A Keyword Approach to Finding Common Ground in Community-Based Definitions of

Human Well-Being
Author(s): R. S. Fulford, I. Krauss, S. Yee and M. Russell
Source: Human Ecology, Vol. 45, No. 6 (DECEMBER 2017), pp. 809-821
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45154066
Accessed: 20-04-2022 16:45 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Human
Ecology

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HumEcol (2017) 45:809-821
DOI 1 0. 1 007/s 1 0745-0 1 7-9940-3
A Keyword Approach to Finding Common Ground
in Community-Based Definitions of Human Weil-Being
R. S. Fulford1© • I. Krauss2 • S. Yee1 • M. Russell1
Published online: 6 November 2017
© US Government (outside the USA) 2017
Abstract Ecosystem-based management involves the integra-
tion of ecosystem services and their human beneficiaries into
decision making. This can occur at multiple scales; addressing
global issues such as climate change down to local problems
such as flood protection and maintaining water quality. At the
local scale it can be challenging to achieve a consistent and
sustainable outcome across multiple communities, particularly
when they differ in resource availability and management pri-
orities. A key requirement for consistent decision support at the
community level is to identify common community objectives,
as these can form the basis for readily transferable indices of
ecosystem benefit and human well-being. We used a keyword-
based approach to look for common terminology in community
fundamental objectives as a basis for transferable indices of
human well-being and then compared those commonalities to
community demographics, location, and type. Analysis cen-
tered on strategic planning documents readily available from
coastal communities in the conterminous United States. We
examined strategic planning documents based on eight do-
mains of human well-being, and found that Living Standards
and Safety and Security were the most commonly addressed
domains, and Health and Cultural Fulfillment were the least. In
comparing communities, regional differences were observed in
only one well-being domain, Safety and Security, while
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://d0i.0rg/l 0. 1 007/s 1 0745-0 1 7-9940-3) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
IS! R. S. Fulford
Fulford.Richard @ epa.gov
1 Gulf Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1
Sabine Island Road, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA
2 E3436 Valley Lane, Kewaunee, WI 54216, USA
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CrossMark
community type yielded significant differences in five of the
eight domains examined. Community type differences follow-
ed an urban to rural trend with urban communities focusing on
Education and Living Standards, and more rural communities
focused on Social Cohesion and Leisure Time. Across all eight
domains multivariate analysis suggested communities were
distributed along two largely orthogonal gradients; one be-
tween Living Standards and Leisure Time and or Connection
to Nature, and a second between Safety and Security and Social
Priorities (Education/Health/Culture/Social Cohesion). Overall
these findings demonstrate the use of automated keyword anal-
ysis for obtaining information from community strategic plan-
ning documents. Moreover, the results indicate measures and
perceptions of well-being at the local scale differ by community
type. This information could be used in management of eco-
system services and development of indices of community sus-
tainability that are applicable to multiple communities with
similar demographics, regional location, and type.
Keywords Ecosystem services • Well-being • Decision
support • Fundamental objectives • United States
Introduction
There has been a systemic shift away from managing single
issues or systems in isolation towards the concept of
ecosystem-based management (Bennett et al. 2015;
O'Higgins et al. 2014). Ecosystem-based management has at
its core the implicit understanding that human-environment
interactions are not simply stressors to be understood, but
complex interactions that affect ecosystem dynamics and
drive management outcomes (Bennett et al. 2015; Larson
et al. 2013). Large-scale human induced stressors, such as
air pollution (Eshleman and Sabo 2016; Reid and Aherne
Í) Springer
810 Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821
2016), eutrophication of public waterways (Ascott et al 2016;
Wu et al. 2016), and climate change (Hernandez-Montilla
et al. 2016; Yanez- Arancibia et al. 2013) have received con-
siderable attention, but smaller scale perturbations, particular-
ly at the local level (e.g., coastal land use) are usually treated
as a separate problem to be managed on a case by case basis
(Adams et al. 2016; Kozak et al. 2016). Local decision mak-
ing occurs at smaller scales, but can have a cumulative impact
comparable to issues like air pollution when many communi-
ties are tackling the same problems with similar solutions.
This provides an opportunity for decision guidance and sup-
port at the community level to have a large impact on human
well-being. The challenge in scaling up decision guidance
from one community to many is to understand commonalities
in community goals and priorities that could form the basis for
consistent and comparable decision support. We currently lack
a practical way to identify this common ground and make it
useful for ecosystem-based management.
A key component of decision support is the identification of
measurable outcomes that have broad stakeholder support.
Human well-being has been identified as a qualitative frame-
work useful for sustaining quality of life (Costanza et al. 2007).
More recently, quantitative measures of the many facets of
human well-being have been developed that offer a viable path
for measuring success of community decision making by eval-
uating the contribution of decisions to the domains of human
well-being (Smith et al. 2013b). Yet, communities differ in
their well-being priorities (Fulford et al. 2015) and measuring
changes in human well-being is complicated by these differ-
ences. We seek common ground in community interpretation
of human well-being that is useful for setting goals and mea-
suring success of ecosystem-based management.
Many communities have invested significantly in the com-
pilation of strategic planning documents intended to guide cur-
rent and future decision making (Ex. http://www.co.benton.wa.
us/; http://www.co.la-crosse.wi.us/comprehensiveplan/). These
documents usually involve a thorough examination of the
community including solicitation of stakeholder input and
evaluation of community resources. It may be possible to
describe stakeholder priorities and community fundamental
objectives, and ultimately measures of success toward
sustainability goals, from an examination of these documents
using content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Yet, these
documents are not uniformly structured, use inconsistent lan-
guage to describe similar things, and may be written to meet
different goals (e.g., long-term planning vs. problem solving).
Thus, the challenge for making use of information in commu-
nity strategic planning documents for identifying commonali-
ties is to identify and test an analytical framework that is well-
suited to identifying common themes in language and can pro-
vide consistent analysis of a wide variety of document types.
Text-based analysis and comparison of documents based
on word frequency is a well-established technique in
5) Springer
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sociological (Hsieh and Shannon 2005) and lexicographic re-
search (Ball 1994; Berber Sardinha 1996). In most cases, this
involves the identification of keywords across documents of a
common type or corpus (Lam 2007) and subsequent analysis
of keyword relative frequency (Kilgariff 1996b). Unlike a
typical corpus, strategic planning documents are not standard-
ized with respect to organization, content, or scope; thus, a
comparison of message will require identification of meaning-
ful keywords prior to analysis. However, when this require-
ment can be met, a keyword-based analysis has provided im-
portant insights on similarities and differences both among
and within multiple document types (Berber Sardinha 1996;
Lam 2007; Thomas and Wilson 1996).
We applied a summative content analytical approach
(Hsieh and Shannon 2005) based on pre-selected keywords
to examine a set of strategic planning documents at the county
level from coastal counties throughout the conterminous
United States to identify community fundamental objectives
similar to those obtained from associated in-person communi-
ty engagement (Fulford et al. 201 6). We limit the scope of our
analysis to coastal counties both to provide a narrowed context
for the analysis and because coastal communities are subject
to several common issues (e.g., sea level rise, coastal habitat
loss, population increases) amenable to a unifying theme for
decision making. These strategic planning documents are
most often produced at the county level offering the most data
for comparison. Our objective is to validate an analytical ap-
proach, use that approach to generate results for a core set of
communities, and then compare the outcomes between com-
munities as a function of geography; as well as social, envi-
ronmental, and economic differences. The outcome will be
insight into the common themes of human well-being among
coastal communities useful for making sustainable environ-
mental decisions, and a practical tool for identifying these
commonalities in community goals.
Methods
Communities were selected for analysis based on a definition
of coastal county used by NOAA, which includes 662 counties
nationwide (http://www.census.gov/geo/landview/lv6help/
coastal_cty.pdf). Within this set of all coastal counties, the
sample set was further reduced to those counties with an
available strategic planing document. We then further edited
the list of included counties to three regional areas, which
allowed for a numerically balanced geographic comparison.
Keyword analysis of strategic planning documents proceeded
in three steps. First, the keyword list was created and validated
through comparison of outcomes from a test set of strategic
planning documents. Initial keyword selection was based on
the eight domains of the human well-being index (Table 1)
(HWBI; Smith et al. 2013b). The HWBI framework is a useful
Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821 811
Table 1 Summary of the eight domains of the Human Well-being as well as example keywords used for each domain. The full keyword list
Index (HWBI; Smith et al. 2013b) used for this study. Domain labels is available online in Supplementary data
are followed by specific examples of service metrics for each domain,

