This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 16 November 2014, At: 03:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Public AdministrationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Does Social Capital Promote Pro-EnvironmentalBehaviors? Implications for Collaborative GovernanceMyung Jin aa L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs , Virginia CommonwealthUniversity , Richmond , Virginia , USAPublished online: 11 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Myung Jin (2013) Does Social Capital Promote Pro-Environmental Behaviors? Implications for CollaborativeGovernance, International Journal of Public Administration, 36:6, 397-407, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2013.773038

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.773038

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Public Administration, 36: 397–407, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01900692.2013.773038

Does Social Capital Promote Pro-Environmental Behaviors?Implications for Collaborative Governance

Myung JinL. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth

University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

Nations around the globe are increasingly facing tough challenges when dealing with environ-mental problems. The limited success of government interventions to protect the environmentis a testament to the growing concern about government’s inability, or insufficient capacity,to address environmental issues. As a response, scholars note that promoting environmentallyresponsible behavior (ERB) on the part of the citizenry is critical for the growth and devel-opment of efficient environmental governance. However, despite the introduction of a varietyof measures by governments to encourage greener practices, influencing citizens’ behaviorremains a major challenge. Using social capital theory, this article examines the effects of var-ious social relation components on the promotion of pro-environmental behavior in five keypublic policy areas—recycling, food purchasing behavior, gasoline, energy conservation, andwater use. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords: social capital, environmental behavior, public trust, collaborative governance

INTRODUCTION

Current environmental issues, ranging from recycling toenergy conservation, are placing a significant burden onnations around the globe as citizens are growing increas-ingly dissatisfied with the current governance system (Craftet al., 2006). Having seen limited success with governmentinterventions that strive to initiate collaborative efforts toprotect the environment, an increasing number of scholarshave argued that in order to develop environmental poli-cies that work, citizens must first develop a sense of civicresponsibility to lead and collaborate on achieving environ-mental sustainability (Anderson, 2002). Scholars generallyrefer to this type of behavior as “environmentally responsi-ble behavior (ERB)” (Stern, 2000; Bamberg & Moser, 2007).While the meaning of ERB varies depending on the dis-ciplines and perspectives of scholars, Maloney, Ward, andBraucht (1975) describe it best in that ERB is what anindividual indicated they actually do in terms of behaviors

Correspondence should be addressed to Myung Jin, L. DouglasWilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia CommonwealthUniversity, PO Box 842028, Richmond, VA 23284. E-mail: mhjin@vcu.edu

or practices that contribute to environmental well-being.A number of terms have been used for environmentallyresponsible behavior in the literature (e.g., environmentalbehavior, pro-environmental behavior, ecological behavior;see Bamberg & Moser, 2007, p. 17). These terms were gen-erally referred to as behaviors intended to have a positiveimpact on the environment by targeting problems and issues(Cook & Berrenberg, 1981; Lipsey, 1977; Stern, 2000).

The importance of developing environmentally responsi-ble behavior in citizens has been well documented partic-ularly in the environmental and conservation communities(Pelletier & Sharp, 2008). As citizens increasingly look formore collaborative environmental governance as an alter-native to the failures of downstream implementation andthe high cost and politicization of government regulations(Ansell & Gash, 2007), one could argue that these efforts topromote pro-environmental behavior have arisen as a symbolto encourage greener practices in all citizens.

However, despite the growing stature of environmen-tally responsible behavior as a panacea for solving difficultenvironmental problems, one conceptual issue in the liter-ature that hinders further understanding of the behavior isthat many scholars view the concept of pro-environmentalbehavior as unitary. While the author is sympathetic to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

398 JIN

difficulty of objectively arriving at a unitary definition ofthe multiple elements of environmental behavior (Moisander,2000), previous research predominantly focused on a singleenvironmental issue such as waste management or recyclingbehavior (e.g., Miller & Buys, 2008; Jones et al., 2011).

