Exploring perspectives in assessing the quality of governance of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) pilot project in Cambodia: Use of Q Methodology

Actor Perceptions of the Governance Framework and Non-Carbon Benefits from the Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+ Program: An Extended Q-Study of the Juabuso-Bia Hotspot Intervention Area

“…The rotation revealed four factors, representing distinct viewpoints of actors on Ghana Cocoa REDD+ and NCBs (see Appendices 2 and 3 ). The factors represent 38% of the variability of the Q-sort (see Appendix 4 ), which is within the acceptable range of 35–40% used by Nhem and Lee ( 2020 ). A positive factor loading indicates shared subjectivity, while a negative loading indicates rejection (see Appendix 2 ).…”

“…Originally applied in psychology, Q-methodology found broader applications, extending into political science and various other disciplines (Watts and Stenner 2012 ). In forest governance and conservation, the methodology has been used before to assess perceptions of the effectiveness of Forest Law Governance and Trade in Ghana (Adams et al 2021 ), community forestry in Cambodia (Nhem and Lee 2020 ), and the role of multistakeholder platforms in Zambia (Siangulube 2024 , this issue). The underlying assumption of Q-methodology is that viewpoints are subjective and can be shared, measured, and compared (Fontein-Kuipers 2016 ).…”

“…The selected participants were given the Q-set of 58 statements in the form of indexed cards and were asked to sort and rank the statements on a nine-columned grid (−4 to +4) with a quasi-normal distribution based on their subjective views on the HIA and NCBs. The range interval of 9 provided ample space for participants to express their opinions and ranged from “I strongly disagree” (−4) to “I strongly agree (+4)” (Nhem and Lee 2020 ). Participants completed the Q-sort in response to the provided instructions, prioritizing their views and perceptions about governance, social, and economic NCBs under Ghana Cocoa REDD+.…”

“…In this study, the interpretation of factors is based on a combination of the statement scores, statements that are both distinctive and with the highest or lowest scores or statements at the extremes, qualitative data collected from the respondents during the Q-sort, and the researcher’s experience and understanding of the elements being studied (Zabala 2014 ; Zabala et al 2018 ). We also selected statements with the highest and lowest scores, following the procedure applied in studies by Nhem and Lee ( 2020 ) and Simpson and Hill ( 2020 ) for interpretation. Each of the four identified factors was given a meaningful label and described subsequently.…”

Stakeholder viewpoints on facilitation of cross-border cooperation

“…This should help to make stakeholders more aware of their own views and the views of others. For instance, by acknowledging that different viewpoints exist, stakeholders may be able to identify challenges to be addressed (Nhem and Lee 2020) and areas of consensus and divergences (Tuokuu et al 2019). Such a research could provide insights to policy makers that can be used to stimulate stakeholder involvement in participatory approaches in cross-border regions and in a follow-up step to the formulation of better targeted policies.…”