HWBI Domain Service examples *Keyword examples

Education Basic and advanced knowledge and skills for youth; Educate, training, skill, library, math, science, reading
Positive social and emotional development
Health Life expectancy; physical, emotional, and mental Health, hospital, doctor, nurse, medical
well-being; access to healthcare
Leisure Time Time devoted to physical activity, vacation, or leisure Leisure, physical activity, sport, recreation, vacation
activities relative to working or caring for others
Living Standards Afford basic necessities; income and wealth; job stability Afford, home, drinking water, food, transportation,
employment

Safety and Security Being and feeling safe; exposure to natural hazards Safe, hazard, toxic, financial, disaster
Connection to Nature Spiritual or emotional connection to nature Nature, trail, hike, hunt, fish, boat, biodiversity,
natural beauty, outdoors

Cultural Fulfillment Relative importance of culture and cultural activities Heritage, culture, religion, festival, art
to well-being
Social Cohesion Participation in community and democracy; importance Town, community, satisfaction, historic, sense of place,
of sense of place; satisfaction with community pride, quality of life, vote, volunteer

*Keyword examples are summarized and do not include multiple versions of a word used in the analysis. A full description of the keyword list is
available online in the Supplementaiy material

organization tool as it links community decision-making to
elements of human well-being based on both stakeholder input
and objective analysis of community characteristics (Smith
et al. 2013a; Summers et al. 2014). The keyword list also
included the development of 'near' and 'exclude' words
intended to parse out generic word use (e.g., 'nature trial' vs.
'the nature of polities'). Second, the keyword list was refined
and finalized based on observed outcomes from a validation
analysis. Finally, the refined keyword list was used to analyze a
new set of strategic planning documents obtained for 97 com-
munities in the coastal region of the conterminous United
States (Fig. 1).
The keyword list was initially created based on an exami-
nation of a single representative community planning docu-
ment (Table 2). Keywords were extracted from this document
by a development group (n = 4) based on their expert knowl-
edge of the domains in the HWBI. This group served as a
starting point for connecting words and phrases used by com-
munities to categories of human well-being as described by
the HWBI. While this effort proceeded in an ad hoc manner,
the approach closely followed practical recommendations on
development of a code book for qualitative text analysis from
MacQueen et al. (1998). The development group created the
initial keyword list through a line by line examination of the
index community planning document (Table 2). Word selec-
tion was based on previous keyword development experience
of the expert group and a consensus that chosen words clearly
reflected a community value or priority rather than a narrative
or an external expert opinion. The goal was to allow the words
of stakeholders to drive the development of keywords rather

Fig. 1 Map showing locations of

three geographic regions (grey)
and 97 counties (black) used for
keyword analysis of strategic
planning documents. See
supplementary material for more
detail on specific counties

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
812
Table 2 Strategic planning documents used for the validation of the keyword list used in this analysis. Document for Moss Point, MS is at the civic
level and was used for initial assembly of the keyword list but not for validation

County State Source agency Comprehensive plan link

♦Moss Point MS Mississippi Gulf Coast Sustainable Communities Initiative Moss Point Comprehensive Plan; accessed 1 5 September 201 6
Jackson MS Jackson Planning Commission Jackson County Planner Toolkit; accessed 15 September 2016
Jefferson FL Jefferson Planning Commission Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; accessed 15 September 2016
Terrebonne LA Terrebonne Parish Planning and Zoning Terrebonne Parish Comprehensive Plan; accessed 1 5 September 20 1 6
St James LA St. James County St. James Parish Comprehensive Plan; accessed 15 September 2016
Wayne PA County Commission Wayne County Comprehensive Plan; accessed 15 September 2016

♦Representative strategic planning document used for initial development of keyword list

