Perspectivas Sociales y Ambiente. Aspectos Teóricos y Prácticos de la Aplicación de la Metodología Q en Estudios de Percepción Social sobre Problemas Ambientales
Palabras clave:
Estudios de caso, Metodología Q, Percepción social, SaltaResumen
Este artículo brinda un panorama actualizado sobre la utilización de la Metodología Q para estudiar la percepción social de los temas y problemas ambientales. La Metodología Q puede ayudar a entender la diversidad de opiniones y la amplia variedad de perspectivas que existen sobre estos temas. Este método es innovador porque combina técnicas cualitativas con el rigor estadístico del análisis cuantitativo. La Metodología Q es particularmente útil para revelar las opiniones de algunas minorías que son frecuentemente subestimadas o ignoradas por los grupos de mayor poder político o económico. A modo de ejemplo, se presentan brevemente resultados de algunos casos de estudio en la provincia de Salta. Los resultados obtenidos en estos estudios muestran cómo la utilización de la Metodología Q puede contribuir a que la toma de decisiones políticas sea más inclusiva y que los sistemas socio-ecológicos del futuro sean más equilibrados, justos y sustentables.
ARK-CAICYT: https://id.caicyt.gov.ar/ark:/s29535441/yj4ropgnh
Descargas
Citas
Addams, H., & Proops, J. (Eds.) (2000). Social discourses and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, EEUU.
Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics, 28, 337-345. 345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6
Brannstrom, C. (2011). A Q-method analysis of environmental governance discourses in Brazil’s northeastern soy frontier. The Professional Geographer, 63(4), 531-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2011.585081
Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., & Persons, N. (2011). Social perspectives on wind-power development in west Texas. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(4), 839-851. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.568871
Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., Beckner, S., Sneegas, G., & Seghezzo, L. (2022). Not a silver bullet: social perspectives on desalination and water reuse in Texas. Urban Water Journal, 19(10), 1025-1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2022.2134808
Brookfield, H.C. (1969) On the environment as perceived. En: C. Board, R. J. Chorley, P. Haggett, & D. R. Stoddart (Eds.), Progress in Geography (pp. 51-80). Edward Arnold. Londres, Reino Unido.
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408
Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, & Bergsma, E. (2010). Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 69(3), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005
Davies, B. B. & Hodge, I. D. (2012). Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures. Ecological Economics, 83, 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.013
Dryzek, J. S., & Berejikian, J. (1993). Reconstructive democratic theory. American Political Science Review, 87(1), 48-60. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938955
Eden, S., Donaldson, A., & Walker, G. (2005). Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area, 37(4), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00641.x
Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Robinson, C. (2007). Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 517-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402075
Figueroa, C. Lee, K. Jepson, W. Seghezzo, L., & Brannstrom, C. (en prensa). Social perspectives on the sustainability challenges within the desalination sector: A Q-method study. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy.
Frate, C. A., & Brannstrom, C. (2017). Stakeholder subjectivities regarding barriers and drivers to the introduction of utility-scale solar photovoltaic power in Brazil. Energy Policy, 111, 346-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.048
Grossman, L. (1977). Man-environment relationships in anthropology and geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 67(1), 126-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1977.tb01124.x
Hermelingmeier, V., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). Identifying five different perspectives on the ecosystem services concept using Q methodology. Ecological Economics, 136, 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.006
Huaranca, L. L., Iribarnegaray, M. A., Albesa, F., Volante, J. N., Brannstrom, C., & Seghezzo, L. (2019). Social perspectives on deforestation, land use change, and economic development in an expanding agricultural frontier in northern Argentina. Ecological Economics, 165, 106424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106424
Iribarnegaray, M. A., de la Zerda, M. F. E., Hutton, C. M., Brannstrom, C., Liberal, V. I., Tejerina, W. A., & Seghezzo, L. (2014). Water-conservation policies in perspective: insights from a Q-method study in Salta, Argentina. Water Policy, 16(5), 897-916. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2014.159
Iribarnegaray, M. A., Sullivan, A., Rodriguez-Alvarez, M. S., Brannstrom, C., Seghezzo, L., & White, D. (2021). Identifying diverging sustainability meanings for water policy: A Q-method study in Phoenix, Arizona. Water Policy, 23(2), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2021.033
Lansing, D. M. (2013). Not all baselines are created equal: A Q methodology analysis of stakeholder perspectives of additionality in a carbon forestry offset project in Costa Rica. Global Environmental Change, 23, 654-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.005
Lewicki, R. J., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: frames and cases. Island Press. Washington, DC, EEUU.
Lowenthal, D. (1972). Research in environmental perception and behavior. Perspectives on current problems. Environment and Behavior, 4(3), 333-342.