Although these micro-level case studies are helpful exam-ples and thus make contributions to a wide array of socialscience literature (e.g., nonprofit management, public admin-istration, and political science), little progress has been madeto further the generalizability of the empirical findings fortheory development. For example, due to the nature of var-ious public policy areas, which often require different typesof environmental behaviors with different motivations, whatcould normally be considered as critical antecedents for suchbehaviors may seem illogical for other behaviors (e.g., theuse of public transport vs. recycling)? To put it in context,one might be reluctant to use public transportation for a num-ber of reasons, but would be more than willing to engagein energy-saving behaviors in other areas (Altomonte et al.,2003). The reason why many of the existing studies appearresistant to defining the term in a clear and concise way isevidence that environmentally responsible behavior containsmultiple behaviors that vary by context.

Against this backdrop, an increasing number of con-temporary scholars are beginning to recognize social cap-ital as a significant factor in various environmental policyissues (e.g., Flora, 1995; Pretty & Ward, 2001; Pretty, 2003;Selman, 2001; Jones et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2011). Althoughthere is no widely accepted definition, scholars generallyagree that it is a multidimensional concept consisting of fourmain factors: social trust, institutional trust, compliance withsocial norms and participation in social networks (Putnamet al., 1993; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000; Bowles & Gintis,2002; Jones, 2010). Although there are variations in thetypes of social capital components, these factors are oftencited as the main elements in the literature (Bourdieu, 1986;Putnam et al., 1993; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000; Jones,2010). However, it is not clear whether or not social capi-tal is good for the environment. For example, several studiesshow no convincing empirical support for the widely heldnotion that social capital is good for the environment (e.g.,Copeland & Taylor, 2004; Grafton & Knowles, 2004), whileothers posit that social capital is pivotal in obstructing policyobjectives (Frank, 2003). Overall, its utility has been rathersporadic from one policy subject to another.

It is thus the purpose of this article to examine the extentto which the various components of social capital affectenvironmentally responsible behavior in five key public pol-icy areas: recycling, food purchasing behavior, gasoline/airquality, energy conservation, and water use. We chose thesefive areas largely for two reasons. First, an individual discre-tion in these policy areas is critical as the impact of govern-ment interventions is limited without the cooperation of citi-zens. In other words, any government policy success in theseenvironmental areas relies heavily on citizens’ willingness

to collaborate toward environmental sustainability. Secondly,these five issue areas occur most frequently in the litera-ture as examples that require pro-environmental behavior bycitizens. Previous studies have primarily focused on exam-ining the role of social capital in one policy issue (e.g.,recycling, energy conservation, water usage) and thereforegeneralizability is limited. Does social capital help explainenvironmental behavior consistently in multiple environ-mental policy areas? Do various components of social capitalwork differently depending on the context? These questionsare legitimate in terms of broadening our understandingof social capital in various environmental contexts as wellas broadening its role as a policy tool for governmentleaders.

Furthermore, answers to these questions will help readersunderstand where and why social capital could be effectivein some areas but not in others. Thus, this article seeks toclarify these findings by testing the broad applicability ofsocial capital as well as its ability to promote cooperative andsocially minded behaviors in diverse environmental policyareas, making comparative analysis possible. The countrieschosen in this study are diverse in many respects, fromtheir national culture and customs (e.g., South Korea com-pared to South Africa), their mode of governance, to theirstage of economic development (e.g., The United States andGreat Britain are members of the G-8 group, while SouthAfrica and South Korea are members of the G-20 group.Czech Republic and Norway are members of the EuropeanEconomic Area). Furthermore, these countries cover fourgeographically unique regions of the world (e.g., Europe,North America, East Asia, and Africa).

