1932

Abstract

Qualitative research methods examine a wide range of topics in the study of environment and resource management. This first review on the topic highlights innovative and impactful research over the past few decades, drawing from social science disciplines that include sociology, geography, anthropology, political science, public policy, and psychology. We describe qualitative research methods that have addressed five scientific goals: () describing what the world is like, () predicting what the world can be like, () acknowl-edging researcher positionality and reflexivity and diversifying ways of knowing in theorizing and research designs, () integrating imaginaries into empirical research and building narratives to make sense of possible futures and to broaden our view of scientific inquiry, and () helping scholars grapple with the deep complexity of socioecological systems. As we explore these themes, we explain foundational qualitative approaches and highlight examples of environmental qualitative research that apply them.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-080106
2023-11-13
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/48/1/annurev-environ-112321-080106.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-080106&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Bercht AL. 2021. How qualitative approaches matter in climate and ocean change research: uncovering contradictions about climate concern. Glob. Environ. Change 70:102326
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. 2013. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers London: SAGE
  3. 3.
    Mahoney J, Goertz G. 2006. A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Polit. Anal. 14:3227–49
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Seamon D, Gill HK. 2016. Qualitative approaches to environment-behavior research. Research Methods for Environmental Psychology, ed. R Gifford115–35. Chichester, UK: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Gerring J. 2012. Mere description. . Br. J. Polit. Sci. 42:4721–46
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    King G, Keohane RO, Verba S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  7. 7.
    Brady HE, Collier D. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  8. 8.
    George AL, Bennett A. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  9. 9.
    Gerring J. 2017. Qualitative methods. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20:15–36
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Haverland M. 2010. Conceiving and designing political science research: perspectives from Europe. Eur. Polit. Sci. 9:4488–94
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Flyvbjerg B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  12. 12.
    Lincoln YS, Guba EG. 1985.. Naturalistic Inquiry Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
  13. 13.
    Yin RK. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications London: SAGE:
  14. 14.
    Maxwell JA. 2021. Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qual. Psychol. 8:1111–18
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    O'Neill K, Weinthal E, Marion Suiseeya KR, Bernstein S, Cohn A et al. 2013. Methods and global environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38:441–71
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Stake RE. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research London: SAGE
  17. 17.
    Schelly C. 2016. Understanding energy practices: a case for qualitative research. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29:6744–49
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Brown P. 2003. Qualitative methods in environmental health research. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:141789–98
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Erikson K. 1976. Everything in Its Path New York: Simon & Schuster
  20. 20.
    Ford JD, Keskitalo ECH, Smith T, Pearce T, Berrang-Ford L et al. 2010. Case study and analogue methodologies in climate change vulnerability research. WIREs Clim. Change 1:3374–92
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Skocpol T 1984. Strategies in historical sociology. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, ed. T Skocpol356–91. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Huntington HP. 2000. Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol. Appl. 10:51270–74
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Weinthal E. 2002. State Making and Environmental Cooperation: Linking Domestic and International Politics in Central Asia Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  24. 24.
    Sullivan R, Gouldson A. 2017. The governance of corporate responses to climate change: an international comparison. Bus. Strategy Environ. 26:4413–25
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Dallas, TX: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1st ed..
  26. 26.
    Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts JT. 2009. Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34:405–30
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Rudel TK. 2008. Meta-analyses of case studies: a method for studying regional and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 18:118–25
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Rudel T. 2005. Tropical Forests: Regional Paths of Destruction and Regeneration in the Late Twentieth Century New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  29. 29.
    Bennett A, Checkel JT. 2015. Process Tracing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  30. 30.
    Beach D, Pedersen RB. 2019. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  31. 31.
    Motta MJ. 2018. Policy diffusion and directionality: tracing early adoption of offshore wind policy. Rev. Policy Res. 35:3398–421
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Stokes LC. 2020. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  33. 33.
