Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 95–116 | Cite as

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

  • Sareth Nhem
  • Young-jin LeeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Public and policy makers alike are concerned about national and global deforestation and forest degradation. These issues pose a significant threat to social, economic and environmental welfare. Attempts to prevent forest loss and increased attention to pilot REDD+ projects in community forestry sites would both deliver rural livelihood benefits and help to reduce adverse climate impacts. However, there has been no significant exploration of the viewpoints of local experts to determine the monitoring and action needed to support community-based forestry and improve the governance of REDD+ pilot projects in Cambodia. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the perceptions of local stakeholders towards the quality of governance of the first community forest REDD+ pilot project in Cambodia, employing Q-methodology. We adapted 11 indicators of the hierarchical framework of assessment of governance quality to design 40 Q-statements related to REDD+ governance or achievements. The 52 P-set ranked these Q-statements with respect to the community-based REDD+ pilot project. Our study revealed that local stakeholders held four distinct, and partially opposite, views, that: (1) the REDD+ project is successful because it is inclusiveness and capable of causing behavioral change; (2) REDD+ pilot projects should be led by government, not external or locally; and needs more resources; (3) the REDD+ pilot project has raised unrealistic expectations, would likely be a source of corruption and will probably not be successful for local people or halting deforestation; and (4) the REDD+ pilot project is inclusive but not very transparent and probably ineffective at protecting forest. Through these four varied perspectives from local people involved in the project, we can see that there remain serious challenges to the future of pilot community forestry REDD+ projects, including the complex interaction between the multinational actors and the local socio-ecological systems. To move forwards, this study suggested Cambodia should make a pro-poor REDD+ program, implementing more community-based REDD+ projects which explicitly build the assets and capacity of the poorest households. This study also shows that Q-methodology can highlight the diverse viewpoints of local stakeholders concerning the quality of community forest REDD+ governance, helping policy makers, implementers and local stakeholders to better identify the challenges to be addressed.

Keywords

REDD+ Governance quality Indicator Q-Methodology Deforestation Cambodia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out with the support of ‘R&D Program for Forest Science Technology (Project No. 2014068E101919-AA03)’ provided by Korea Forest Service (Korea Forestry Promotion Institute). The authors would like to thank Asian Forest Cooperation Organization (AFoCO) for providing a full PhD scholarship to Dr. Nhem Sareth, our first author.

References

  1. Addams H, Proops JL (2000) Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Massachusetts, United States: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander KS, Parry L, Thammavong P, et al. (2018) Rice farming systems in Southern Lao PDR: Interpreting farmers’ agricultural production decisions using Q methodology. Agricultural Systems 160: 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ammar AA, Dargusch P, Shamsudin I (2014) Can the Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve provide perfect teething ground for a blue carbon based REDD+ pilot project? Journal of Tropical Forest Science 26(3): 371–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2003.10.008 Google Scholar
  4. Armatas CA, Venn TJ Watson AE (2014) Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States. Ecological Economics 107: 447–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armatas C, Venn T, Watson A (2017) Understanding social-ecological vulnerability with Q-methodology: a case study of water-based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA. Sustainability Science 12(1): 105–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0369-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold JEM (2001) Forests and People: 25 years of Community Forestry. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
  7. Barry LE, Yao RT, Harrison DR, et al. (2014) Enhancing ecosystem services through afforestation: How policy can help. Land Use Policy 39: 135–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bayrak MM, Marafa LM (2016) Ten Years of REDD +: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD + on Forest-Dependent Communities. Sustainability 8(7)(620): 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070620 Google Scholar
  9. Beauchamp E, Clements T, Milner-Gulland EJ (2018) Exploring trade-offs between development and conservation outcomes in Northern Cambodia. Land Use Policy 71: 431–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berry PM, Fabók V, Blicharska M, et al. (2018) Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 27(7): 1741–1762.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1173-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanchard L, Sandbrook CG, Fisher JA, et al. (2018) Investigating the Consistency of a Pro-market Perspective Amongst Conservationists, The Anthropology of Conservation NGOs: Rethinking the Boundaries. London, United Kingdom: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.Google Scholar
  12. Bond I (2010) REDD+ in dryland forests: issues and prospects for pro-poor REDD in the miombo woodlands of southern Africa. London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Environmental and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
  13. Bordt M (2018) Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community. Ecological Economics 144: 82–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradley A, Setyowati AB, Gurung J, et al. (2013) Gender and REDD+: An Assessment in the Oddar Meanchey Community Forestry REDD+ Site, Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: PACT Cambodia and WOCAN.Google Scholar
  15. Bredin YK, Lindhjem H, van Dijk J, et al. (2015) Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis. Ecological Economics 118: 198–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bretschger L, Meulemann M, Stünzi A (2018) Climate Policy Based on the Paris Agreement. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier Inc.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10866-8