than scientific jargon (MacQueen et al 1998). This initial list
was then culled by collective discussion among the develop-
ment group to create a test keyword list, which was then sub-
jected to validation.
Validation of the test keyword list involved the comparison
of manual (i.e., by a person) evaluation of selected strategic
planning documents to an automated (i.e., keyword-based)
evaluation of the same documents (Creswell and Miller
2000). The test keyword list already described was evaluated
by comparison of keyword and manual reads of five strategic
planning documents not previously used for development of
the keyword list (Table 2). The automated read proceeded as
described below with the test keyword list. The manual read
was completed by a selected group of five validators, each of
which read one or two of the five documents. The validators
were asked to extract any statement that they considered a
match to a domain of the HWBI. The validators worked inde-
pendently and were not given the keyword list prior to com-
pleting their analysis of a document.
Once the manual read was complete the validators met as
a group to review and evaluate the results of the manual
read. The results were reviewed for disparity between indi-
vidual manual reads of the same document for any domain
and questionable matches were discussed and reconsidered
for inclusion by the group. The final results of the two
manual reads were combined for each document and com-
pared to the results of the automated read (Chew and
Eysenbach 2010). The manual and automated reads were
compared and evaluated for agreement based on four met-
rics: relative importance of the eight domains for each doc-
ument measured as proportion of total matches per read,
number of statements per document found in both read
types, number of statements per document found in manual
but not automated read, and vice versa. The latter three
metrics represent indicators of exact Tine by line' matching
of outcomes from keyword and manual examination of the
same document in that the same line is chosen (or not) by
both methods. Additionally, validation included the compar-
ison of automated reads to the results of stakeholder work-
shops held in the same communities ( n = 4). These
workshops were similarly based on the HWBI framework
and a comparison of keyword-based results to the results of
direct stakeholder input (Fulford et al 2016). These work-
shop results involved both a group and an individual ranking
of the relative importance of the eight domains of HWBI
(Smith et al 2013b). The validation comparison of automat-
ed results to both manual and workshops results were exam-
ined by the validator group and the keyword list was further
amended to improve agreement between the manual/
workshop and automated reads. In addition, the possibility
of a keyword hit not matching any of the domains of HWBI
was considered with the inclusion of an 'Other' domain
during validation. The Other domain was ultimately not
used for analysis, as the eight domains are highly inclusive
and little information was placed in this category. For the
purposes of amending the keyword list (See Supplementary
material), the manual/workshop results were considered
most representative of HWBI domain categories.
Once the set of keywords was labelled as final by the valida-
tion group, a separate set of community planning documents
(See Supplementary material) was selected and examined using
the automated keyword search combined with the final keyword
list. This set of community planning documents was selected
from a systematic search of all counties in three coastal regions
in the conterminous United States (Oregon/Washington state,
Minnesota/Wisconsin, and Louisiana/Florida). These regions
were selected to allow for a broad geographic comparison along-
side the focal comparison of demographics and community type.
The documents were found on county websites; if none were
available, the county was excluded. Plans were downloadable
in .pdf format, either uploaded as images or text. When uploaded
as images Adobe Pro's Optical Character Recognition (adobe,
com) was used to change the images into text format. In each
case it was necessary to convert the .pdf file into a text file (.txt)
before keyword analysis. Formatting issues and unnecessary
information (e.g., historical narrative) were manually corrected
to minimize file conversion errors. Since the objective was to
evaluate priorities for future community actions, narrative
elements, such as tables, figures, background history, table of
contents, and appendices, were all manually removed.

€) Springer

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821 813
The reformatted documents were then analyzed with an
original text search algorithm written in the software package
R (https://cran.r-project.org/). The R-script was used to extract
statements containing the selected keywords. Each document
was transformed into one continuous text string and then sep-
arated into lines by periods, semi-colons, colons, tabs, ques-
tion marks, and exclamation points. The R-script then
searched the separated lines individually for select keywords.
Selection was further parameterized by "near" and "exclude"
words identified during the validation process. Phrases were
only selected as hits if they included a keyword and a near
word (Example for HWBI domain Connection to Nature: key-
word - environment; near word - improve; exclude word -
business). If one of the exclude words was in the phrase it was
not counted as a hit. Each HWBI domain had a unique set of
keywords chosen to characterize that domain and each key-
word had multiple near and exclude words to further refine
domain-specific hits. Near and exclude words were initially
identified during the examination of the manual reads, but
were further refined during the keyword analysis based on
examination of keyword results.
Two different outputs of keyword importance were provided
by the R-script: a count of total hits per domain and a complete
list of every statement categorized as a hit. During the valida-
tion phase, the statement list was manually reviewed to verify
the R-script was pulling phrases that fit the intent of the key-
words. If a keyword was pulling hits established as 'false' upon
manual review, the near and exclude words were altered to
maximize positive hits. Duplicate hits (i.e., same phrase con-
taining multiple keywords and chosen twice for the same do-
main) were removed via the R-script for each indicator and
domain. The hits were totaled at the domain level for each
separate planning document. To take into account varying
lengths of planning documents, indices were normalized rela-
tive to the total hits per document. Data from all planning
documents were then combined, summarized, and compared
by region (WA/OR, MN/WI, and LA/FL), as well as by popu-
lation size, education, median income, and community type
based on an existing community classification system
(Fulford et al. 2015) (Table 3). Comparison of relative hits by
domain were made with analysis of contingency tables (Zar
2010). In addition, the combined dataset was analyzed with a
principal components analysis in order to examine broader pat-
terns involving multiple independent variables.
Results
Keyword List Validation Keyword selection proceeded as
described with an initial list of words selected from a detailed
review of the planning document for Moss Point, MS
(Table 2). This document was selected by the keyword devel-
opment group as representative of strategic planning efforts to
be targeted for the general analysis and contained a maximum
comprehensive list of focal areas under consideration. Review
of this document resulted in a list of 122 keywords each hav-
ing between one and 15 near and exclude words respectively.
This initial list was reviewed by the panel and adapted into the
test keyword list for validation.
Validation of the keyword list proceeded first with the
paired analysis of six test planning documents (Table 2).
Overall the largest difference in hits between manual and

Table 3 Summary of community classification (CC) used for structure and data can be found in (Fulford et al. 2016). For each
comparison of keyword-based analysis of community planning community classification group (CC1-CC8) the count of communities
documents. The CC groups used were developed as a part of an earlier in the original analysis of all US coastal counties is given for reference
study of Human well-being (Fulford et al 201 5) and full details of the CC

Community classification Description Count Community group notes

group name

CCI: Urban Urban/suburban 223 Economically balanced; All communities >5000 pp./mi2
CC2: Rural workers Rural/older/manufacturing 129 Contains all communities with high dependence
on industry; higher median age.

CC3: Rural farms Rural/dependence on local natural resources 1 33 Mix of dependence on natural resources and service
in larger rural communities

CC4: Rural diverse Rural/farming/high ethnic diversity 3 Subset of CG6 with extreme dependence on natural resources
and high ethnic diversity score

CC5: Rural balance Rural/natural resources mixed with industry 45 Mixed economic dependence on natural resources
and industry

CC6: Rural natural res. 15 High dependence on natural resources low on industry
CC7: Older suburban High median age; dependencies similar to 46 All in Florida; unique suburban communities characterized by
CGI but communities smaller in pop. Size. urban economically, but rural
in demographics.

