In recent years, in the context of the climate crisis, some ecosystems have acquired global relevance due to their ease of mitigation and adaptation to environmental impacts. Within these ecosystems, wetlands, and peatlands in particular, play a crucial role as moderators of climate change due to their ability to regulate the atmosphere (Moomaw et al., 2018). Although peatlands cover only 3% of the planet’s surface (Liu and Lennartz, 2018), they represent one of the largest terrestrial carbon reservoirs (UNEP, 2022).

Among the different types of peatlands, some may have Sphagnum moss as their main biological component (Díaz et al., 2008), and one of its main characteristics is the ability to absorb and retain up to 20 times its dry weight in water (Zegers et al., 2006). In Chile, peatlands where the moss Sphagnum magellanicum lives, locally known as “pompón”, are distributed from the Araucanía Region to Magallanes (León et al., 2021), and it is in the Provinces of Chiloé and Llanquihue where the harvest of this moss has had a great development in recent years. Since 2002, exports have increased continuously, reaching 109% compared to 2021, more than double that of recent years, with Taiwan being the main buyer country (Poblete, 2022). Its use is primarily in horticulture, orchid cultivation, vegetative reproduction, as an insulating and packaging material, among others (Oberpaur et al., 2018).

On the other hand, in Chile, since the salmon farming crisis (2008), the harvest and trading of the Sphagnum moss has become an important economic activity for peasant family agriculture in the Los Lagos Region (León et al., 2012). It is estimated that 48% of the families that work in the harvest and commercialization of the Sphagnum moss have as their main economic income what they receive from this activity, and, for the rest of the families, it is a secondary source of economic income (Oberpaur et al., 2018). However, associated with this economic activity we find a series of bad harvesting practices that lead to overexploitation, which can endanger the growth, regeneration, and sustainability of the moss in the long term, causing a social, economic, and ecological impact in the Los Lagos Region (Délano et al., 2013). This dynamic of overexploitation would be given not only by the families that depend economically on this resource, but also by the context and the system of actors involved, such as companies or buyers, property owners, among others. For this reason, directly or indirectly, human activity has had a strong impact on these ecosystems. Directly, with the drainage of these areas for agriculture, changes in land use, excavations, flooding, conversion of land use, development of civil works, peat extraction or carrying out unsustainable harvesting, their conservation is threatened (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020), actions that are also contrary to protecting the present and future socio-physical resources of the planet (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2019).

Due to the above, it is essential a behavior change towards a culture of sustainable harvesting and the implementation of restoration plans for ecosystems that have been degraded (León et al., 2021). It is necessary to pay attention to anthropic actions, since people are fundamental agents in sustainability.

In this sense, it is relevant how authors agree on integrating perceptions, knowledge, and interests of the communities themselves in ecosystem conservation studies, due to the relationship of humans with nature. Ávila-López and Pinkus-Rendón (2018) indicate that when conservation is addressed excluding perceptions, needs, and interests of the people, the social dimension is not addressed, and sustainable development is lost from sight (p. 111). Similarly, Liu et al. (2017) add the need to present people’s impressions regarding conservation policies since community participation is essential for the promotion and exercise of sustainability, because human beings also act as “guardians of heritage” (p. 1).

Given the climate context, it is a priority to address the psychosocial nature of ecosystem conservation and restoration, as well as to consider the reciprocal impacts between the environment and human beings (Ávila-López and Pinkus-Rendón, 2018). In this sense, as Hinojosa et al. (2018) mention, it is essential to combine ecosystem services with society and to involve all stakeholders in sustainable development, since one of the greatest difficulties in conservation policies is not considering all interested parties, both in the proposals and in their implementation. Castillo et al. (2022) report that many interventions or public policies sometimes do not achieve the expected results, since they do not consider the reality of the communities they regulate. For this reason, there are different variables that can guide people to protect or conserve the environment or otherwise prevent a sustainable practice from being carried out, and these are barriers and/or facilitators to adopting such practices.

To address this problem, a qualitative methodology was used that combines the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1987) and the COM-B system of the Behavior Change Wheel (Michie et al., 2011). Interviews were conducted with key actors in peasant family agriculture to identify barriers and facilitators of behavioral change towards sustainable management of Sphagnum magellanicum moss in the Los Lagos Region of Chile.