  17. Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M, Mardiah S (2014) Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics 49: 23–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown SR (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Connecticut, United States: Yale University.Google Scholar
  19. Cadman T (2011) Quality and legitimacy of global governance: case lessons from forestry. New York, United States: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cadman T, Maraseni T (2012) The governance of REDD+: An institutional analysis in the Asia Pacific region and beyond. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55(5): 617–635.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.619851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cadman T, Maraseni T (2013) More equal than others? A comparative analysis of state and non-state perceptions of interest representation and decision-making in REDD+ negotiations. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 26(3): 214–230.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.771880 Google Scholar
  22. Cadman T, Maraseni T, Ma HO, et al. (2017) Five years of REDD+ governance: The use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change. Forest Policy and Economics 79: 8–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chomba S, Treue T, Sinclair F (2015) The political economy of forest entitlements: Can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin? Forest Policy and Economics 58: 37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corbera E, Schroeder H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science and Policy 14(2): 89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cordero Salas P, Roe BE, Sohngen B (2018) Additionality when REDD contracts must be self-enforcing. Environmental and Resource Economics 69(1): 195–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0072-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cousins JJ (2017) Of floods and droughts: The uneven politics of stormwater in Los Angeles. Political Geography 60: 34–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Delux C (2018) REDD+ Projects in Cambodia and Cooperation with Korea. In 2018 REDD+ International Symposium. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Forest Service.Google Scholar
  28. Dennis KE (1986) Q methodology: relevance and application to nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science.Google Scholar
  29. Dokken T, Caplow S, Angelsen A, et al. (2014) Tenure issues in REDD+ pilot project sites in Tanzania. Forests 5(2): 234–255.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f5020234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Donner JC (2001) Using Q-sorts in participatory processes: An introduction to the methodology. Washington, D.C. 20433. United States: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  31. Duchelle AE, Simonet G, Sunderlin WD, et al. (2018) What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32: 134–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dudley RG (2010) A little REDD model to quickly compare possible baseline and policy scenarios for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15(1): 53–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9204-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Elliott V, Lambert F, Phalla T, et al. (2011) Biodiversity Assessment of the REDD Community Forest Project in Oddar Meanchey Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: BirdLife International & Pact Cambodia.Google Scholar
  34. Everitt B, Hothorn T (2011) An introduction to applied multivariate analysis with R. London, United Kingdom: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Falk-Petersen J (2014) Alien invasive species management: Stakeholder perceptions of the barents sea king crab. Environmental Values 23(6): 701–725.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327114X13947900181356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. FAO (2010) Cambodia Forestry Outlook Study. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
  37. FAO (2018) The State of The World’s Forests — Forest Pathways to Sustainable Development. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
  38. Farrell D, Carr L, Fahy F (2017) On the subject of typology: How Irish coastal communities’ subjectivities reveal intrinsic values towards coastal environments. Ocean and Coastal Management 146: 135–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. FCPF-C (2017) REDD+ annual country progress reporting (with semi-annual update). Phnom Penh, Cambodia.Google Scholar
  40. FCPF-C (2018) REDD+ Country Participant Annual Progress Report: Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.Google Scholar
  41. FCPF (2018) 2018 Annual Report Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Washington, D.C. 20433. United States.Google Scholar
  42. Forrester J, Cook B, Bracken L, et al. (2015) Combining participatory mapping with Q-methodology to map stakeholder perceptions of complex environmental problems. Applied Geography 56: 199–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Giannichi ML, Dallimer M, Baker TR, et al. (2018) Divergent Landowners’ Expectations May Hinder the Uptake of a Forest Certificate Trading Scheme. Conservation Letters 11(3): 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gilmour D (2016) Forty years of community-based forestry. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
  45. Groom B, Palmer C (2012) REDD+ and rural livelihoods. Biological Conservation 154: 42–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Howard RJ, Tallontire AM, Stringer LC, et al. (2016) Which ‘“fairness”’, for whom, and why? An empirical analysis of plural notions of fairness in Fairtrade Carbon Projects, using Q methodology. Environmental Science and Policy 56: 100–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  48. Jagger P, Sills EO, Lawlor KE, et al. (2010) A guide to learning about livelihood impacts of REDD+. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
  49. Jaung W, Putzel L, Bull GQ, et al. (2016) Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services 22: 51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jeanloz S, Lizin S, Beenaerts N, et al. (2016) Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area. Ecosystem Services 18: 45–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jia H, Appolloni A, Wang Y (2017) Green travel: Exploring the characteristics and behavior transformation of urban residents in China. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(6): 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061043 Google Scholar