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

The emergence of social capital as an explanatory variablein environmental policy has been well documented (e.g.,Flora, 1995; Pretty & Ward, 2001; Selman, 2001; Pretty,2003; Jones et al., 2009a). The general consensus amongscholars in the field is that higher levels of social capitallead to better management of natural resources by citizens(Jones, 2010). Scholars agree that the contemporary analy-sis of social capital originated with Pierre Bourdieu (1986)who emphasized the role of citizen participation in socialnetworks and the benefits deriving from these networks atan individual level. In Coleman’s work, both an individ-ual and a collective aspect of social capital were identifiedwhile also noting social and institutional trust along withnorms and social networks as social capital components(1990). Taking more of a relational approach, Lin (2001,p. 19) defines social capital as an “investment in social rela-tions with expected returns in the marketplace.” It was not,however, until Putnam’s (1993) research that the definitionexpanded from an individual-level analysis to one that recog-nizes the characteristics of groups and communities. This led

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS 399

to defining social capital as the norms and networks withina civil society that invoke cooperative behaviors in variousgovernance actors.

There is no universally agreed-upon set of componentsthat make up the concept of social capital, besides that it con-tains multiple dimensions (Putnam et al., 1993; Woolcock &Narayan, 2000; Bowles & Gintis, 2002). Scholars, how-ever, generally agree that social capital largely consists oftwo major conceptual components (Coleman, 1990; Putnam,Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993; Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Newton,1997; Uslaner, 1999; Hall, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Lin, 2001;Krishna, 2002; Ikeda & Richey, 2005; Putnam & Goss, 2002,Brooks, 2005; Casey & Christ, 2005; Saxton & Benson,2005). The two types can be best characterized as “objectiveassociations” and “subjective types of ties” among individu-als (Paxton, 1999). The objective associations, also known asparticipation in social networks (Jones, 2010), can be formedon a voluntary base. Although labeling the types of participa-tion in social networks may vary from scholar to scholar, theyare generally characterized as individual level participation(voluntary and active) and group level participation (mem-bership and passive) (e.g., see Krishna & Shrader, 1999;Baum et al., 2000; van Oorschot et al., 2006).

On the other hand, subjective ties are referred to as normsand can be further divided into social trust, institutional trust,and compliance with social norms (Chen & Lu, 2007; Jones,2010; Jones et al., 2011). Against this backdrop, the presentanalysis uses four main components of social capital socialtrust, institutional trust, compliance with social norms, andsocial networks (individual and group level)—that are themost frequently used in the relevant literature (Bourdiue,1986; Putnam et al., 1993; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000;Jones, 2010).

Social Trust

Social trust is referred to as trust between individuals andcan also be divided into generalized or particularized trust(Uslaner & Conley, 2003). Other scholars note that socialtrust derives from the perception that other members of thecommunity will behave in a similar manner for the protectionof the common good (Pretty, 2003; Wagner & Fernandez-Gimenez, 2008). Consequently, it is suggested that the levelof social trust will have a positive impact on the perceptionthat a majority of the individuals within a community willcomply with regulations and cooperate to achieve a com-mon goal. This perception is likely to alter an individual’sbehavior, making it “less costly” to follow the norms ofenvironmentalism. The following hypothesis is tested in thisstudy:

H1: Social trust results in a positive perception that oth-ers will cooperate to achieve the common good, whichin turn affects his or her behavior to follow the publiclydesired behavior for environmental reasons in the following

behaviors: recycling (H1a), food purchasing behavior (H1b),gasoline conservation/air quality (H1c), energy conservation(H1d), and water conservation (H1e).

Institutional Trust

Institutional trust is most notably referred to as citizens’ trustin legal organizations, such as government institutions or thejustice system (Paxton, 1999). Although the definition ofpublic trust at the institutional level varies from scholar toscholar, it is increasingly defined as the extent to which cit-izens have confidence in public institutions to operate in thebest interests of society and its constituents (Thomas, 1998;Kim, 2005; Cleary & Stokes, 2006).