    Samper JA, Schockling A, Islar M. 2021. Climate politics in green deals: exposing the political frontiers of the European Green Deal. Polit. Gov. 9:28–16
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Orach K, Schlüter M, Österblom H. 2017. Tracing a pathway to success: how competing interest groups influenced the 2013 EU Common Fisheries Policy reform. Environ. Sci. Policy 76:90–102
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Maskey S. 2022. Using process tracing to evaluate stakeholder disputes: the case of tender award dispute in Nepal's forestry. Asian J. Comp. Polit. 7:4907–21
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Baird J, Schultz L, Plummer R, Armitage D, Bodin Ö. 2019. Emergence of collaborative environmental governance: What are the causal mechanisms?. Environ. Manag 63:116–31
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Ide T. 2017. Research methods for exploring the links between climate change and conflict. WIREs Clim. Change 8:3e456
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Muradova L, Walker H, Colli F. 2020. Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly. Clim. Policy 20:101322–35
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Baggio JA, Barnett A, Perez-Ibarra I, Brady U, Ratajczyk E et al. 2016. Explaining success and failure in the commons: the configural nature of Ostrom's institutional design principles. Int. J. Commons 10:2417–39
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C. 2014. The capacity of water governance to deal with the climate change adaptation challenge: using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to distinguish between polycentric, fragmented and centralized regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 29:139–54
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Kirchherr J, Charles KJ, Walton MJ. 2016. Multi-causal pathways of public opposition to dam projects in Asia: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Glob. Environ. Change 41:33–45
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Bretthauer JM. 2015. Conditions for peace and conflict: applying a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to cases of resource scarcity. J. Confl. Resolut. 59:4593–616
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Mapfumo P, Adjei-Nsiah S, Mtambanengwe F, Chikowo R, Giller KE. 2013. Participatory action research (PAR) as an entry point for supporting climate change adaptation by smallholder farmers in Africa. Environ. Dev. 5:6–22
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Haraway D. 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 14:3575–99
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Hausermann H, Adomako J. 2022. Positionality, ‘the field,’ and implications for knowledge production and research ethics in land change science. J. Land Use Sci. 17:1211–25
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Boyce P, Bhattacharyya J, Linklater W. 2021. The need for formal reflexivity in conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 36:2e13840
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Ross A, Van Alstine J, Cotton M, Middlemiss L. 2021. Deliberative democracy and environmental justice: evaluating the role of citizens’ juries in urban climate governance. Local Environ 26:121512–31
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Rose G. 1997. Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 21:3305–20
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Joa B, Winkel G, Primmer E. 2018. The unknown known—a review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy 79:520–30
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Middlemiss L, Gillard R. 2015. Fuel poverty from the bottom-up: characterising household energy vulnerability through the lived experience of the fuel poor. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6:146–54
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Soler M, Gómez A. 2020. A citizen's claim: science with and for society. Qual. Inq. 26:8–9943–47
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N. 2016. Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ. Sci. Policy 62:90–98
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    McIntyre A. 2007. Participatory Action Research London: SAGE
  54. 54.
    Godden NJ, Macnish P, Chakma T, Naidu K. 2020. Feminist Participatory Action Research as a tool for climate justice. Gend. Dev. 28:3593–615
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Reitan R, Gibson S. 2012. Climate change or social change? Environmental and leftist praxis and participatory action research. Globalizations 9:3395–410
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Nussey C, Frediani AA, Lagi R, Mazutti J, Nyerere J. 2022. Building university capabilities to respond to climate change through participatory action research: towards a comparative analytical framework. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 23:195–115
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Mijin Cha J, Stevis D, Vachon TE, Price V, Brescia-Weiler M 2022. A Green New Deal for all: the centrality of a worker and community-led just transition in the US. Polit. Geogr. 95:102594
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Calvert K, Jahns R. 2021. Participatory mapping and spatial planning for renewable energy development: the case of ground-mount solar in rural Ontario. Can. Plan. Policy Aménage Polit. Can. 2021:89–100
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Constantino SM, Weber EU. 2021. Decision-making under the deep uncertainty of climate change: the psychological and political agency of narratives. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 42:151–59
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Taylor C. 2002. Modern social imaginaries. Public Cult. 14:191–124
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Jasanoff S. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory Cult. Soc. 27:2–3233–53
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Deubelli TM, Mechler R. 2021. Perspectives on transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:5053002
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Fenton-O'Creevy M, Tuckett D. 2022. Selecting futures: the role of conviction, narratives, ambivalence, and constructive doubt. Futures Foresight Sci. 4:e111
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    O'Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K et al. 2017. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42:169–80
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Carrington D. 2019. Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment. The Guardian May 17. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Weber EU, Ames DR, Blais A-R. 2005. How do I choose thee? Let me count the ways’: a textual analysis of similarities and differences in modes of decision-making in China and the United States. Manag. Organ. Rev. 1:187–118
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Whiteley A, Chiang A, Einsiedel E. 2016. Climate change imaginaries? Examining expectation narratives in cli-fi novels. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 36:128–37
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Robinson KS. 2020. The Ministry for the Future London: Orbit
  69. 69.