  52. Kanowski PJ, McDermott CL, Cashore BW (2011) Implementing REDD+: Lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environmental Science and Policy 14(2): 111–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Karimi V, Karami E, Keshavarz M (2018) Climate change and agriculture: Impacts and adaptive responses in Iran. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 17(1): 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61794-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kline P (1994) An easy guide to factor analysis. New York, United States: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Kozová M, Dob Z, Paudit E, et al. (2016) Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.016
  56. Lee E, Lee S (2018) Examining the internal features of Korea’s Green Commitment in Mongolia. International Review of Public Administration 4659: 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2017.1412045 Google Scholar
  57. Leventon J, Kalaba FK, Dyer JC, et al. (2014) Delivering community benefits through REDD+: Lessons from Joint Forest Management in Zambia. Forest Policy and Economics 44: 10–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, et al. (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 259(4): 698–709.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lo AY (2013) Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change. Ecological Economics 87: 84–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Loring PA, Hinzman MS (2018) “They’re All Really Important, But…”: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Ecological Economics 152: 367–377.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lu M, Lin A, Sun J (2018) The Impact of Photovoltaic Applications on Urban Landscapes Based on Visual Q Methodology. Sustainability 10(4): 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. MAFF (2010) National Forest Programme 2010–2029. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).Google Scholar
  63. MAFF (2016) Annual Report on Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries for 2015–2016 and the Way Forward: 2016–2017. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).Google Scholar
  64. Maraseni TN, Neupane PR, Lopez-Casero F, et al. (2014) An assessment of the impacts of the REDD+ pilot project on community forests user groups (CFUGs) and their community forests in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management 136: 37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Massarella K, Sallu SM, Ensor JE, et al. (2018) REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: The dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Development 109: 375–385.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mattsson E, Persson UM, Ostwald M, et al. (2012) REDD+ readiness implications for Sri Lanka in terms of reducing deforestation. Journal of Environmental Management 100: 29–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mbatu RS (2016) REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. Forest Policy and Economics 73: 140–152.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McKeown BF, Thomas DB (2013) Q Methodology. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  69. Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  70. Miah MD, Akther S, Shin MY, et al. (2014) Scaling up REDD+ strategies in Bangladesh: A forest dependence study in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Forest Science and Technology 10(3): 148–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2014.889045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. MoE (2018) Cambodia Forest Cover 2016. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Environment (MoE).Google Scholar
  72. Myers R, Larson AM, Ravikumar A, et al. (2018) Messiness of forest governance: How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects. Global Environmental Change 50: 314–324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nantongo MG (2017) Legitimacy of local REDD+ processes. A comparative analysis of pilot projects in Brazil and Tanzania. Environmental Science and Policy 78: 81–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Narayan T, Bhattarai N, Singh B, et al. (2019) An assessment of governance quality for community-based forest management systems in Asia: Prioritisation of governance indicators at various scales. Land Use Policy 81: 750–761.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nathan I, Pasgaard M (2017) Is REDD+ effective, efficient, and equitable? Learning from a REDD+ project in Northern Cambodia. Geoforum 83: 26–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nhem S, Lee YJ, Phin S (2017) Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD + policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia. Forest Policy and Economics 85: 10–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nhem S, Lee YJ, Phin S (2018a) Forest income and inequality in Kampong Thom province, Cambodia: Gini decomposition analysis. Forest Science and Technology 14(4): 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2018.1520744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nhem S, Lee YJ, Phin S (2018b) Policy implications for community-managed forestry in Cambodia from experts’ assessments and case studies of community forestry practice. Journal of Mountain Science 15(11): 2531–2551.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-5021-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nhem S, Lee YJ, Phin S (2018c) The impact of forest resource decline: Analyzing forest-related income supplements to reduce income inequality and poverty of the Kouy indigenous people living in Kampong Thom province, Cambodia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 37(2): 97–119.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2017.1369887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nijnik M, Nijnik A, Bergsma E, et al. (2014) Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: A Q methodology application. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19(6): 621–640.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9529-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nijnik M, Nijnik A, Brown I (2016) Exploring the linkages between multifunctional forestry goals and the legacy of spruce plantations in Scotland. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 46(10): 1247–1254.