Several scholars posit that institutional trust also affectsenvironmental behavior (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Joneset al., 2009a). Nakamura and Kim (2010) argues that under-standing citizens’ trust in government is critical as it is likelyto affect the extent to which citizen expectations change,which in return affects an individual’s behavior. There areseveral characteristics of institutional trust within the envi-ronmental and legal arenas. First, scholars posit that insti-tutional trust is connected to the perceived effectiveness ofenvironmental policy as well as the legitimacy of the respon-sible actors (Groothuis & Miller, 1997; Petts, 1998). Thesecond characteristic of institutional trust is the perceivedeffectiveness of external control regarding the institutionsof law and order. And third, it is suggested that institu-tional trust influences the level of acceptance of informationregarding environmental issues and its perceived reliability(Groothuis & Miller, 1997). Thus, the following hypothesisis tested in this study:

H2: Institutional trust results in positive perceptions ofthe ability of government institutions to solve environmen-tal issues, which in turn promote collaborative behaviorsfor environmental purposes such as recycling (H2a), foodpurchasing behavior (H2b), gasoline conservation/air qual-ity (H2c), energy conservation (H2d), and water conserva-tion (H2e).

Compliance With Social/Environmental Norms

Putnam et al. (1993) first noted the importance of compli-ance with social norms and the potential impact it has onsociety. This compliance is also regarded as a significantparameter influencing environmentally responsible behaviorparticularly during the application of an environmental pol-icy (Jones, 2010). Several scholars also posit that the generaltendency to comply with social norms has an influence onindividual behavior, especially with citizens who are indif-ferent towards a proposed or implemented policy (Anderson,2006; Jones et al., 2009a). Consequently, it is expected thatthese social norms will have an influence on the function-ing and effectiveness of internal controls developed between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

400 JIN

individuals (Pretty, 1998). The following hypothesis is testedin this study:

H3: Compliance with environmental norms is positivelyassociated with publicly desired environmental behaviors,such as recycling (H3a), food purchasing behavior (H3b),gasoline conservation/air quality (H3c), energy conservation(H3d), and water conservation (H3e).

Social Networks

The conceptual importance of social networks with regardto social capital was first noted by Bourdieu (1986) and isreferred to as the activation of citizens in both formal andinformal social groups and the connections between actors(Putnam, Pharr, & Dalton, 2000; Broadbent, 2000; Carroll &Bebbington, 2000; Chen, 2000; Krishna & Shrader, 2002;van Oorschot et al., 2006). Bourdiue (1986) argues that thesevarious forms of social networks are the vehicle throughwhich benefits are recognized for those who participate.Previous research recognizes two levels of analysis in socialnetworks at the individual and group level (Krishna &Shrader, 1999; Baum et al., 2000; van Oorschot et al., 2006).Although the individual level is viewed as more active thanthe group level (or membership-based participation), bothtypes of participation are regarded as indicators of the ten-dency of an individual to participate in collective issuesto achieve the common good (Jones et al., 2011). Anothercommon benefit of these types of participation is that indi-viduals gain access to a higher flow of information aboutenvironmental issues, which leads to increased environmen-tal awareness. (Cramb, 2005; Wakefield et al., 2006). Thefollowing hypotheses are tested in this study:

H4: Civic participation at the individual level through volun-tary activities will create a greater interest in promoting envi-ronmentalism, which will in turn lead to displaying publiclydesired pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling (H4a),food purchasing behavior (H4b), gasoline conservation/airquality (H4c), energy conservation (H4d), and water conser-vation (H4e).

H5: Civic participation at the group level through member-ship results in gaining access to a higher flow of informa-tion with those who share common environmental interests,which will result in environmentally responsible behaviorssuch as recycling (H5a), food purchasing behavior (H5b),gasoline conservation/air quality (H5c), energy conservation(H5d), and water conservation (H5e).

METHOD

Sample

This study uses the most recent 2010 International SocialSurvey Program data collected from citizens in six countries

(Czech Republic, South Korea, South Africa, Norway, GreatBritain, and the United States) on environmental issues(ISSP, 2010).1 The International Social Survey Programapplied a stratified multistage random-sampling method toensure a representative sample in each country. The mode ofdata collection included both face-to-face and phone inter-views. The sample data include a total of 6,744 respondents(1,428 in Czech Republic, 1,576 in South Korea, 1,382 inSouth Africa, 1,382 in Norway, 928 in Great Britain, and1,430 in the United States).