    Roanhorse R. 2018. Trail of Lightning New York: Simon & Schuster
  70. 70.
    Powers R. 2018. The Overstory New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
  71. 71.
    Machin A. 2022. Climates of democracy: skeptical, rational, and radical imaginaries. WIREs Clim. Change 13:4e774
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Haraway DJ. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  73. 73.
    Mourik RM, Sonetti G, Robison RAV. 2021. The same old story—or not? How storytelling can support inclusive local energy policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 73:101940
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Rosa AB, Kimpeler S, Schirrmeister E, Warnke P. 2021. Participatory foresight and reflexive innovation: setting policy goals and developing strategies in a bottom-up, mission-oriented, sustainable way. Eur. J. Futur. Res. 9:12
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Caggiano H, Landau LF, Campbell LK, Johnson ML, Svendsen ES. 2022. Civic stewardship and urban climate governance: opportunities for transboundary planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221104010
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Tsing AL. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  77. 77.
    Ogden LA, Aoki C, Grove JM, Sonti NF, Hall W et al. 2019. Forest ethnography: an approach to study the environmental history and political ecology of urban forests. Urban Ecosyst 22:149–63
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Albuquerque UP, Alves AGC. 2016. What is ethnobiology?. Introduction to Ethnobiology UP Albuquerque, RR Nóbrega Alves 3–7. Cham, Switz.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Li X, Junqueira AB, Reyes-García V. 2021. At the crossroad of emergency: ethnobiology, climate change, and Indigenous Peoples and local communities. J. Ethnobiol. 41:3307–12
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Gillespie KA. 2019. For a politicized multispecies ethnography: reflections on a feminist geographic pedagogical experiment. Polit. Anim. 5:17–32
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Watson MC. 2016. On multispecies mythology: a critique of animal anthropology italicTheory Cult. Soc 335159–72
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Schlüter M, Orach K, Lindkvist E, Martin R, Wijermans N et al. 2019. Toward a methodology for explaining and theorizing about social-ecological phenomena. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39:44–53
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Nature Climate Change 2021. Powers of qualitative research. Nat. Clim. Change 11:9717–17
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Moon K, Brewer TD, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Adams VM, Blackman DA. 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecol. Soc. 21:317
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Gear C, Eppel E, Koziol-McLain J. 2018. Advancing complexity theory as a qualitative research methodology. Int. J. Qual. Methods 17: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918782557
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R 2013. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5:27–39
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Supran G, Oreskes N. 2017. Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014). Environ. Res. Lett. 12:8084019
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Supran G, Oreskes N. 2020. Addendum to ‘Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)’ Supran and Oreskes (2017 Environ. Res. Lett. 12 084019). Environ. Res. Lett. 15:11119401
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Fisher DR, Waggle J, Leifeld P. 2013. Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. Am. Behav. Sci. 57:170–92
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Markard J, Rinscheid A, Widdel L. 2021. Analyzing transitions through the lens of discourse networks: coal phase-out in Germany. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 40:315–31
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Derr V, Simons J. 2020. A review of photovoice applications in environment, sustainability, and conservation contexts: Is the method maintaining its emancipatory intents?. Environ. Educ. Res. 26:3359–80
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Russo S, Hissa K, Murphy B, Gunson B. 2021. Photovoice, emergency management and climate change: a comparative case-study approach. Qual. Res. 21:4568–85
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Murray L, Järviluoma H. 2020. Walking as transgenerational methodology. Qual. Res. 20:2229–38
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Shepherd N. 2023. Walking as embodied research: coloniality, climate change, and the ‘arts of noticing.’. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28:158–67
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Caggiano H, Landau LF. 2021. A new framework for imagining the climate commons? The case of a Green New Deal in the US. Plan. Theory 21:4380–402
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Macura B, Suškevičs M, Garside R, Hannes K, Rees R, Rodela R 2019. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ. Evid. 8:124
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Nielsen , D'haen SAL. 2014. Asking about climate change: reflections on methodology in qualitative climate change research published in Global Environmental Change since 2000. Glob. Environ. Change 24:402–9
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Alexander SM, Jones K, Bennett NJ, Budden A, Cox M et al. 2020. Qualitative data sharing and synthesis for sustainability science. Nat. Sustain. 3:281–88
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Fisher DR. 2019. The broader importance of #FridaysForFuture. Nat. Clim. Change 9:6430–31
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Berkes F, Jolly D. 2002. Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conserv. Ecol. 5:218
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-080106
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-080106
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error