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nijnik M, Nijnik A, Sarkki S, et al. (2018) Is forest related decision-making in European treeline areas socially innovative? A Q-methodology enquiry into the perspectives of international experts. Forest Policy and Economics 92: 210–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ormerod KJ (2017) Common sense principles governing potable water recycling in the southwestern US: Examining subjectivity of water stewards using Q methodology. Geoforum 86: 76–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pandey SS, Cockfield G, Maraseni TN (2015) Assessing the roles of community forestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation: A case study from Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management 360: 400–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pandit R (2018) REDD+ adoption and factors affecting respondents’ knowledge of REDD+ goal: Evidence from household survey of forest users from REDD + piloting sites in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 91: 107–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pandit R, Neupane PR, Wagle BH (2017) Economics of carbon sequestration in community forests: Evidence from REDD+ piloting in Nepal. Journal of Forest Economics 26: 9–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2016.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Park HC, Oh CH (2016) Potential effects of future adoption of the REDD mechanism as a preventive measure against deforestation and forest degradation in North Korea. Journal of Mountain Science 13(2): 1645–1651.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-014-3300-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Parry LJ (2018) Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study. British Politics 14: 290–310.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Pascoe S (2018) Interrogating scale in the REDD+ assemblage in Papua New Guinea. Geoforum 96: 87–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pasgaard M (2013) The challenge of assessing social dimensions of avoided deforestation: Examples from Cambodia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 64–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pasgaard M (2015) Lost in translation? How project actors shape REDD+ policy and outcomes in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 56(1): 111–127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Persson J, Prowse M (2017) Collective action on forest governance: An institutional analysis of the Cambodian community forest system. Forest Policy and Economics 83: 70–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Pettenella D, Brotto L (2012) Governance features for successful REDD+ projects organization. Forest Policy and Economics 18: 46–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Pike K, Wright P, Wink B, et al. (2015) The assessment of cultural ecosystem services in the marine environment using Q methodology. Journal of Coastal Conservation 19(5): 667–675.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-014-0350-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pokharel RK (2009) Pro-Poor Programs Financed through Nepal’s Community Forestry Funds: Does Income Matter? Mountain Research and Development 29(1): 67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Qu Y, Li M, Jia H, et al. (2015) Developing more insights on sustainable consumption in China based on Q methodology. Sustainability (Switzerland) 7(10): 14211–14229.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su71014211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rakatama A, Pandit R, Iftekhar S, et al. (2018) How to design more effective REDD+ projects — The importance of targeted approach in Indonesia. Journal of Forest Economics 33: 25–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2018.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rakatama A, Pandit R, Ma C, et al. (2017) The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature. Forest Policy and Economics 75: 103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rastogi A, Hickey GM, Badola R, et al. (2013) Diverging viewpoints on tiger conservation: A Q-method study and survey of conservation professionals in India. Biological Conservation 161: 182–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. RGC (2011) Achieving Cambodia’s Millennium Development Goals: Update 2011. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC).Google Scholar
  101. RGC (2014) National Strategic Development Plan 2014–2018. Royal Government of Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC).Google Scholar
  102. RGC (2016) Initial Forest Reference Level for Cambodia under the UNFCCC Framework. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.Google Scholar
  103. Rinnan DS (2018) Population persistence in the face of climate change and competition: A battle on two fronts. Ecological Modelling 385: 78–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Robbins P (2005) Q Methodology. In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (pp. 209–215).Google Scholar
  105. Robinson E, Albers H, Lokina R, et al. (2016) Allocating Group-Level Payments for Ecosystem Services: Experiences from a REDD+ Pilot in Tanzania. Resources 5(4): 43.  https://doi.org/10.3390/resources5040043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rodriguez-Ward D, Larson AM, Ruesta HG (2018) Correction to: Top-down, Bottom-up and Sideways: the Multilayered Complexities of Multi-level Actors Shaping Forest Governance and REDD+ Arrangements in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environmental Management 62(1): 117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1062-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Saeed AR, McDermott C, Boyd E (2018) Examining equity in Ghana’s national REDD+ process. Forest Policy and Economics 90: 48–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Samndong RA, Bush G, Vatn A, et al. (2018) Institutional analysis of causes of deforestation in REDD+ pilot sites in the Equateur province: Implication for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land Use Policy 76: 664–674.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sanders AJP, Hyldmo HdaS, Prasti H, et al. (2017) Guinea pig or pioneer: Translating global environmental objectives through to local actions in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia’s REDD+ pilot province. Global Environmental Change 42: 68–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Sandra R, Oscar M, Liz V, et al. (2018) Timber market actors’ values on forest legislation: A case study from Colombia. Forest Policy and Economics 88: 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Schmolck P (2015) PQMethod manual (Vol. 39).Google Scholar