CC8: Suburban industry Small to rural towns with high economic 25 Mostly in Great Lakes region
dependence on industry

Springer

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
814 Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821
keyword reads were observed in the Living Standard domain
(Figure 2)ģ Positive differences indicate higher frequency of hits
for the automated read. This domain had a difference exceeding
20% for three documents and exceeding 30% for one (i.e.,
Wayne County, PA). Maximum normalized difference was be-
low 1 5% for all other domains and documents. Living Standards
also had the most overall hits among the eight domains with an
average of 38 hits per document. Another notable difference was
that for Living Standards the difference was positive for the
manual read meaning the manual results were higher than the
keyword results. With the exception of the Wayne County doc-
ument the majority had fewer hits for the manual read. The
greatest disagreement in results between documents occurred
in the Social Cohesion and Safety and Security domains where
three documents were positive for manual read and three were
negative. For a specific document Wayne County showed the
most disagreement with the other documents showing differ-
ences in sign, magnitude or both for five of the eight domains.
An exact line by line examination of the outcome of both read
types indicated lower agreement between human and automatic
reads when attempting to make a specific match (Table 4). In
most cases, there were less than 10% matching phrases per do-
main and document between human and automatic reads. The
highest agreement across all test documents was in the Health
and Safety and Security domains (11%) and the lowest was for
Connection to Nature (3%). Of three planning documents with
two human reads, there were three instances (i.e. domain-
document combination) where human to human agreement was
noticeably higher than human to automatic reads. Two of these
occurred in the Living Standards domain while the other one was
in Leisure Time. In contrast, there were five instances where line
matches between human and automatic reads were noticeably
Fig. 2 Summary of normalized differences between keyword and
manual reads of selected test documents used for validation of the
keyword list. See methods for more details. The Other category was
included to allow for phrases selected that did not fit one of eight
domain categories, but it was not used for analysis. Zero indicates
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 4 Summary of line by line matches between keyword and
manual reads of test documents organized by HWBI domain. Test
documents are described in Table 2
Domain Keyword only Human only Both Total
Connection to Nature 91 27 4 122
Cultural Fulfillment 65 37 8 110
Education 122 21 14 157
Health 69 39 14 122
Leisure Time 162 44 19 225
Living Standards 175 281 43 499
Safety and Security 146 95 31 272
Social Cohesion 121 113 17 251
higher than between the two human reads. These occurred twice
in health, then once in each Education, Safety and Security , and
Social Cohesion. Keyword list finalization involved selection of
the list that generated maximum matches between human and
automated reads with a primary focus on proportional importance
of domains and a secondary focus on line matches.
The second stage of keyword validation involved the com-
parison of the automated read to data from stakeholder engage-
ment (Fulford et al. 20 1 6). Several differences were observed in
the outcomes of these two methods when they were applied to
the same communities (Figure 3). The workshop method gen-
erated more diverse findings that nonetheless consistently re-
ported high importance in the domains of Education and
Social Cohesion. In contrast, the keyword method was always
dominated by the Living Standards domain, which is the prima-
ry economic domain of the HWBI. However, if one removes the
Living Standards domain from the keyword results, the relative
perfect agreement, while positive and negative results indicate more or
less hits respectively in the keyword analysis for a particular domain.
Labels indicate county name followed by state abbreviation. Jackson
County, MS includes separate analyses at county and neighborhood scale
Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821 815

Fig. 3 Summary comparison of combined results from stakeholder (hashed; WS rank), results from a group voting exercise during the
engagement and keyword analysis of strategic planning documents in workshop (solid; WS dot vote), and results of the relative proportion of
four focal communities. Community name is given in each panel. Three hits from the keyword analysis (diamond; Keyword). See Fulford et al
bars are results from an individual ranking exercise during the workshop 2016 for details on stakeholder workshops

importance of the remaining domains is highly congruent with
workshop results (Figure 3). Therefore, the findings of the key-
word analysis can be thought of as hierarchical with a primary
dominance for Living Standards as a priority in strategic plan-
ning, but the domains of secondary importance (i.e., domains
other than Living Standards) were more similar to workshop
outcomes. There is, thus, strong support for the complementar-
ity of the two methods and the validity of the final keyword list.
Community Comparison of Keyword Analysis Keyword-
based analysis of 97 planning documents indicated important dif-
ferences among domains in a community's stated priorities based
on normalized keyword hits for each HWBI domain (Table 5,
Figure 4). Cultural Fulfillment (median value: 3.64) and Health
(5. 1 5) were consistently the least mentioned domains. By contrast,
Living Standards (23.82), Safety and Security (15.52), and Leisure
Time (15.12) were mentioned most often. In the middle were
Education (8.09), Connection to Nature (11.3), and Social
Cohesion (14.06). Living Standards consistently had the highest
median value across all documents analyzed (Table 5; Figure 4).
Similar patterns among domains are seen when data are
organized by region, but significant differences were evident
between regional community groups only for the Safety and
Security domain (Table 6). Of the three regions (WA/OR, MN/
WI, and LA/FL) analyzed, each had Living Standards as the
most represented domains. The middle category included
Safety and Security , Social Cohesion , Leisure Time , and
Connection to Nature , while the low group included Cultural

Table 5 Summary of normalized

keyword hits organized by
domains of human well-being
index. See text for details
Min value First quartile Median value Third quartile Max value
Connection to Nature 0.00 7.32 11.30 16.03 31.03
Cultural Fulfillment 0.00 1.71 3.64 6.24 16.36
Education 0.00 5.32 8.09 11.71 28.33
Health 0.00 3.23 5.15 7.11 20.39
Leisure Time 2.86 10.71 15.12 17.45 31.54
Living Standards 3.57 18.31 23.82 29.09 70.29
Safety and Security 0.00 11.34 15.52 21.08 35.51
Social Cohesion 3.43 10.19 14.06 17.73 33.15

