., L. Harris, R. Dimitrov, and U. Özesmi. 2002. Contested waters: Conflict, scale, and sustainability in aquatic socioecological systems. Society Nat. Resources 15: 663-675.
29. Taylor, J., and A. Douglas. 1999. Diversifying natural resources value measurements: The Trinity River study. Society Nat. Resources 12: 315-336.
30. Tipa, G., and L. Tierney. 2003. A cultural health index for streams and waterways: Indicators for recognizing and expressing Maori values. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment.
31. Ward, J., and E. Pyle. 1997. Environmental indicators for the sustainable management of freshwater. Ministry for Environment Report 2416/1. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment.
32. Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2005. Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2 (1): 67-91.
33. Young, R. 2005. Determining the economic value of water: Concepts and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.