Measures

The five policy areas that measure different aspects of envi-ronmentally responsible behaviors on a scale of 1 (never) to4 (always) are:

(1) Recycling—“How often do you make a special effortto sort glass or tins or plastic or newspapers and so onfor recycling?”

(2) Food Purchasing Behavior—“How often do you makea special effort to buy fruit and vegetables grownwithout pesticides or chemicals?”

(3) Gasoline/Air Quality—“How often do you cut backon driving a car for environmental reasons?”

(4) Energy Conservation—“How often do you reduce theenergy or fuel you use at home for environmentalreasons?”

(5) Water Conservation—“How often do you choose tosave or re-use water for environmental reasons?”

Regarding the four social capital variables, the first vari-able, social trust (Alpha = .75), was measured by averagingthe following two questions:

(1) “Generally speaking, would you say that most peoplecan be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in deal-ing with people” (on a scale of 1 = you can’t be toocareful, to 5 = most people can be trusted; e.g., seeNarayan & Cassidy, 2001; Uslaner & Conley, 2003;Woodhouse, 2006)? and

(2) “Generally speaking, do you think that most peoplewould try to take advantage of you if they got thechance, or would they try to be fair” (1 = most peo-ple would try to take advantage, 5 = most peoplewould try to be fair; e.g., see Narayan & Cassidy, 2001;Woodhouse, 2006)?

The second variable, institutional trust (Paxton, 1999;Newton & Norris, 2000), is a single-item measure that asksthe extent to which the respondents agree with the follow-ing statement on a scale of 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agreestrongly): “Most of the time we can trust people in govern-ment to do what is right.” The third component of socialcapital is compliance with social norms (Alpha = .87). The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS 401

respondents were asked to what extent they are willing tocomply with social norms on a scale of 1 (very unwill-ing) to 5 (very willing). The following three items wereaveraged:

(1) “How willing would you be to pay much higher pricesin order to protect the environment?”

(2) “How willing would you be to pay much higher taxesin order to protect the environment?”

(3) “How willing would you be to accept cuts in yourstandard of living in order to protect the environment?”

For the fourth component of social capital, two forms ofparticipation in social networks were measured—individualand group (Krishna & Shrader, 1999; Baum et al., 2000; vanOorschot et al., 2006). First, civic participation at the indi-vidual level was measured by averaging the following threedichotomous format questions:

(1) “In the last five years, have you signed a petition aboutan environmental issue?”

(2) “In the last five years, have you given money to anenvironmental group?”

(3) “In the last five years, have you taken part in a protestor demonstration about an environmental issue?”

Civic participation at the group level was a single-itemmeasure also based on a dichotomous format question: “Areyou a member of any group whose main aim is to preserveor protect the environment?”

This study also includes a variable that measures citizens’perception of government efforts to protect the environ-ment as a proxy for government performance. Researchthat examines the influence of government performanceon promoting pro-environmental behavior has been almostnon-existent until recently (Lavergne, Sharp, Pelletieret al.,2010), when Lavergne and her colleagues (2010) exploredthe role of government support on citizens’ self-reported pro-environmental behavior. Using a structural equation modelof pro-environmental behavior and its antecedents, theirresearch showed that perceived government support resultedin raising individuals’ autonomous motivation, which inreturn resulted in increased frequency of pro-environmentalbehavior. The respondents were asked to rate their percep-tion of government efforts on the following item: “Somecountries are doing more to protect the world environmentthan are other countries. In general, do you think that [yourcountry] is doing . . . 1 (too little), 2 (about the right amount),and 3 (more than enough)?” Gender (male = 1), age, edu-cation, number of persons in a household, and politicalaffiliation

(1) far left,(2) left and center left,(3) center and liberal,

(4) right and conservative,(5) far right

were also included as control variables.

FINDINGS

Tables 1 and 2 show summary statistics and correlations ofthe sample data, accordingly. The mean age was 45. Themajority of the correlations were statistically significant atp < .01. To determine whether an ordinary least squares mul-tiple regression analysis was the appropriate estimator, mul-ticollinearity was tested by collinearity statistics. All of theindependent variables’ variation inflation factor values (VIF)and Tolerance values indicated that there was no severe mul-ticollinearity among the variables tested in this study.