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
816 Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821
Fig. 4 Summary of the median percentage hits per document across all
documents analyzed (97) for normalized hits per domain of the human
well-being index. Bottom and top of boxes indicate 25th and 75th
percentile respectively and bottom and top whiskers indicate the 5th
and 95th percentile respectively
Fulfillment , Education , and Health. Safety and Security was
distinctly higher than other middle group domains in the FL/
LA region, but this group was well-balanced in both the MN/
WI and WA/OR regions. Of the three regions, FL/LA had the
highest score for Safety and Security (18.17) compared to a low
in the WI/MN region (11.78). In contrast, the WI/MN region
had the highest score for Social Cohesion (14.74), with a nota-
ble difference with the FL/LA region (12.76) in this domain.
An opposite difference was seen for Leisure Time , with Florida
(16.96) and Louisiana (9.87). The WI/MN region also had the
highest score for Health (7.04) and Education (10.58) in com-
parison to both of the other regions, although the difference was
largest with WA/OR (Table 6).
When the data are compared based on a community clas-
sification system (Fulford et al. 2015) significant differences
were observed for Connection to Nature, Leisure Time, Living
Standards, Safety and Security, and Social Cohesion (Table 7).
Table 6 Summary of mean normalized keyword hits for the domains of
human well-being index organized by geographical region. Region labels
are state pairs in each region based on standard two-letter labels. P-value
is for Chi-square goodness of fit test on raw hit counts with two degrees of
freedom. Bolded values are significant at the a = 0.05
State WI/MN WA/OR FL/LA p-value
Document count 26 24 47
Connection to Nature 13.14 17.10 10.05 0.14
Cultural Fulfillment 4.90 4.08 4.17 0.34
Education 10.58 4.75 9.34 0.06
Health 7.04 4.06 5.20 0.35
Leisure Time 13.95 16.41 15.30 0.17
Living Standards 23.88 21.48 25.01 0.08
Safety and Security 11.78 17.22 18.17 0.02
Social Cohesion 14.74 14.90 12.76 0.31
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The domain Living Standards is again either the most or sec-
ond most represented domain in for each classification group,
while Cultural Fulfillment and Health remain the least repre-
sented domains similar to the overall results. Yet, among the
five of eight classification groups with at least 5 documents
(Groups 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7; Table 3) there also were some
important differences. Community classification (CC) Group
1 stands out for Connection to Nature with the lowest score of
7.43, whereas CC Groups 3, 5, and 7 each have scores over
11. Community classification Group 2 and 3 stand out in the
Cultural Fulfillment domain with a higher score than Groups
1, 5, or 7. Education has a larger range among CC Groups,
with Group 5 (6.24), 7 (7.64), and 3 (7.5 1 ) lower than Group 1
(11.23). Wide ranges were present for both Living Standards
zná Leisure Time (Table 7). Classification group 5 was notice-
ably lower in the Social Cohesion but higher than the other
Groups in Safety and Security. Classification group 1 is the
urban/suburban category, while Groups 3 and 5 are the most
rural. Group 7 is largely suburban but is characterized by a
higher median age and being located almost entirely in the
Florida. These differences are largely congruent with the ur-
ban to rural delineation of communities (Table 3).
Comparison across individual demographic variables
displayed some differences in community keyword hits by
domains. When communities are grouped by percent of resi-
dents 25 and older with a high school degree or higher or by
percent of residents 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or
higher (Table 8), similar trends are observed in number of hits
by domain. In each case, a higher score in Cultural Fulfillment
is associated with a higher level of educational attainment.
Similarly, counties with the lowest levels of per capita educa-
tion completion had fewer keyword hits for Social Cohesion
than counties with the two highest levels of education com-
pletion. The reverse of this is true when looking at Education
and Living Standards , lower levels of education had the higher
scores for these domains.
Keyword hits also differed among communities by median
income, population size, median age, and demographics, but in
a pattern seen in other variables, particularly the Classification
groups (Table 8). Scores for Social Cohesion and Cultural
Fulfillment were highest for a median income under $40,000
in comparison to median incomes over $40,000. Safety and
Security had the opposite pattern, with the highest scores asso-
ciated with the highest median income. Incomes of less than
$40,000 also had the lowest score for Leisure Time. Interest in
Education increased as median income went down. County
population size was broken down into three categories;
counties with a population greater than 75,000, between
25,000 and 75,000, and less than 25,000 (Table 9). Higher
populations were associated with high scores for Leisure Time
and low scores for Social Cohesion. Counties under 25,000
people had lower scores for Safety and Security compared to
the two larger categories. Other HWBI domains were not
Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821 817
Table 7 Summary of mean normalized keyword hits for the domains of system groups. The p-value is for a Chi-square goodness of fit test with
human well-being index organized by coastal community classification four degrees of freedom based on comparison of CC categories with at
(CC) groups. See Table 2 for description of community classification least five documents. Values in bold are significant at a = 0.05

Coastal cluster group CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 CC 4 CC 5 CC 6 CC 7 CC 8 p-value

Document count 15 8 13 2 8 1 14 3
Connection to Nature 7.43 12.72 13.25 10.36 13.01 16.00 11.12 3.28 0.007
Cultural Fulfillment 3.80 4.78 4.76 2.40 2.68 1.00 3.56 6.21 0.1
Education 11.23 8.97 7.51 9.46 6.24 13.00 7.64 14.52 0.08
Health 5.00 5.74 5.64 3.68 7.19 2.00 4.35 8.86 0.18
Leisure Time 10.03 15.34 15.24 14.94 19.49 23.00 15.40 7.85 <0.001
Living Standards 30.07 23.70 21.48 35.83 20.62 22.00 26.23 28.21 <0.001
Safety and Security 17.76 13.22 18.59 15.70 20.91 19.00 18.10 14.23 <0.001
Social Cohesion 14.68 15.52 13.53 7.62 9.88 4.00 13.61 16.84 0.013

affected by population size. Median age was split into two
categories (>40 and <40) (Table 9) and the older group scored
higher for Connection to Nature and Leisure Time , while the
younger group scored higher for Education.
When variance in all variables, including both community
characteristics and keyword-based priorities by domain, are
analyzed together the individual patterns are easily observed
(Figure 5), but there are interesting pairings among variables
suggesting some useful linkages for interpretation. The prin-
cipal components analysis demonstrated clear negative rela-
tionships between prioritization of Leisure Time (LT) and
Connection to Nature (CN) with prioritization of Living
CF/SC/ED gradient with CC group 5 clustered at the SS end.
For the regional comparison (Figure 5a) the WA/OR group
was more variable along the SS - CF/SC/ED gradient but
more clustered towards LT/CN on the other gradient. In con-
trast, the MN/WI group was more variable along the LS-LT/
CN gradient but generally clustered more towards LT/CN and
CF/SC which is consistent with the significantly lower score
for SS compared to the other two regions. The LA/FL group
was the most variable with regards to both gradients and dem-
onstrated minimal pattern. Overall the multivariate results are
consistent with univariate results but show a pattern that is
consistent across domains.

