How do we find out what policy professionals want to do in response to complex environmental hazards? A case study using q-sort to unravel policy professionals’ preferences and thought processes.

Many environmental issues can be described as “wicked problems” because, in particular, they often have no “ideal” solution that is acceptable to all or most stakeholders. To expand on this, there can be many actions that could be taken to respond to a specific environmental hazard, but some of those responses might be inadequate in managing the scale of the risk and others may be too expensive to implement when compared to the assets that they would protect or damage they would prevent. In such situations, how can we find out what policy professionals think would be the best response and what influences their thinking?

Q-sort is a research method that can help answer this question. It is used to systematically capture and compare participant’s subjective viewpoints by getting them to order and rank statements in relation to one another.

Here, we present a case study of using q-sort in the context of the management of coastal legacy landfill sites where increasing flood and coastal erosion risks are anticipated. In this case, we used the method to get policy professionals to rank possible responses that could manage the risk of potentially harmful waste being released onto beaches and/or into the sea.

In summer 2025, a major research project in the UK – the Resilience of Anthropocene Coasts and Communities (RACC) project – convened two stakeholder workshops to compile and assess what policy options that could manage legacy landfill sires are preferred. Held in London (July) and Glasgow (September), the two half-day workshops explored how the problem is currently understood and to identify key barriers to management actions. Participants then considered the potential responses and ranked those responses in a q-sort exercise. The participants positioned 28 policy options on a q-sort matrix by deciding what their least- and most-preferred options were in relation to the other options. They also completed a questionnaire to capture the thought processes behind their rankings.

Combining the results from all the participants (n=22), we were able to determine that the most preferred policy options were:

• Vulnerability assessment for who and what is at risk from coastal change and legacy waste
• Treat the whole of the site to remove harmful contaminants
• Emergency preparedness and response planning (of potential legacy waste exposure during storm or flood events)

Conversely, the least preferred policy options were:

• Reopen the landfill
• Do nothing
• Relocate people, assets, or infrastructure away from legacy waste site

The results of this process has given us a starting point for our next steps in engaging even more policy professionals and working with communities with an ultimate aim of building the resilience of those communities.