This paper presents a critical and reflexive account of using Q methodology in human geography. Q methodology has a long pedigree in psychological, political and sociological research, but is only recently beginning to be used by human geographers. We discuss, in particular, the parts of the process(es) of Q methodology that are often glossed over in the literature, through reflecting on our learning in using Q within a project examining the use and production of environmental science by NGOs. We conclude that Q may be a useful supplement to existing methods in human geography, as long as it is used creatively and reflexively and with full awareness of its interpretative dimensions.

Ecological restoration is an expanding area of science and practice for environmental management, but in urban environments in particular its challenge to traditional approaches can be limited because it is seen primarily as a scientific or practical endeavour rather than a social one. In general, the restoration literature, especially on the scientific and practitioner side, suffers from thè deficit model' of public understanding and from a lack of fit between the expectations of restoration and policy workers and those of their local publics. Hence, the irony is that, although restorationists may be seen as radical in scientific and policy terms because of their challenge to the tradition of the`hard engineering' of rivers, they are not radical in social science terms because they fail to challenge the tradition of technocratic environmental management of the public and its deficit model. We illustrate this through two examples of urban river restoration in England öthe Alt and the Brent öand we conclude by suggesting how such problems might be addressed through more emphasis on and integration of social science within research and practical agendas for urban restoration projects.

Individual environmental responsibility has been used by business and government in promoting public environmentalism through, for example, green consumerism, passive membership of environmental groups, and domestic recycling. Such responsibility has not yet been adequately addressed in academic work, although associated concepts of environmental concern, values, and behaviour have been studied in the last two decades. The author therefore looks at the role of environmental responsibility in public environmentalism and particularly at how this notion is articulated by individuals involved in a range of pro-environmental behaviours. Environmental responsibility is shown to be most significant where an individual believes in the efficacy of their pro-environmental behaviour and where the self is perceived to be a responsible agent compared with other social agents. The translation of this environmental responsibility into consistent behaviour proves to be complex and dependent upon the individual's social context as well as upon organised environmentalism.

Environmental policy depends for its success on public participation. However, the scientific construction of environmental issues often means that such participation in policy-making is difficult when the public is not considered scientifically `expert'. Even if the notion of `expertise' is broadened to deal with this problem, this does not ensure truly `public'—i.e. lay—involvement, because lay ideas are still not included but are discounted as `non-scientific'. Further, emphasis on the scientific and environmental education of the general public will not guarantee policy implementation by individuals. Therefore, if we wish to design environmental policy that can be successfully implemented, we must consider other ways in which people relate to their environments as well as through scientific mediation—ways in which people `understand' their environments through culture, morality and social interaction—and build these into environmental policy.

In this paper, we examine the multiple spatialities of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certifications. The MSC uses its ecolabelling scheme to promote sustainable fisheries management; its logo may be used on the products of certified fisheries. The certification process involves the definition of a 'fishery'. This involves the designation of boundaries around a particular location. While these boundaries suggest exclusivity for each fishery, these regional spaces are also entwined in the MSC's network, whereby they are viewed relationally. The utility of areal boundaries is also rendered problematic by the materiality of the seas: coastlines change, fish swim, water moves and ships travel. To operate its scheme successfully, the MSC has to recognise this spatial fluidity, acknowledging the rupture of boundaries and the movement of actors. We argue that attention to a multiplicity of spatialities helps direct attention to the role of non-humans in the acting out of hybrid geographies.