Standards (LS). Nearly orthogonal to this gradient was a sec-

ond gradient with Safety and Security (SS) domain at one end
and a mix of Cultural Fulfillment (GF), Social Cohesion (SC),
and Education (ED) on the other end. The existence of two
nearly orthogonal gradients in communities has some interest-
ing implications for interpretation. The LT/CN - LS gradient
was highly associated with variability in CC group 2 and CC
group 7 was clustered towards the Leisure end (Figure 5b). In
tum, CC groups 1 and 3 were more variable along the SS -
Discussion
Our analysis identified several useful themes in community
priorities with respect to human well-being. These priorities
represent community well-being targets with a high level of
stakeholder support, making them highly useful for guiding
decision making. A key consistency among communities in

Table 8 Summary of mean normalized keyword hits for the domains of (U.S. Census Data; accessed 14 September 2016). Values were
human well-being index organized by proportion of adult citizens with normalized separately for HSD and BD
either a high school diploma (HSD) or a bachelor's degree (BD) in 2000

High school degree High school degree or High school degree Bachelor's degree Bachelor's degree or Bachelor's degree
or higher >85% higher 80-85% or higher 80%> or higher >20% higher 1 5-20% or higher 1 5%>

Connection 13.35 11.37 11.37 11.23 12.93 11.72

Cultural Fulfillment 4.60 4.87 3.99 5.06 3.82 4.30
Education 6.86 9.53 9.01 7.61 8.14 9.63
Health 4.36 6.25 5.36 5.10 5.88 5.17
Leisure Time 17.35 13.28 14.80 15.23 15.30 14.74
Living Standaids 22.81 23.53 25.51 23.80 22.61 25.64
Safety and Security 16.17 16.32 16.35 17.45 15.78 15.74
Social Cohesion 14.50 14.85 13.62 14.53 15.54 13.06

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
818 Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821
Table 9 Summary of mean normalized keyword hits for the domains of human well-being index organized by median income level, median age, and
population size in 2000 (U.S. Census Data; accessed 14 September 2016). Values normalized separately for income, age and population size

Median Median Income Median Median Median Population Population Population

>$50,000 $40,000> 75,000
Income $40,000-$50,000 Income Age > 40 Age 40> > 75,000 25,000- 25,000>

Count 4 50 54 54 54 38 35 35
Connection 12.09 11.59 12.23 12.65 11.16 12.38 11.41 11.88
Cultural Fulfillment 5.13 3.29 5.47 4.30 4.51 4.46 3.81 4.94
Education 7.65 8.38 9.91 7.54 9.62 7.47 8.61 9.76
Health 4.76 5.35 5.97 5.00 5.70 4.80 5.47 5.81
Leisure Time 16.75 14.94 13.41 16.60 13.49 16.95 13.98 14.05
Living Standards 23.28 24.24 25.17 23.33 25.11 23.70 24.30 24.70
Safety and Security 16.95 18.09 12.61 17.09 15.50 17.06 18.02 13.73
Social Cohesion 13.40 14.11 15.23 13.50 14.92 13.19 14.40 15.12

this analysis was the importance of quality of life metrics (i.e.
Living Standards, Safety) to stakeholder priorities. Across
Fig. 5 Plot summarizing results of a principal components analysis of
normalized hits per domain of the human well-being index by individual
document. Only PCI (x axis; loading 0.29) and PC2 (y axis; loading 0.20)
are shown. Documents are labeled for geographic region (a) or
community classification group (b). Regions are Washington/Oregon
(WA/OR), Minnesota/Wisconsin (MN/WI), or Louisiana/Florida (LA/
FL). Typology groups CCI - CC8 are described in Table 2. Note that
that panel (b) is zoomed in for clarity and has a smaller scale
communities and community types the consistently dominant
well-being domains, in terms of total number of keyword hits,
were Living Standards followed by Safety and Security
followed closely by Social Cohesion, Connection to Nature,
and Leisure Time. An interest in quality of life is not surpris-
ing. The consistent low scores for Education and Health were
surprising and suggest these are not community-level priori-
ties, but may be important at a different scale (e.g., personal/
family). For instance, even in cases where an action may di-
rectly benefit human health (e.g., investment in hospitals) the
community-scale priority for the action may not be directly
tied to improving community health, but rather to ancillary
benefits more aligned with community-scale priorities such
as job creation, reductions in burden on public services, or
community reputation. These differences can be important to
setting measures of success at the appropriate scale. It is also
important to understand if measures of success should differ
among community types (Bagstad and Shammin 2012).
A key objective of this study was to associate common
themes in well-being to communities of a common type to
make the information useful for decision support in multiple
communities. The dominant delineations for stakeholder pri-
orities at the community level were between multi-state re-
gions and community classification (CC) groups. For CC
groups, five could be meaningfully compared. The CC groups
differed most in Leisure time and Living Standards , which
tracks a trajectory between these two domains of wellbeing
mentioned earlier. It can be categorized as an economic tra-
jectory in contrast to the more social trajectory between Safety
and the cluster of Education , Health , Culture and Social
Cohesion. Generally, the CC groups tended to vary between
groups along the economic trajectory and more within group
along the social trajectory. The most striking differences were
between the urban CC group (Group 1 ) and the most rural CC
group (Group 5), which had either the highest or lowest score
for seven out of eight well-being domains and were directly