  112. Schneider C, Coudel E, Cammelli F, et al. (2015) Small-scale farmers’ needs to end deforestation: insights for REDD+ in São Felix do Xingu (Pará, Brazil). International Forestry Review 17(1): 124–142.  https://doi.org/10.1505/146554815814668963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Sconfienza UM (2017) What can environmental narratives tell us about forestry conflicts? The case of REDD. International Forestry Review 19(1): 98–112.  https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817822407439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Seangly P (2013, July 14) REDD+ forest clearing unabated: community. Retrieved from https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/redd-forest-clearing-unabated-community (Accessed on 20 July 2018)
  115. Sexton D, Snyder P, Wadsworth D, et al. (1998) Applying Q Methodology to Investigations of Subjective Judgments of Early Intervention Effectiveness. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 18(2): 95–107.  https://doi.org/10.1177/027112149801800205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Shankar S, Cockfield G, Narayan T (2014) Dynamics of carbon and biodiversity under REDD + regime: A case from Nepal. Environmental Science and Policy 38: 272–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Sherren K, Loik L, Debner JA (2016) Climate adaptation in “new world” cultural landscapes: The case of Bay of Fundy agricultural dykelands (Nova Scotia, Canada). Land Use Policy 51: 267–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Silas SR (2016) REDD+ benefit sharing under models tested by pilot projects in Tanzania: Inputs towards developing national benefit-sharing mechanism models. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment 14(1): 38–44.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2016.1138744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Simpson S, Brown G, Peterson A, et al. (2016) Stakeholder perspectives for coastal ecosystem services and influences on value integration in policy. Ocean and Coastal Management 126: 9–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Stenner P, Watts S, Worrell M (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 215–239). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Stephenson W (1953) The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago, Illinois, United States: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  122. Stevenson H (2015) Contemporary Discourses on the Environment- Economy Nexus. (No. Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute).Google Scholar
  123. Streck C (2012) Financing REDD+: Matching needs and ends. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(6): 628–637.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sy MM, Rey-Valette H, Simier M, et al. (2018) Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach. Ecological Economics 154: 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Terra Global Capital (2012) Reduced emission from degradation and deforestation in Community Forests — Oddar Meanchey, Cambodia. Washington, DC 20005 USA: Terra Global Capital.Google Scholar
  126. Trautmann J, Ho GWK, Gross D (2018) Parenting Needs Among Mothers of Young Children During Military Deployment. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 50(4): 392–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Tyagi N, Das S (2017) Gender mainstreaming in forest governance: analysing 25 years of research and policy in South Asia. International Forestry Review 19(2): 234–244.  https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817821255132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. UN-REDD (2015) UN-REDD Programme Strategic Framework 2016–20. Washington, D.C., United States: UN-REDD Programme.Google Scholar
  129. UN (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York, United States: United Nations (UN).Google Scholar
  130. UN (1998) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York, United States: United Nations (UN).Google Scholar
  131. UN (2015a) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Paris, France: United Nations (UN).Google Scholar
  132. UN (2015b) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York, United States: United Nations (UN).Google Scholar
  133. UNFCCC (2010) The Cancun Agreements.Google Scholar
  134. Vatn A, Kajembe G, Mosi E, et al. (2017) What does it take to institute REDD +? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD + pilot, Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics 83: 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Voigt C, Ferreira F (2015) The Warsaw Framework for REDD +: Implications for National Implementation and Access to Results-based Finance. CCLR, 113.Google Scholar
  136. Wainger L, McMurray A, Paolisso M, et al. (2017) Coastal Community Values for Marsh-Dependent Socioecological Services Revealed through a Systematic Qualitative Approach. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 46(2): 338–364.  https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2017.15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Watts S, Stenner P (2012) Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. California, United States: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  138. Watts S, Stenner P (2012) Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications, Inc.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911 Google Scholar
  139. WCS (2015) REDD + in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.Google Scholar
  140. Zabala A, Pascual U, García-Barrios L (2017) Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations. Ecological Economics 135: 234–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Zabala A, Sandbrook C, Mukherjee N (2018) When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology 32(5): 1185–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Zanoli R, Carlesi L, Danovaro R, et al. (2015) Valuing unfamiliar Mediterranean deep-sea ecosystems using visual Q-methodology. Marine Policy 61: 227–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Zwick WR, Velicer WF (1984) A comparison of five rules for determining the number of components in data sets. In 92nd annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate SchoolNational University of ManagementPhnom PenhCambodia
  2. 2.Techo Sen School of Government & International RelationsThe University of CambodiaPhnom PenhCambodia
  3. 3.College of Industrial Science, Graduate School of Natural Sciences, Department of Forest ResourcesKonju National UniversityYesan-gunSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations