Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Participatory Modeling to Elicit Behavioral Drivers in Environmental Dilemmas: the Case of Air Pollution in Talca, Chile

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the exploration of environmental modeling methods based on the elicitation of stakeholders’ mental models. This aim is motivated by the necessity to understand the dilemmas and behavioral rationales of individuals for supporting the management of environmental problems. The methodology developed for this paper integrates qualitative and quantitative methods by deploying focus groups for the elicitation of the behavioral rationales of the target population, and grounded theory to code the information gained in the focus groups and to guide the development of a dynamic simulation model. The approach is applied to a case of urban air pollution caused by residential heating with wood in central Chile. The results show how the households’ behavior interrelates with the governmental management strategies and provide valuable and novel insights into potential challenges to the implementation of policies to manage the local air pollution problem. The experience further shows that the developed participatory modeling approach allows to overcome some of the issues currently encountered in the elicitation of individuals’ behavioral rationales and in the quantification of qualitative information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

References

  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Dec 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersen DF, Richardson G (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dynam Rev 13:107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersen DL, Luna-Reyes LF, Diker VG, Black L, Rich E, Andersen DF (2012) The disconfirmatory interview as a strategy for the assessment of system dynamics models. Syst Dynam Rev 28(3):255–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Armah FA, Yawson DO, Pappoe ANM (2010) A system dynamics approach to explore traffic congestion and air pollution link in the city of Accra, Ghana. Sustainability 2:252–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barlas Y (1996) Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst Dynam Rev 12(3):183–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Becu N, Barreteau O, Perez P, Saising J, Sungted S (2005) A methodology for identifying and formalizing farmers representation of watershed management : a case study from northern Thailand. In: Bousquet F, Trébuil G, Hardy B (eds) Companion modeling and multi-agent systems for integrated natural resource management in Asia. CIRAD, IRRI, Metro Manila, pp 41-62

  7. Bousquet F, Barreteau O, Le Page C, Mullon C, Weber J (1999) An environmental modelling approach. The use of multi-agents simulations. In: Blasco F, Weill A (eds) Advances in environmental and ecological modelling. Elsevier, Paris, pp 113–122

  8. Cárdenas JC, Stranlund C, Willis C (2000) Local environmental control and institutional crowding-out. World Dev 28(10):1719–1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carmona G, Varela-Ortega C, Bromley J (2013) Participatory modelling to support decision making in water management under uncertainty: Two comparative case studies in the Guadiana river basin, Spain. J Environ Manag 128:400–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chávez C, Gómez W, Briceño S (2009) Costo-efectividad de instrumentos económicos para el control de la contaminación. El caso del uso de leña. Cuad De Econ 46:197–224. Noviembre

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chávez CA, Stranlund JK, Gómez W (2011) Controlling urban air pollution caused by households: uncertainty, prices, and income. J Environ Manag 92:2746–2753

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen MC, Ho TP, Jan CG (2006) A system dynamics model of sustainable urban development: assessing air purification policies at Taipei City. Asian Pac Plan Rev 4(1):29–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen H, Chang YC, Chen KC (2014) Integrated wetland management: an analysis with group model building based on system dynamics model. J Environ Manag 146:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Costanza R, Ruth M (1998) Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope Environmental Problems and Build Consensus Environmental Management 22:183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900095

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Coyle G (2000) Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions. Syst Dyn Rev 18:225–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Crance C, Draper D (1996) Socially cooperative choices: an approach to achieving resource sustainability in the coastal zone. Environ Manag 20(2):175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dray A, Perez P, Jones N, Le Page C, d’Aquino P, White I, Auatabu T (2006) The AtollGame experience: from knowledge engineering to a computer-assisted role-playing game. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(1):1–6. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/1/6.html

  19. Dupont H, Gourmelon F, Rouan M, Le Viol I, Kerbiriou C (2016) The contribution of agent-based simulations to conservation management on a Natura 2000 site. J Environ Manag 168:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Elsawah S, Guillaume JHA, Filatova T, Rook J, Jakeman AJ (2015) A methodology for eliciting, representing, and analysing stakeholder knowledge for decision making on complex socio-ecological systems: from cognitive maps to agent-based models. J Environ Manag 151:500–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Farnsworth J, Boon B (2010) Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qual Res 10(5):605–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Forrester JW (1992) Policies, decisions and information sources for modelling. Eur J Oper Res 59:42–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Giordano R, Brugnach M, Plucchinotta I (2017) Ambiguity in problem-framing as a barrier to collective actions: Some hints from groundwater protection policy in the Apulia region. Group Decis Negot 26(5):911–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gómez W, Yep S, Chávez C (2013) Subsidios a hogares para inducir adopción de tecnologías de combustión de leña más eficiente y menos contaminantes: Simulación para el caso de Temuco y Padre Las Casas. Estud De Econ 440(1):21–52

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jones NA, Perez P, Measham TG, Kelly GJ, d’Aquino P, Daniell KA, Dray A, Ferrand N (2009) Evaluating participatory modeling: Developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environ Manag 44:1180–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly (Letcher) R, Jakeman A, Barreteau O, Borsuk M, ElSawah S, Hamilton S, Henriksen HJ, Kuikka S, Maier H, Rizzoli A, van Delden H, Voinov A (2013) Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environ Model Softw 47:159–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim H, Anderson DF (2012) Building confidence in causal maps generated from purposive text data: mapping transcripts of the Federal Reserve. Syst Dynam Rev 28:311–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kind L (2004) Notas para o trabalho com a técnica de grupos focais. Psicol em Rev 10(15):124–136