Maki Sy, M., Rey-Valette, H., Simier, M., Pasqualini, V., Figuièrese, C., & De Wit, R. (2018). Identifying consensus on coastal lagoons ecosystem services and conservation priorities for an effective decision making: A Q approach. Ecological Economics, 154, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.018
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, Londres, Reino Unido.
Miller, T. R., Minteer, B. A., & Malan, L. C. (2011). The new conservation debate: The view from practical ethics. Biological Conservation, 144, 948-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.001
Niedziałkowski, K., Komar, E., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Olszańska, A., y Grodzińska-Jurczakd, M. (2018). Discourses on public participation in protected areas governance: Application of Q methodology in Poland. Ecological Economics, 145, 401-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.018
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
Porter, P. W. (1978). Geography as human ecology. A decade of progress in a quarter century. The American Behavioral Scientist, 22(1), 15-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427802200102
Ray, L. (2011). Using Q methodology to identify local perspectives on wildfires in two Koyukon Athabascan comunities in rural Alaska. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 7(2), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2011.11908070
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (5), 1933-1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Robbins, P. (2005). Q methodology. En K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Measurement 3, (pp. 209-215). Academic. San Diego, CA, EEUU.
Robbins, P. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum, 37, 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011
Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q Method in Human Geography. Professional Geographer, 52(4), 636-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00252
Robinson, J. G. (2011). Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biological Conservation, 144, 958-965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.017
Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable (SAyDS), Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Instituto de Investigaciones en Energía No Convencional (INENCO), Universidad Nacional de Salta (UNSa), Instituto Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (INAI), & Administración de Parques Nacionales (APN) (2023). Proceso de revisión del Ordenamiento Territorial de Bosques Nativos (OTBN) de la provincia de Salta. SAyDS. Salta, Argentina.
Seghezzo, L., & Brannstrom, C. (2022). La Metodología Q para el análisis cuali-cuantitativo de las percepciones sociales sobre las energías renovables. En C. Brannstrom, L. Seghezzo, & A. Gorayeb (Eds.), Descarbonización en América del Sur. Conexiones entre Brasil y Argentina (pp. 82-103). Ediciones UERN. Mossoró, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil.
Seghezzo, L., Sneegas, G., Jepson, W., Brannstrom, C., Beckner, S., & Lee, K. (2023). The use and potential of Q method in environmental planning and management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2023.2207727
Sneegas, G., Beckner, S., Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., Lee, K., & Seghezzo, L. (2021). Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review. Ecological Economics, 180, 106864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106864
Sneegas, G., Seghezzo, L., Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., & Eckstein, G. (2022). Do not put all your eggs in one basket: social perspectives on desalination and water recycling in Israel. Water Policy, 24(11), 1772-1795. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2022.085
Sorani, J., Seghezzo, L., Brannstrom, C., Rodriguez-Alvarez, M. S., Albesa, F., & Iribarnegaray, M. A. (en prensa). Option of last resort or pragmatic solution? Social perspectives on onsite wastewater treatment systems in northern Argentina. Urban Water Journal.
Steelman, T. A., & Maguire, L.A. (1999). Understanding participant perspectives: Q-Methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361-388.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior; Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press. EEUU.
Stephenson, W. (1965). Definition of opinion, attitude and belief. The Psychological Record, 15, 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393596
Tuler, S., & Webler, T. (2006). Competing perspectives on a process for making remediation and stewardship decisions at the rocky flats environmental technology site. En T. M. Leschine (Ed.), Long-term management of contaminated sites (Research in social problems and public policy, Vol. 13) (pp. 49-77). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Leeds, Reino Unido.
van Eeten, M. (2000). Recasting environmental controversies: A Q study of the expansion of Amsterdam airport. En H. Addams, & J. Proops (Eds.), Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology (pp. 41-70). Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, EEUU.
Vugteveen, P., Lenders, H. J. R., Devilee, J. L. A., Leuven, R. S. E., Van der Veeren, R. J. H. M., Wiering, M. A., & Hendriks, A. J. (2010). Stakeholder value orientations in water management. Society and Natural Resources, 23(9), 805-821. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903496952
Walder, P., & Kantelhardt, J. (2018). The environmental behaviour of farmers - Capturing the diversity of perspectives with a Q Methodological approach. Ecological Economics, 143, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.018
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. SAGE. Los Angeles, CA, EEUU.
Weber, E. P., Lach, D., & Steel, B. S. (2017). New strategies for wicked problems: science and solutions in the twenty-first century. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, EEUU.
Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute. Greenfield, Reino Unido.
Woolley, J. T., & McGinnis, M. V. (2000). The conflicting discourses of restoration. Society and Natural Resources, 13(4), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419200279009
Zabala, A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Bootstrapping Q methodology to improve the understanding of human perspectives. PLOS ONE, 11(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148087
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Lucas Seghezzo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
