Open Access Peer-reviewed Review

Regional studies and conceptual fuzziness: A critical review

Article Sidebar

The standards of good practices for QCA
Download PDF
Submitted   Apr 5, 2021
Published   May 6, 2021
Issue    Vol 3 No 1 (2021)
DOI   10.25082/REE.2021.01.005

Views

2772

Downloads

1300

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Muhammad Adil Rauf corresponding author
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Olaf Weber
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Abstract

Regional and spatial studies, such as urban planning, energy planning, and sustainable development, address the complexity of the inter-disciplinary relationship between subsystems and their components. Such studies require multidisciplinary concepts, varied lenses, and differentiating approaches and models to address the conflict between contextual sensitivity and universal applicability. This paper reviews the debate on the research approaches adopted in regional studies and initiated by researcher Ann Markusen, followed by a review of contemporary literature on the concept of fuzziness in the qualitative research. Markusen evaluated the conceptual fuzziness, empirical evidence, and policy dimensions of regional studies. The argument was based on three fundamental aspects of regional and urban development studies; strong contestation of phenomena, empirical evidence to support the concept, and collective action to deal with the problems under investigation. A conceptual fuzziness and the methodological weaknesses in the qualitative research, highlighted by Markusen almost two decades ago, persist in interdisciplinary qualitative research. In this study, we have dissected the concept of fuzziness to distinguish between Inherited fuzziness derived from the configurational complexity of a case and bequeathed fuzziness that could be transferred ahead due to a researcher’s methodological and perceptual weaknesses. Despite efforts made to address the relevance, reliability, validity, and replicability of the qualitative research, the field is still facing challenges from conceptual bias, methodological and operational constraints, empirical weakness, and prejudiced interpretation.

Keywords
regional studies, spatial planning, fuzzy concepts, sustainability, research methods