Studies by Axon (2017); Addo et al. (2018a); Akenroye et al. (2021); Di Bene et al. (2022); Lee and Gambiza (2022), or Parra et al. (2022), among others, have defined the concepts of barriers and facilitators for the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors or sustainable practices. However, little research has been found on barriers and facilitators related to systems that harvest and trade Sphagnum moss, specifically.

Following Lee and Gambiza (2022), we understand a barrier as a physical, social, financial, or informational obstacle that prevents successful adoption and implementation of conservation agriculture (p. 215), while facilitator is explained by its opposite, being a social, financial, or informational obstacle that prevents the successful adoption and implementation (p. 215). Furthermore, within the results of this research it is noted that some categories can be presented as a barrier or facilitator for the adoption of sustainable practices.

To achieve a change in behavior towards sustainable practices, this research is based on two major components: The Behavior Change Wheel, which serves as a guiding tool to understand behavior and to design and evaluate proposals for specific actions for change (Michie et al., 2011); and Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory, which contributes to the understanding of person- environment/environment-person interaction (Bronfenbrenner, 1987).

A qualitative study was carried out to identify the barriers and facilitators for the sustainable management of Sphagnum moss through the perceptions and experiences of people who harvest this economic resource (Flick, 2015). The paradigm on which this research is based is constructivist, since it is assumed that the findings emerge during the interactions developed between the research team and the participants (Guba and Lincoln, 2002). The depth of the study is exploratory, since to date there is little literature on the subject addressed (Hernández et al., 2014).

The type of sampling used was judgmental, since certain conceptual criteria were established from the literature review and had to be present in the selected participants (Mejía, 2000). The defined criteria were related to age (being over 18 years old), location (living in or near the towns of Calbuco, Maullín, or Quemchi) (Figure 2), and work activity (working mainly in the harvest and/or commercialization of Sphagnum moss). The sample obtained consisted of 6 people who live in the towns of Calbuco, Maullín, and Quemchi, between 24 and 60 years old.

A semi-structured interview technique was used to produce information, allowing for the exploration of relevant topics to the participants while still considering elements that might emerge during the dialogue (Arias, 2012; Hernández et al., 2014; Taylor and Bogdan, 1987). In general terms, the questionnaire addresses the following topics: work history, organization of productive activity, sustainability of the harvesting practices used, economic importance of the activity, work-life balance, and linkage with public plans or programs, among others. The interviews lasted approximately one hour and were conducted remotely between May 24 and June 24, 2023. These sessions were recorded and fully transcribed.

Although the sample consisted of six participants, data saturation was reached in accordance with the principles of qualitative inquiry. The selection of interviewees was purposive, focusing on individuals with extensive experience in the harvesting and commercialization of Sphagnum magellanicum moss in three of the main localities involved in this activity (Calbuco, Maullín, and Quemchi). During the iterative process of coding and content analysis, it was confirmed that by the sixth interview no new significant categories or subthemes emerged within the COM-B and Ecological Model frameworks. The narratives became repetitive, and all conceptual dimensions—capability, opportunity, and motivation—were adequately represented across diverse participant profiles (gender, age, and type of engagement). Following the criteria proposed by Guest et al. (2006), as well as Mayring (2000) and Flick (2015), this redundancy signaled that theoretical saturation had been achieved, ensuring analytical robustness despite the small sample size. While it is acknowledged that this number of interviews limits statistical representativeness, the aim of this research was not generalization but analytical and theoretical transferability. The richness, recurrence, and internal coherence of the discourses collected allowed for a deep understanding of the psychosocial dynamics underpinning sustainable harvesting practices, consistent with qualitative standards for saturation-based sampling and with the exploratory nature of this study.

To process this information, a methodological strategy consisting of four stages was designed. The first of these corresponds to the analysis of the data generated from the semi-structured interviews with the aim of identifying the categories or topics that emerged in these conversations. To classify this information and identify patterns the Qualitative Content Analysis was used (Mayring, 2000; Krippendorff, 2018), considering not only the categories obtained deductively but also concepts that emerged inductively in the participants’ speeches. It is worth mentioning that this stage was carried out manually without the support of any specialized software. Secondly, the information analyzed was compared with the definitions of the concepts of barriers and facilitators proposed by Lee and Gambiza (2022), with the aim of identifying those elements that promote or hinder the implementation of more sustainable practices for Sphagnum moss harvesting. From this, a third stage consisted of classifying each of these barriers and facilitators according to the components of the COM-B System (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation), the intervention functions present in the BCW and the level at which the intervention should be carried out according to the Ecological Model. Finally, the fourth stage focused on compiling the findings of the previous phases by generating a behavioral change model that allows developing a sustainable harvesting model of this renewable resource in the context of the Los Lagos Region.