Multiple Regression Analyses

Five different regression models were analyzed for eachsurvey to compare the effects of social capital variableson five pro-environmental behaviors—recycling, food pur-chasing behavior, gasoline/air quality, energy conservation,and water use. Results from ordinary least squares multipleregression analyses appear in Table 3. The equation of eachmodel achieves statistical significance at p < .001.

The results of these multiple regression analyses showsimilarities as well as differences in the effects of socialcapital variables depending on the type of desired environ-mental behavior in different policy areas. First, regardingthe social trust component of social capital, individuals who

TABLE 1Summary Statistics of the Sample Data

N Mean Std. Deviation

Effort: Sort glass for recycling 9189 2.840 1.157Effort: To buy fruit and vegetables

without pesticides or chemicals8967 2.040 0.964

Cut back on driving a car forenvironmental reasons

7484 1.770 0.878

Reduce the energy or fuel at home forenvironmental reasons

9747 2.200 0.992

Save or re-use water for environmentalreasons

9771 2.090 1.020

Social Trust 9619 2.950 1.103Institutional Trust 9635 2.810 1.147Compliance with social norms 9271 2.631 1.112Civic participation - individual activities 9679 0.088 0.201Civic participation — group activities 9746 0.050 0.228Perceived government performance 8942 1.650 0.652Sex (Male) 9856 0.450 0.497Age of respondent 9831 45.400 17.215Education level 9678 2.790 1.547How many persons in household 9826 3.040 1.867R: Party affiliation: left-right scale 7607 2.960 0.811

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

TAB

LE2

Cor

rela

tions

ofS

tudy

Var

iabl

es

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

15

Dep

ende

ntV

aria

ble

1:R

ecyc

ling

Dep

ende

ntV

aria

ble

2:Fo

od.3

33∗∗

Dep

ende

ntV

aria

ble

3:G

asol

ine

.318

∗∗.3

84∗∗

Dep

ende

ntV

aria

ble

4:E

nerg

y.3

78∗∗

.353

∗∗.5

00∗∗

Dep

ende

ntV

aria

ble

5:W

ater

.246

∗∗.3

21∗∗

.363

∗∗.5

21∗∗

Soci

alT

rust

.219

∗∗.0

60∗∗

.104

∗∗.1

12∗∗

.131

∗∗In

stitu

tiona

lTru

st−.

051∗

∗.0

03.0

60∗∗

.002

.020

∗.1

87∗∗

Com

plia

nce

with

Soci

alN

orm

s.2

32∗∗

.282

∗∗.2

80∗∗

.257

∗∗.3

30∗∗

.242

∗∗.1

07∗∗

Civ

icPa

rtic

ipat

ion

-In

divi

dual

.223

∗∗.2

16∗∗

.221

∗∗.1

93∗∗

.266

∗∗.1

58∗∗

−.00

5.2

59∗∗

Civ

icPa

rtic

ipat

ion

-G

roup

.027

∗.1

03∗∗

.110

∗∗.0

65∗∗

.142

∗∗.0

71∗∗

.053

∗∗.1

29∗∗

.341

∗∗

Perc

eive

dG

over

nmen

tPe

rfor

man

ce−.

002

−.05

8∗∗

−.06

1∗∗

−.04

2∗∗

−.08

2∗∗

.062

∗∗.0

61∗∗

−.13

9∗∗

−.09

5∗∗

−.02

8∗∗

Gen

der:

Mal

e−.

023∗

−.06

4∗∗

−.05

3∗∗

−.04

4∗∗

−.04

3∗∗

.032

∗∗−.

022∗

.007

.018

.004

.079

∗∗A

ge.2

12∗∗

.021

∗.0

74∗∗

.109

∗∗.0

52∗∗

.089

∗∗−.

01−.

034∗

∗−.

013

−.03

0∗∗

.089

∗∗−.

013

Edu

catio

n.2

55∗∗

.109

∗∗.0

79∗∗

.118

∗∗.1

72∗∗

.206

∗∗−.