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821 819
antithetical for three domains ( Education , Leisure Time, and
Living Standards). The urban communities placed a higher
emphasis on Education and Living Standards , while the more
rural communities emphasized Leisure Time , Health , and
Safety. The differences observed in more specific demograph-
ic groups such as median age and income are important but
were generally ancillary to differences observed among the
CC groups. The broader categories, such as CC, are not inde-
pendent from these specific categories (e.g., demographics) as
these data were also used as a part of the CC group score
calculation (Fulford et al 2015). However, a lack of pattern
in these strategic planning documents among demographic
groups for most domains of wellbeing suggests specific de-
mographics issues are more individualistic in nature and may
not drive community decision making other than to crystalize
individual interests.
The regional comparison made here is limited to three
coastal regions (WA/OR, WI/MN, and LA/FL), but this al-
lows for a useful comparison of spatial differences to differ-
ences in other categories. For individual domains of
wellbeing, communities within regions were most similar in
the less heavily cited categories like Connection to Nature,
Health, and Education showcasing key regional differences
in stated well-being priorities. The combined differences
among regions were largely along the social trajectory al-
though the LA/FL regional group was highly variable and
hard to separate from the other two.
The value of understanding these differences among groups is
to identify the domains of human well-being for which the CC
group or geographic delineations are the most informative for
identifying community priorities that may drive decision making
across multiple communities. These most informative differences
lie either on a gradient from an emphasis on Safety and Security
on one end to an emphasis on 'community' domains centered
around Social Cohesion on the other end or a gradient from
Living Standards to Leisure Time/Connection to Nature. This
generalization is supported by both the categorical results, as well
as the multivariate analysis of all domains together. These two
largely orthogonal gradients are also consistent with an urban to
rural gradient in that it is directly related to population size, and
demographics as 'ruralness' tends to be related to an increased
emphasis on social connectivity (Bagstad and Shammin 2012;
Smith and Clay 2010). Communities that are more urban, more
diverse, or less dependent on local natural resources also tend to
have a higher median income and a higher overall education
level, which is consistent with, but not dependent on increasing
urbanization. They also seem to prioritize Living Standards and
Education ; and reduce priorities for Leisure Time and
Connection to Nature. The inverse relationship between educa-
tional attainment in a community and their interest in Education
was surprising but fairly consistent, which suggests it is a real
trend among groups, insomuch as these characteristics influence
organized goal-setting.
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Keyword analysis is an effective technique for describing
community priorities for human well-being from large docu-
ments such as the planning documents considered here, but
the technique requires careful consideration of assumptions.
Keyword analysis as a form of context analysis (Hsieh and
Shannon 2005) has been commonly used to compare docu-
ments and corpora for similarity (Berber Sardinha 1996;
Peirsman et al. 2010), to look at word frequency in lexico-
graphic studies (Kilgariff 1996a), and use of automated tools
is a well-developed analytical technique (Ball 1994).
However, these approaches typically involve analysis of word
clusters without pre-defined meaning (Berber Sardinha 1999).
The planning document analysis approach is similar in execu-
tion, but is dependent on the use of specific words groups
developed a priori with pre-assigned meaning based on the
HWBI framework. This makes the analysis more dependent
on manual vetting of word lists, such as the validation proce-
dure described earlier (Ball 1994; Creswell and Miller 2000).
Therefore, keyword analysis can be useful, but its limits must
be carefully considered in drawing conclusions.
Validation results indicated keyword outcomes here were
generally consistent with both a manual read of the same doc-
ument, as well as direct engagement of stakeholders in the
same community. Clarifying community priorities from doc-
ument analysis is limited by the scope of the document, as
well as the level to which the document reflects community
input rather than the input of elected officials or hired external
experts. Yet, these issues can largely be minimized by appro-
priate document selection, so the process of reviewing and
selecting documents for analysis should be reported for max-
imum value of the results. The documents for this study were
selected from a random group of available documents from
each region but also filtered to remove documents not based
on significant stakeholder engagement. The keyword results
were not biased by document length or organization, which
suggests a wide variety of documents can be potentially se-
lected for analysis. Exact line-by-line matching of results be-
tween automated and manual reads was less consistent, but it
seems the two methods get to the same interpretation even
with some variability in exact phrases aligned with particular
keywords. Manual reads of the same document were incon-
sistent with each other, which created a lot of the discrepancy
and suggests an objective keyword approach should generate
more consistent results than interpretation of a document by
multiple individuals.
The low level of line by line agreement between manual
and automated reads of the same documents is interesting in
and of itself, as the manual reads did not target particular
words but extracted whole phrases viewed by the validation
group as consistent with one of the domains of human well-
being. This approach resulted in a closer match in terms of
total number of hits but differences in the actual phrases se-
lected in each case. Some domains such as Health and Safety
Ô Springer
820 Hum Ecol (2017) 45:80^-821
had higher agreement suggesting the language used for these
domains is more consistent and identifiable. The intent was
not to focus on the manual read, but use it as an independent
check on the automated outcome, and this is why the keyword
list was not used by the validation group. The numerical
agreement is the more important outcome for this analysis,
and line agreement was mainly used by the validation group
to hone the keyword list. That said, the line agreement infor-
mation may be used in the future for a more detailed exami-
nation of how these documents can be interpreted in compar-
ison to other forms of stakeholder engagement.
Keyword analysis of strategic planning documents shows
great promise as a contributing method for clarifying the long-
term priorities of human stakeholders and for delineating com-
munity priorities for decision making. This is important both
for effectively prioritizing human well-being in decision mak-
ing, and for scaling up decision support by applying similar
models across multiple communities facing the same issues.
In absolute terms the most informative grouping of coastal
communities is by CC groups followed by regional differ-
ences, but other delineations become more important at small-
er scales within the community. Certain well-being domains,
such as Health and Education , do not parse out very well at
inter-community scale, as indicated by the lack of difference
among communities for these domains, and the lack of infor-
mation about them contained in categories such as CC group
and geography. This may suggest stakeholder interest in these
well-being domains is fairly universal or not directly ad-
dressed in strategic planning documents. Nonetheless, differ-
ences in these well-being domains can be quite important in
driving individual stakeholder priorities and so have a collec-
tive influence at the community level not well captured by
review of community planning documents. As such, it is not
advised that any conclusions can be drawn about community
priorities for these domains by applying content analysis to
these types of documents. Better data may be obtained if more
specific documents were used for the analysis and this is a
topic for future study. These findings strongly suggest that
content analysis combined with a CC group-based compari-
son can be very informative regarding differences in the rela-
tive importance of community-scale priorities such as Social
Cohesion , Living Standards , Leisure Time , and Safety.
Beyond the specifics, it is evident that communities differ
in how they rank and prioritize the domains of human well-
being and these differences are predictable and based on com-