1To strengthen methodological reliability, various measures were used. First, the principal researcher initially coded the data. Subsequently, two members of the team verified the coding through discussion meetings, where they reported on the similarities and differences found regarding the emerging categories. During these discussions, constant feedback and refinement of ideas were provided, allowing for the necessary adjustments to both understand the meanings of the participants’ narratives and delve deeper into these narratives, all with flexibility and continuous adaptation until a common classification framework was achieved. This process of information triangulation reduced individual bias and ensured consistency in the analysis. Therefore, the final categories and subcategories emerged not only from individual reviews of the interviews but also from a group discussion and reflection process, in line with the constructivist research paradigm.

This model is graphically represented as a wheel with different layers that include the types of interventions to be carried out according to Michie et al. (2011), the behavioral components that should be modified or reinforced for each of these interventions, and the ecological level (Bronfenbrenner, 1987) in which they should be developed. The study followed the regulatory criteria of the sponsoring institution’s ethics committee, approved in minutes N°007/2022.

One of the main limitations of this study is the sample size, therefore, it is not representative of the total population dedicated to harvesting and/or trading Sphagnum moss and the results are limited to a particular group. Likewise, the opinions of the children of those interviewed, as well as other relevant actors in the production process, have been left out of the research. These opinions could be very useful for comparing and complementing the results.

Once the categories that emerged from the interviews were systematized, they were differentiated into barriers or facilitators and classified according to the COM-B model components (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation), the BCW intervention functions, and the level at which the intervention should be carried out according to the Ecological Model.

Two tables were created that account for the seven barriers identified (Table 2), distributed in the categories of: Work organization, Actor engagement, Sustainable harvesting, and Economic and commercial aspects related to Sphagnum moss. On the other hand, Table 3 presents the 15 facilitators identified in the categories of: Work organization, Work activity, Actor engagement; Sustainable harvesting, and Projections. Both tables contain the category and subcategory identified as a barrier or facilitator and its specification, the COM-B dimension in which intervention should be carried out, and a column indicating the level at which the intervention should be carried out according to the Ecological Model.

In relation to the tables presented, it is relevant to note that variables such as age and gender are understood as subcategories perceived along a continuum from a systemic perspective. Rather than representing two sides of a single comparative statement, the descriptions “women, lower physical strength” and “men, greater physical strength” reflect distinct perceptions expressed by participants, each situated within specific social and environmental contexts. These narratives illustrate how the same underlying dimension, such as the gendered division of labor and the embodied experience of physical capability, can function both as a barrier and a facilitator depending on situational, relational, and cultural conditions. For instance, while some women described lower physical strength as a limitation to engaging in physically demanding tasks, the same attribute was simultaneously associated with adaptive strategies, cooperation, and complementary roles within family-based harvesting. This nuanced interpretation aligns with the interpretive logic of qualitative inquiry, in which categories are emergent, relational, and context-dependent rather than mutually exclusive. Accordingly, barriers and facilitators are not treated as dichotomous entities but as points along a continuum of interaction that reveal the complexity and ambivalence of gendered experiences in the context of sustainable harvesting.

Considering the information collected, Figure 3 summarizes the intervention functions that must be carried out according to the COM-B dimension in correspondence with the ecological level to achieve a change in behavior at a systemic level. The assignment of the different levels of the Ecological Model, with respect to the distribution of barriers and facilitators, does not follow a linear cause-and-effect logic, but rather responds to a circular criterion derived from the way the interviewees’ own discourses situated the elements. In certain cases, the categories were more clearly linked to immediate environments, such as work or family, which explains their concentration at the micro- or mesosystem level. In other cases, the same elements were present simultaneously at different levels, since the reported experiences reflect how an individual condition (for example, physical strength or motivation) is simultaneously influenced or mediated by social norms, community practices, public policies, or market economic dynamics. For this reason, some findings are located at all four levels simultaneously, since the phenomenon described is based on interrelation at the (sub)system level. This principle of circularity reaffirms the relevance of articulating the Ecological Model with the BCW, since it allows us to understand that barriers and facilitators do not act in isolation/independently at a single level, but are the result of complex interactions between their different levels of analysis, such as the individual, the social, and the contextual. The choice of the associated intervention is related to the intervention functions of the BCW model and the COM-B dimensions.