07∗∗

.268

∗∗.2

26∗∗

.041

∗∗−.

111∗

∗.0

87∗∗

−.17

8∗∗

Num

ber

ofPe

rson

sin

aH

ouse

hold

−.21

2∗∗

−.01

9−.

055∗

∗−.

099∗

∗−.

070∗

∗−.

079∗

∗.0

84∗∗

−.03

6∗∗

−.06

4∗∗

.024

∗−.

024∗

−.07

3∗∗

−.29

7∗∗

−.14

4∗∗

Part

yA

ffilia

tion

(fro

mle

ftto

righ

t)−.

021

−.03

2∗∗

−.07

3∗∗

−.05

0∗∗

−.04

6∗∗

−.02

−.02

1−.

076∗

∗−.

081∗

∗−.

025∗

.121

∗∗.0

54∗∗

−.01

−.00

25∗

.045

∗

∗ Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

cant

atth

e0.

05le

vel(

2-ta

iled)

.∗∗

Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

cant

atth

e0.

01le

vel(

2-ta

iled)

.

402

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS 403

TABLE 3Results of Regression Analysis on Environmentally Responsible Behavior, All (United States, Great Britain, Norway, South Africa,

South Korea, Czech Republic)

RecyclingFood Purchasing

BehaviorGasoline/Air

QualityEnergy

Conservation Water UseBeta Beta Beta Beta Beta

Social Capital VariablesSocial Trust 0.096∗∗∗ −0.04∗∗ 0.014 0.005 −0.06∗∗∗Institutional Trust −0.073∗∗∗ −0.023 0.016 0.007 −0.014Compliance with Social Norms 0.142∗∗∗ 0.238∗∗∗ 0.226∗∗∗ 0.219∗∗∗ 0.217∗∗∗Civic Participation - Individual 0.142∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗ 0.137∗∗∗ 0.114∗∗∗ 0.089∗∗∗Civic Participation - Group −0.058∗∗∗ 0.023 0.02 −0.013 0.046∗∗∗

Government PerformancePerceived Government Efforts 0.012 −0.01 −0.018 −0.007 0.001

Control VariablesSex (Male) −0.054∗∗∗ −0.061∗∗∗ −0.05∗∗∗ −0.062∗∗∗ −0.058∗∗∗Age 0.208∗∗∗ 0.026 0.072∗∗∗ 0.113∗∗∗ 0.073∗∗∗Education 0.204∗∗∗ 0.012 0.002 0.025 −0.114∗∗∗Number of Persons in Household −0.092∗∗∗ 0.011 −0.017 −0.039∗∗ 0.023Political Affiliation (from left to right) 0.015 0.007 −0.028∗ −0.018 0.008

R2 0.19 0.103 0.108 0.098 0.076Adjusted R2 0.189 0.101 0.106 0.096 0.075F 129.313 62.282 56.261 62.613 47.639

∗p < .05; ∗∗p < .01; ∗∗∗p < .001.

believed that most people can be trusted or would try to befair were more likely to perform the environmentally respon-sible behavior of recycling (p < .001). On the other hand, therespondents who believed in their fellow citizens were lesslikely to perform the environmentally responsible behaviorof food purchasing behavior (p < .01) and water use (p <

.001). The impact of the institutional trust component ofsocial capital, however, was relatively trivial. Rather, thosewho believed that they can trust people in government todo what is right were less likely to display the environmen-tally responsible behavior of recycling (p < .001). The mostconsistent and significant components of social capital thatexplains environmentally responsible behaviors (as shown inTable 3) were compliance with social norms and individualcivic participation. For example, those who were willing topay higher prices or accept cuts in their standard of living inorder to protect the environment were more likely to displaythe environmentally responsible behaviors of recycling (p <

.001), food purchase (p < .001), gasoline (p < .001), energy(p < .001), and water (p < .001).