Article Details

How to Cite
Rauf, M., & Weber, O. (2021). Regional studies and conceptual fuzziness: A critical review. Resources and Environmental Economics, 3(1), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.25082/REE.2021.01.005
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Silva E, Healey P, Harris N, et al. Introduction: The Craft of ‘Doing Research’ . In E. Silva, P. Healey, N. Harris, & P. Broeck, The Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods, Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015.
  2. Verweij S and Trell E. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in spatial planning research and related disciplines: A systematic literature review of applications. Journal of Planning Literature, 34(3): 300-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412219841490
  3. De Roo G and Silva E. A planner’s encounter with complexity. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010.
  4. Roig-Tierno N, Gonzalez-Cruz T and Llopis-Martinez J . An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2017, 2: 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.002
  5. Dang V, Wang J and Dang WVT. An integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach to assess sustainable urban development in an emerging economy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16: 2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162902
  6. Pascali PD and Bagaini A. Energy transition and urban planning for local development. A critical review of the evolution of integrated spatial and energy planning. MDPI, Open Access Journal, 2018, 12(1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12010035
  7. Xu D. Sustainability prioritization of energy systems by developing an integrated decision support framework with hybrid-data consideration. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2020, 39: 100719 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100719
  8. Kaya I, Colak M and Terzi F. A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2019, 24: 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003
  9. Arrizabalaga E, Munoz I and Hermoso N, et al. Methodology for the advanced integrated urban energy planning. Proceedings, 2019, 20: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019020017
  10. Pike A, Rodr´ıguez-Pose A and Tomaney J. Introduction: A handbook of local and regional development. In A. Pike, A. Rodriguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney, Handbook of local and regional development, London: Routledge, 2011.
  11. Markusen A. Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies. Regional Studies, 2003, 37(6-7): 701-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108796
  12. Markusen A. On conceptualization, evidence and impact: A response to Hudson, Lagendijk, and Peck. Regional Studies, 2003, 37(6): 747-751. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108831
  13. Hudson R. Fuzzy concepts and sloppy thinking: Reflections on recent developments in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 2003, 37(6): 741-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108822
  14. Lagendijk A. Towards conceptual quality in regional studies: The need for subtle critique-A response to Markusen. Regional Studies, 2003, 37(6): 719-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108804
  15. Peck J. Fuzzy old world: A response to Markusen. Regional Studies, 2003, 37(6): 729-740. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000108813
  16. De-Paula S and Dymski G. Introduction. In S. a. Paula, Reimagining Growth: Towards a Renewal of Development Theory (pp. 3-26). London: Zed, 2005.
  17. Rowe JE. The importance of theory: Linking theory to practice. In J. E. Rowe, Theories of Local Economic Development: Linking Theory to Practice (pp. 3-27). Farnham: Ashgate, 2008.
  18. Georgescu-Roegen N. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1971.
  19. Grabher G. Trading routes, bypasses, and risky intersections: Mapping the travels of ’networks’ between Economic Sociology and Economic Geography. Progress in Human Geography, 2006, 30(2): 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph600oa
  20. Whitehead AN. Modes of Thought. New York: Free Press, 1938.
  21. Sheppard E and Plummer P. Toward engaged pluralism in geographical debate. Environment and Planning A, 2007, 39(11): 2545-2548. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40205
  22. Beer A. The theory and practice of developing locally. In J. R. (Ed.), Theories of Local Economic Development: Linking theory to practice (pp. 63-89). Farnham: Ashgate, 2008.
  23. Edwards M. 2007, A world made new through love and reason: what future for ‘development’? https://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/world_reason_4566.jsp
  24. Geddes M and Newman I. Evolution and conflict in local economic development. Local Economy, 1999, 13(5): 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02690949908726472
  25. Stimson R and Stough RR. Regional economic development methods and analysis: Linking theory to practice. In J. R. (Ed.), Theories of local economic development: Linking theory to practice (pp. 169-192). Farnham: Ashgate, 2008.
  26. Jonas AE, While AH and Gibbs DC. Carbon control regimes, eco-state restructuring and the politics of local and regional development. In A. Pike, A. Rodr´ıguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney , Handbook of Local and Regional Development (pp. 283-294). London: Routledge, 2011.
  27. Christopherson S. Green dreams in a cold light. In A. Pike, A. Rodr´ıguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney , Handbook of Local and Regional Development (pp. 371-380). London: Routledge, 2011.
  28. Morgan K. The Green State: Sustainability and the power of purchase. In A. Rodr´ıguez-Pose, J. Tomaney, & A. Pike, In the Handbook of Local and Regional Development (pp. 87-96). London: Routledge, 2011.
  29. Stojcic M, Zavadskas E and Pamucar D et al. Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A Literature Review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 2019, 11(3): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350
  30. Zadeh L. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 1965, 8(3): 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
  31. Pawlak Z. Rough Sets. International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences, 1982, 11(5): 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01001956
  32. Atanassov K. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1986, 20(1): 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