munity type. This conclusion supports the value of communi-
ty delineations for informing the decision process. However, it
also indicates that measures of success can only be partially
generalized and the very definition of human well-being may
differ among community types, as has been pointed out in the
past (Bagstad and Shammin 2012; Moller et al. 2015). Such
differences must be kept in mind when comparing the objec-
tive well-being across communities, particularly along the
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
urban to rural gradient. Therefore, future research should fo-
cus on improving the understanding of how community type
may inform differences in the relative importance of the do-
mains of human well-being that can be used to both develop
and assess decision options at the community level.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who aided in data
collection and analysis, as well as those involved in the development of
the Human well-being index used in this study. In particular, we acknowl-
edge Linda Harwell, Lisa Smith, Leah Oliver, Matt Harwell, and Virginia
Hansen for their assistance in development and validation of the keyword
list used in this study. This paper was greatly improved by the comments
of two anonymous reviewers and we also thank them for their efforts. The
views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Funding Funding for this study was provided by the US EPA Sustainable
and Healthy Communities Research Program.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Adams, M. P., Saunders, M. I., Maxwell, P. S., Tuazon, D., Roelfsema, C.
M., Callaghan, D. P., Leon, J., Grinham, A. R., and O'Brien, K. R.
(2016). Prioritizing localized management actions for seagrass con-
servation and restoration using a species distribution model. Aquatic
Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26: 639-659.
Ascott, M. J., Gooddy, D. C., Lapworth, D. J., and Stuart, M. E. (2016).
Estimating the leakage contribution of phosphate dosed drinking
water to environmental phosphorus pollution at the national-scale.
Science of the Total Environment 572: 1534-1542.
Bagstad, K. J., and Shammin, M. R. (2012). Can the Genuine Progress
Indicator better inform sustainable regional progress?-A case study
for Northeast Ohio. Ecological Indicators 18: 330-341.
Ball, C. N. (1994). Automated text analysis: cautionary tails. Literary and
Linguistic Computing 9: 295-302.
Bennett, E. M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Diaz, S., Egoh, B.
N., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Krug, C. B., Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., Lebel,
L., Martin-Lopez, B., Meyfroidt, P., Mooney, H. A., Nel, J. L.,
Pascual, U., Payet, K., Harguindeguy, N. P., Peterson, G. D.,
Prieur-Richard, A. H. N., Reyers, B., Roebeling, P., Seppelt, R.,
Solan, M., Tschakert, P., Tscharntke, T., Turner, B. L., Verbürg, P.
H., Viglizzo, E. F., White, P. C. L., and Woodward, G. (2015).
Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being:
three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 76-85.
Berber Sardinha, A. P. (1996). Review of WordSmith tools. Computers
and Text 12:19-21.
Berber Sardinha, A. P. (1999). Using keywords in text analysis: practical
acpects. In DIRECT papers, Working paper 42 ISSN 1413-442x:
CEPRIL, PUC-SP, Brazil, and AELSU, Liverpool University, England.
Chew, C., and Eysenbach, G. (2010). Pandemics in the age of twitter:
Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H INI outbreak. Plos
One 5: el41 1 8.
Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R.,
Danigelis, N. L., Dickinson, J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., Gayer, D. E.,
Hum Ecol (2017) 45:809-821 821
Glenn, L. M., Hudspeth, T., Mahoney, D., McCahill, L., Mcintosh,
B., Reed, B., Rizvi, S. A. T., Rizzo, D. M., Simpatico, T., and Snapp,
R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities,
human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics
61: 267-276.
Creswell, J. W., and Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in quali-
tative inquiry. Theory into practice 39: 124-130.
Eshleman, K. N., and Sabo, R. D. (2016). Declining nitrate-N yields in
the Upper Potomac River Basin: What is really driving progress
under the Chesapeake Bay restoration? Atmospheric Environment
146: 280-289.
Fulford, R. S., Smith, L. M., Harwell, M., Dantin, D., Russell, M., and
Harvey, J. (2015). Human well-being differs by community type:
Toward reference points in a human well-being indicator useful for
decision support. Ecological Indicators 56: 194-204.
Fulford, R. S., Russell, M., Harvey, J., and Harwell, M. C. (2016).
Sustainability at the community level: searching for common
ground as a part of a national strategy for decision support. Gulf
Breeze, FL: US EPA EPA/600/R-16/178.
Hernandez-Montilla, M. C., Martinez-Morales, M. A., Vanegas, G. P.,
and de Jong, B. H. J. (2016). Assessment of Hammocks (Petenes)
Resilience to Sea Level Rise Due to Climate Change in Mexico.
Plos One 1 1 .
Hsieh, H. F., and Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative
content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15: 1277-1288.
Kilgariff, A. (1996a). Comparing word frequencies across corpora:
Why Chi-square doesn't work and an improved LOB-Brown
comparison. In ALLC-ACH Conference, (ed.), A.o.L.a.L.
Computing, Bergen, Norway.
Kilgariff, A. (1996b). Using word frequency lists to measure corpus
homogenity and similarity between corpora. In COLING workshop
on very large corpora.
Kozak, J. P., Bennett, M. G., Piazza, B. P., and Remo, J. W. F. (2016).
Towards dynamic flow regime management for floodplain restora-
tion in the Atchafalaya River Basin, Louisiana. Environmental
Science & Policy 64: 118-128.
Lam, P. Y. W. (2007). A corpus-driven lexico-grammatical analysis of
English tourism industry texts and the study of its pedagogic impli-
cations in English for Specific Purposes. In Hidalgo E., Quereda L.,
and Santana J. (eds.), Corpora in the Foreign Language Classroom,
pp. 71-89.
Larson, S., De Freitas, D. M., and Hicks, C. C. (2013). Sense of place as a
determinant of people's attitudes towards the environment:
This content downloaded from 132.174.250.76 on Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:45:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Implications for natural resources management and planning in the
Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Environmental
Management 117: 226-234.
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., and Milstein, B. (1998).
Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis.
Cultural Anthropology Methods 10: 31-36.
Moller, V., Roberts, B., and Zani, D. (2015). The Personal Wellbeing
Index in the South African IsiXhosa Translation: A Qualitative
Focus Group Study. Social Indicators Research 124: 835-862.
O'Higgins, T., Cooper, P., Roth, E., Newton, A., Farmer, A., Goulding, I.
C., and Tett, P. (2014). Temporal constraints on ecosystem manage-
ment: definitions and examples from Europe's regional seas.
Ecology and Society 19.
Peirsman, Y., Geeraerts, D., and Speelman, D. (2010). The automatic
identification of lexical variation between language varieties.
Natural Language Engineering 16: 469-491.
Reid, H., and Aherne, J. (2016). Staggering reductions in atmospheric
nitrogen dioxide across Canada in response to legislated transporta-
tion emissions reductions. Atmospheric Environment 146: 252-260.
Smith, C. L., and Clay, P. M. (2010). Measuring Subjective and Objective
Well-being: Analyses from Five Marine Commercial Fisheries.
Human Organization 69: 158-168.
Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., Harwell, L. C., Smith, H. M., and Summers, J.
K. (2013a). Development of relative importance values as contribu-
tion weights for evaluating human wellbeing: An ecosystem ser-
vices example. Human Ecology 41: 631-641.
Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., Smith, H. M., Harwell, L. C., and Summers, J.
K. (2013b). Relating ecoystem services to domains of human well-
being: Foundation for a US index. Ecological Indicators 28: 79-90.
Summers, J. K., Smith, L. M., Harwell, L. C., Case, J. L., Wade, C. M.,
Straub, K. R., and Smith, H. M. (2014). An Index of Human Well-
Being for the US: ATRIO Approach. Sustainability 6: 3915-3935.
Thomas, J., and Wilson, A. (1996). Methodologies for studying a corpus of
doctor-patient interaction. In Thomas J., and Short M. (eds.), Using
corpora for language research, Longman, London UK, pp. 92-109.
Wu, M. L., Wang, Y. S., Wang, Y. T., Sun, F. L., Sun, C. C., Cheng, H.,
and Dong, J. D. (2016). Seasonal and spatial variations of water
quality and trophic status in Daya Bay, South China Sea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 112: 341-348.
Yanez-Arancibia, A., Day, J. W., and Reyes, E. (2013). Understanding the
Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management Approach in the Gulf of
Mexico. Journal of Coastal Research: 244-262.
Zar, J. H. (2010). Biostatistical analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
£) Springer