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Ill 16(1):103–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lavallee A, Hower T, Hovmand P (2010) Scriptapedia/Debriefing.https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Scriptapedia

  32. Leal Neto A, de C, Legey LFL, González-Araya MC, Jablonski S (2006) A system dynamics model for the environmental management of the Sepetiba Bay watershed, Brazil. Environ Manag 38:879–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lemons J (1989) The need to integrate values into environmental curricula. Environ Manag 13(2):133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Le Page C, Abrami G, Barreteau O, Becu N, Bommel P, Botta A, Dray A, Monteil C, Souchère V (2014) Models for sharing representations. In: Etienne M (ed) Companion modelling. Springer, Versailles, pp 69-101

  35. Luna-Reyes LF, Andersen D (2003) Collecting and analysing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models. Syst Dyn Rev 19:271–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Martínez-Alier J, Muradian R (2015) Handbook of ecological economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  37. Max-Neef M (1991) Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. The Apex Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Meadows DH (1976) The unavoidable a priori. Proceedings of the 1976 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Geilo,161-240

  39. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (2014) Planes de descontaminación atmosférica: Estrategia 2014–2018. Gobierno de Chile, Santiago

  40. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (2015) Plan de descontaminación atmosférica para las comunas de Talca y Maule. Gobierno de Chile, Santiago

  41. Mostashari A, Sussman J (2005) Stakeholder-assisted modelling and policy design process for environmental decision-making. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 7(3):355–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Paavola J, Adger WN (2005) Institutional ecological economics. Ecol Econ 53:353–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Popa F (2015) Motivations to contribute to public goods: beyond rational choice economics. Environ Policy Gov 25:230–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Renn O, Schweizer PJ (2009) Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy-making. Environ Policy Gov 19:174–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ringrose S, Chanda R, Nkambwe M, Sefe F (1996) Environmental change in the Mid-Boteti area of north-central Botswana: biophysical processes and human perceptions. Environ Manag 20(3):397–410

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Romm NRA (2015) Conducting focus groups in terms of an appreciation of indigenous ways of knowing: some examples from South Africa. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 16(1):Article No. 2

  48. Rouwette EAJ, Vennix JAM, Van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies. Syst Dynam Rev 18:5–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sanhueza L, Mardones C, Jiménez J (2015) Efectos de la incorporación de fuentes residenciales en mecanismos de compensación de emisiones industriales de PM10. Rev Int Contam Ambient 31(3):279–291

    Google Scholar 

  50. Santos R, Antunes P, Baptista G, Mateus P, Madruga L (2006) Stakeholder participation in the design of environmental policy mixes. Ecol Econ 60:100–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Shahgholian K, Hajihosseini H (2009) A dynamic model of air pollution, health, and population growth using system dynamics: A study on Tehran-Iran (with computer simulation by the software Vensim). Int J Environ 3(11):372–379

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shortle JS, Horan RD (2001) The economics of nonpoint pollution control. J Econ Surv 15(3):255–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Stave KA (2010) Participatory system dynamics modelling for sustainable environmental management: observations from four cases. Sustainability 2:2762–2784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics – Systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  55. Stern PC, Fineberg HV (1996) Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stringer LC, Fleskens L, Reed MS, de Vente J, Zengin M (2014) Participatory evaluation of monitoring and modeling of sustainable land management technologies in areas prone to land degradation. Environ Manag 54:1022–1042

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Universidad de Concepción (2014) Diagnóstico de la calidad del aire y medidas de descontaminación en Talca y Maule - 2012-614797-7-LP12 - Informe Final. Universidad de Concepción, Concepción

  58. Vennix JAM (1990) Mental models and computer models: design and evaluation of a computer-based learning environment. Dissertation, Radboud University of Nijmegen

  59. Vennix JAM (1996) Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  60. Vidal-Legaz B, Martínez-Fernández J, Sánches Picón A, Pugnaire FI (2013) Trade-offs between maintenance of ecosystem services and socio-economic development in rural mountaineous communities in southern Spain: a dynamic simulation approach. J Environ Manag 131:280–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R, Lobo G (2006) Public and stakeholder participation in European water policy: a critical review of project evaluation processes. Eur Environ 16:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R, Lopes R (2010) A participatory modelling approach to support integrated sustainability assessment processes. Syst Res Behav Sci 27:446–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25:1268–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007Xu

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Xu J, Kang J, Shao L, Zhao T (2015) System dynamics modelling of industrial growth and landscape ecology in China. J Environ Manag 161:92–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Corporación de Desarrollo of the city of Talca and Prof. Martin Schaffernicht from the Universidad de Talca for their help in initiating and setting up the case study, as well as the collaboration of the local participants. The authors also acknowledge the New University of Lisbon, Portugal, the University of Bergen, Norway, the University of Palermo, Italy, and the Radboud University, The Netherlands, for capacitating the undertaking of this research within the European Master Programme in System Dynamics (EMSD). The first author was supported by the EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Commission) during the EMSD programme. CENSE is supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through the strategic project UID/AMB/04085/2013.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Meinherz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meinherz, F., Videira, N. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Participatory Modeling to Elicit Behavioral Drivers in Environmental Dilemmas: the Case of Air Pollution in Talca, Chile. Environmental Management 62, 260–276 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1034-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Behavioral drivers
  • Qualitative research methods
  • Participatory modeling
  • System dynamics modeling
  • Urban air pollution
  • Talca, Chile