However, as the BCW is a dynamic tool, the proposals for intervention functions vary with respect to the COM-B categories (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation), as proposed by Michie et al. (2011). In this sense, the main difference is found in the intervention functions associated with the Reflective motivation of COM-B, since the authors propose intervention for this dimension at the level of Modeling and in some cases with Education. Despite the above, in the present research, Reflective motivation was addressed with Modeling, Education, Persuasion, Incentivization and, in one of the barriers, with Restriction and Coercion.

Finally, it is important to mention that the intervention functions of Education and Training should be addressed mainly at the Micro and Mesosystem levels and, on the other hand, the Exo and Macrosystem levels should be added to the rest of the interventions (Modeling, Persuasion, Incentivization, Enablement, Environmental restructuring, Coercion, and Restriction) (Figure 3) to generate a change in behavior at the individual, family, sociocultural, and political levels.

This study examines the barriers and facilitators of behavioral change for the sustainable management of Sphagnum magellanicum moss in the Los Lagos Region of Chile.

The main barriers identified are distributed in the Work organization, such as: differences by sex and age; Actor engagement, lack of enforcement by authorities; lack of Sustainable harvesting practices, with non-compliance with regulatory requirements and resistance to change; and, regarding the Economic and commercial aspects, the dependence on buyers and their marketing terms. On the other hand, facilitators are mainly divided into: Work organization, with differences according to sex and age; Work activity, associated with changes and flexibility in work; Actor engagement with an active participation in civil organizations and willingness to learn new sustainable practices; carrying out pro- environmental practices through Sustainable harvesting; and Projections of continuing with the work related to Sphagnum moss. In this regard, it is important to mention, for example, that differences in physical strength are not only mentioned as a biological fact, but rather that they become barriers and/or facilitators, to the extent that they are interpreted (perceived) and perpetuated by gender norms (heteronormativity), the sexual division of labor, and the family dynamics that maintain them, reflecting how the micro and mesosystem influence the reflexive motivation of social actors (individuals). On the other hand, it can be mentioned that age not only affects physical capacity, but also interacts with intergenerational learning opportunities and with social expectations and prescriptions regarding the productivity of young people, adults, and older adults, revealing “tensions” between traditions and change, perceived as a barrier (not only physical but also cultural) for older people and as a facilitator for younger people. Finally, the fact that the dynamics of the marketing market influence the household economy of harvesters is not only a structural barrier, but could also explain the resistance to abandoning unsustainable practices, since it ensures immediate economic subsistence at the expense of future sustainability.

Thus, from a systemic vision, the same category can be presented as a barrier and a facilitator when assessing its dimensions or variables. For this reason, the articulation of the Ecological Model and the BCW allows us to see the phenomenon as a continuum, rather than something dichotomous.

Another relevant finding is that the barriers identified are mainly related to the resistance to change of some harvesters and that the changes that have been carried out are sometimes due to fear of sanctions. An example of this is that most of the interviewee’s report carrying out sustainable practices in peatlands. However, there are gaps that need to be filled: some people work in peatlands without following current regulations, therefore, there is a contradiction between carrying out a good practice or wanting to carry out a good practice. Are good practices carried out for fear of sanctions? Or is there really an awareness of sustainability?

The above paradox, between what is said and the resulting behavior, can be related to the preconventional level of Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning development, in which a person submits to rules supported by punishment and puts his own interests first. Here, the norms and expectations of society are something external to the subject (Barra, 1987) (p. 11), instead of considering what society or the group expects of the individual, in this case, the realization of sustainable practices. In this way, the fact that the interviewees do not fully comply with the established regulations, when they support a discourse of sustainability, becomes a sociocultural barrier, since a change in behavior would not be achieved without reward or punishment. For this reason, thinking about sustainable practices is going against the grain of the individual, since sustainability is created and/or maintained thanks to the contributions of each individual in relation to the group, to society.