  33. Smarandache F. Neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set, and logic: analytic synthesis & synthetic analysis. Santa Fe, NM, USA: American Research Press, 1998.
  34. Schneider C and Wagemann C. Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 2010, 9: 397-418. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12493538729793
  35. Ragin C. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
  36. Hamidov A, Thiel A and Zikos D. Institutional design in transformation: A comparative study of local irrigation governance in Uzbekistan. Environmental Science & Policy, 2015, 53(B): 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.012
  37. Jordan E, Gross E, Javernick-Will A, et al. Use and misuse of qualitative comparative analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 2011, 29(11): 1159-1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.640339
  38. Gerrits L and Verweij S. The evaluation of complex infrastructure projects: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2018.
  39. Ratti C, Baker N and Steemers K. Energy Consumption and Urban Texture. Energy and Buildings, 2005, 37(7): 762-776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.10.010
  40. Jessel S, Sawyer S and Hernandez D. Energy, poverty, and health in climate change: A comprehensive review of an emerging literature. Frontiers of Public Health, 2019, 7: 357. https:///doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00357
  41. Mashhoodi B, Stead D and Timmeren AV. Spatial homogeneity and heterogeneity of energy poverty: a neglected dimension. Annals of GIS, 2019, 25(1): 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2018.1557253
  42. Zanon B and Verones S. Climate Change, Urban Energy and Planning Practices: Italian Experiences of Innovation in Land Management Tools. Land Use Policy, 2013, 32: 343-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.11.009
  43. Zavadskas E, Govindan K, Antucheviciene J, et al. Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: a review of applications for sustainability issues. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraˇzivanja, 2016, 29(1): 857-887. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X20161237302
  44. Wu Y , Xu C and Zhang T. Evaluation of renewable power sources using a fuzzy MCDM based on cumulative prospect theory: A case in China. Energy, 2018, 147: 1227-1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.115
  45. Gore J, Ward P, Conway G, et al. Naturalistic decision making: navigating uncertainty in complex sociotechnical work. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2018, 20: 521-527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0531-x
  46. Mosier K, Fisher U, Hoffman R, et al. Expert professional judgments and “naturalistic decision making”. In K. Ericsson, R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & M. Williams, The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 2nd ed. (pp. 453-475). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  47. Booth P. What Can We Learn from France? Some reflections on the methodologies of cross-national research. In E. Silva, P. Healey, N. Harris, & P. Broeck, The Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods (pp. 84-96). New York: Routledge, 2014.
  48. Clark C and Winegard B. Tribalsim in war and peace: The nature and evolution of ideological epistemology and its significance for modern social science. Psychological Inquiry, 2020, 31(1): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233
  49. Cornwell J, Jago C and Higgins E. When group influence is more or less likely: The case of moral judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2019, 41(6): 386-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1666394
  50. Honeycutt N and Jussim L. A Model of Political Bias in Social Science Research. Psychological Inquiry, 2020, 31(1): 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722600
  51. Jussim L, Crawford J, Anglin S, et al. Interpretations and methods: Towards a more effective selfcorrecting social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2016, 66: 116-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.003
  52. Reyna C. Scale creation, use, and misuse: How politics undermines measurement . In J. Crawford, & L. Jussim, Politics of social psychology (pp. 81-98). New York: Psychology Press, 2018.
  53. Ewing R and Rong F. The impact of urban form on US residential energy use. Housing policy debate, 2008, 19(1): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2008.9521624
  54. Staley S. Missing the forest through the trees? Comment on Reid Ewing and Fang Rong’s “The impact of urban form on US residential energy use”. Housing Policy Debate, 2008, 19(1): 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2008.9521625
  55. Randolph J. Comment on Reid Ewing and Fang Rong’s ‘The impact of urban form on US residential energy use’. Housing Policy Debate, 2008, 19(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2008.9521626
  56. Schlogl M and Stutz R. Methodological considerations with data uncertainty in road safety analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2019, 130: 136-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.001
  57. Seuret-Jimenez D, Robles-Bonilla T and Cedano K. Measurement of energy access using fuzzy logic. Energies, 2020, 13(12): 3266. https://doi:10.3390/en13123266
  58. Fu X and Wang X. Developing an integrative urban resilience capacity index for plan making. Environment Systems and Decisions, 2018, 38: 367-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9693-6
  59. Ko Y. Urban form and residential energy use: A research of design principles and research findings. Journal of Planning literature, 2013, 28(4): 327-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412213491499
  60. Wickham H. Tidy data. Journal of Statistical Software, 2014, 59(10): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i10
  61. Markusen A. Fuzzy concepts, proxy data: why indicators would not track creative placemaking success. Internal Journal of Urban Sciences, 2013, 17(3): 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.836291
  62. Bansal P and Song HC. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate responsibility from sustainability. Academy of Management Annals, 2017, 11(1): 105-149. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0095
  63. Verma P and Raghubanshi A. Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecological Indicators, 2018, 93: 282-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.007
  64. Nichols T. The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.