ArticleJournal of environmental management2021
Environmental, public health, and economic development perspectives at a Superfund site: A Q methodology approach.
Article in Journal of environmental management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Social Responsibility Pilot Tool to Reduce Helicopter Research and Improve Social Benefit: A Cleanup Site Case Study.Environmental health insights · 2026Article
- Transforming Social Determinants to Educational Outcomes: Geospatial Considerations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Predicting the Estrogen Receptor Activity of Environmental Chemicals by Single-Cell Image Analysis and Data-driven Modeling.ESCAPE. European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering · 2021Article
- Application of Internet of Things and Naive Bayes in Public Health Environmental Management of Government Institutions in China.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental remediation and restoration at hazardous waste sites is important for reducing risks and sustaining local economies. Navigating trade-offs between diverse and conflicting stakeholder perspectives to identify practical and affordable ways forward is important for sustaining objectives and goals. Differences in stakeholder perspectives are informed by their affiliations and roles and their views towards environmental, economic development, and public health issues. We used Q methodology, an approach that combines priority sorting and interviews, to elicit and interpret the perspectives of 28 stakeholders, representing government entities, non-profits, and industries at a mining-impacted Superfund site in the Coeur d'Alene Basin of Idaho, USA. Four primary perspectives were distinguished by their prioritization of: 1) government intervention, 2) the Superfund remediation, 3) local concerns, and 4) public-private partnerships. Participants' roles and affiliations played an influential role in informing primary perspectives. Overall, collaboration was viewed more favorably when it was associated with concrete implementation pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.