The latter shows that the changes made are type 1 changes, according to cybernetics (psychology). They are actions of cause and effect or linear causality (Nardone and Watzlawick, 1990), which do not alter the structures of the systems, where the attempted solutions are perpetuated (in this case, the prohibitions or sanctions for carrying out bad practices), without achieving the desired results. Thus, we must aim to achieve a type 2 change, which seeks to achieve a real and conscious change in the systems, generating new structures and new patterns of conduct. So, the question that arises is how to make sustainable practices conscious changes (type 2) that modify the structure? The need to achieve a type 2 change is related to maintaining the transformation processes over time because, otherwise, it is highly probable that the initial situation (bad practices) will return, if there is no sanction or reward that mediates the action.

The next finding is another paradox. On the one hand, it is observed among the facilitators that the interviewees are motivated to continue with this work activity in the future due to the economic income it generates and the improvements in their life quality. On the other hand, there is the barrier of the physical sacrifice that harvesting work requires and, specifically, the interviewees add that they do not want their sons and daughters to dedicate themselves to this work and the desire for them to have better jobs and access to university or technical studies. In this way, the perception that the harvesters have of themselves is that they are part of the working class. Although the interviewees do not delegitimize their work; they consider that achieving higher education and working around the certificates obtained will grant a higher social level to their descendants, which is reaffirmed by Manstead (2018), who mentions that acquiring higher education is considered high status or social mobility.

Another finding about facilitators is that participating in organized groups (formal or not) allows them to disseminate the good practices carried out and mobilize other people (harvesters) in the same direction. Parra et al. (2022) point out that there are studies that emphasize participation as a process where the contributions of stakeholders move towards empowerment, equity, trust and learning (p. 11), considering the need for collaborative learning. The need to grant agency to harvesters to carry out good practices is highlighted, which is why guides or tutors are required to provide support in terms of carrying out sustainable practices. The latter is inspired by the concept coined by Boris Cyrulnik of “tutors of resilience”, a term used in psychology to describe people who help, provide support, and security after a traumatic event (Rubio and Puig, 2015).

If we relate everything mentioned above, a new concept is revealed that we will call “Ecological Resilience Tutor”. This tutor would be a peer companion, an equal, another harvester, who would be in charge of providing support and/or guidance in the processes of behavioral change to achieve the acquisition of sustainable practices. According to this, an effective and lasting change could be generated over time, a type 2 change as mentioned above, since the tutors will be part of the harvesters’ own micro or mesosystem, inhibiting the sociocultural barriers presented by preconventional morality and type 1 changes, since the support or guidance will be carried out by a trained peer (Figure 4).

Beyond confirming well-known patterns related to gender, age, and economic dependency, this study provides deeper insight into the psychosocial and structural mechanisms that shape these dynamics. Gender differences are not merely biological distinctions, but social constructs reinforced through unequal access to training, tools, and decision-making power within households and communities. Similarly, age does not only reflect physical ability but also intergenerational hierarchies in knowledge transmission, perceptions of risk, and economic need. Economic dependence, in turn, acts as a mechanism of structural vulnerability, constraining individual autonomy and reinforcing short-term extractive behaviors over long-term sustainability. These mechanisms interact across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of the Ecological Model, creating feedback loops that either perpetuate unsustainable practices or enable transformative change. By identifying these relational mechanisms, the study contributes to understanding how interventions can move beyond behavioral advice toward structural enablement, redistribution of resources, and empowerment strategies tailored to the social ecologies of Sphagnum harvesters in southern Chile.

Finally, when analyzing the results, one of the most interesting is the convergence of the BCW and the Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model. The BCW relates the identification of the problem (assessment of barriers and facilitators) through the COM-B system with the challenge of the interventions that could be carried out, while the Ecological Model provides the (sub)system to initiate the intervention. Ultimately, the articulation of both frameworks gives rise to a new model of behavior change to achieve sustainable harvesting of Sphagnum moss, presenting an integral scenario that highlights the subject and the context (Figure 3). This approach allows to assess from the understanding of behavior to the development of specific interventions at the ecological level required, providing a new frame of reference that highlights what to intervene, how to do it, and at what level (context, dynamics, system) to carry out these interventions. This new behavioral change model, which is part of the regenerative peatland management model (León et al., 2024), not only attempts to offer intervention strategies to bring about the necessary change (overcome barriers) and maintain the pro-environmental practices that the moss harvesters were already carrying out, but is also expected to have a greater chance of success by focusing on the appropriate level of intervention. This optimizes the necessary resources (whether physical, human, financial, among others) for the implementation of actions.