Regarding individual civic participation, the respondentswho participated in individual activities (e.g., signing a peti-tion about an environmental issue, giving money to an envi-ronmental group, taking part in a protest or demonstrationabout an environmental issue) were more likely to displayenvironmentally responsible behavior in diverse areas asshown in Table 3. The impact of group level civic partic-ipation showed variations in the policy area. For example,while those who were a member of any group whose mainaim was to preserve or protect the environment were less

likely to display the environmentally responsible behavior ofrecycling (p < .001), a reversed association was observed inwater use (p < .001).

Regarding perceived government performance, its impactwas generally non-significant. Among the control variables,male citizens were less likely to display environmentallyresponsible behavior in recycling (p < .001), food pur-chasing behavior (p < .001), gasoline/air quality (p <

.001), energy conservation (p < .001), and water use (p <

.001). The respondents were generally more likely to displayenvironmentally responsible behavior as they got older inrecycling (p < .001), gasoline/air quality (p < .001), energyconservation (p < .001), and water use (p < .001), with foodpurchasing behavior being the only exception.

In summary, the results of the regression analyses fullysupport several hypotheses regarding the positive associa-tions of social trust (H1a), compliance with social norms(H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d, H3e, and H3f), individual civic participa-tion (H4a, H4b, H4c, H4d, and H4e,), and group civic participa-tion (H5e) with environmentally responsible behavior. Thosethat received partial support (statistically significant but witha negative relationship) included social trust (H1b and H1e),institutional trust (H2a), and group civic participation (H5a).

DISCUSSION

This study found that while some components of socialcapital were consistently significant in a broad category ofenvironmental issues, others were relatively trivial in terms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

404 JIN

of their impact and even discouraged pro-environmentalbehaviors in certain areas. For example, while social trustwas positively associated with recycling, it was negativelyassociated with food purchasing behavior and water con-servation effort. Although these particular results did notsupport our hypotheses, it is conceivable, for example, thatpeople who view fellow citizens as trustworthy and fair maybe less likely than others to be concerned with whetherthe fruits and vegetables they buy are grown without pesti-cides or chemicals. In other words, people who trust othermembers of the society to be fair and genuine are lesslikely to question what is “not” listed in the label on foodproducts.

These mixed findings contradict previous findings byPretty (2003) and Wagner and Fernandez-Gimenez (2008),who argued that social trust has a positive impact on influenc-ing an individual’s environmental behavior. It is importantto note the context of environmental behavior between recy-cling and water use in particular. As the logic of social trustderives mainly from trusting fellow citizens with the percep-tion that other members of the community will act similarlyfor the protection of the common good (Pretty, 2003), thepositive impact on recycling is not surprising given the factthat the act of recycling is usually visible to other mem-bers of the community. When it comes to actions that arenon-visible to the other members of the community, how-ever, the logic of social trust may lose its ability due to theinability of community members to monitor other individu-als’ behavior. Therefore, social trust may have little impacton those behaviors such as selecting certain food items, gaso-line, and energy conservation, which can be considered as“non-visible” to the other members of the community.

The findings also show that the institutional trust com-ponent of social capital has generally very little impact onpromoting pro-environmental behavior. Rather, in the caseof recycling, a negative relationship was observed. Thisalso contradicts the previous findings in which institutionaltrust positively affects environmental behavior (e.g., seeGroothuis & Miller, 1997; Petts, 1998; Beierle & Cayford,2002; Jones et al., 2009a). Considering the notion thatinstitutional trust is based largely on the

(1) legitimacy of the responsible actors; and(2) effectiveness of external control (law and order)

(Groothuis & Miller, 1997; Petts, 1998),

citizens may have the tendency to rely on the governmentto lead and protect the environment, which may disenfran-chise citizens from practicing pro-environmental behavior.These results suggest that despite many scholars’ argumentthat developing trustful relationships between citizens andgovernment institutions is pivotal for effective governance(Nakamura & Kim, 2010), trust should be mutually exercisedon both sides. In other words, trust (social or institutional)alone is not enough of a mechanism or an incentive to

instigate a cooperative behavior in the interest of achievingcommon goals.

If government leaders cannot count on their constituentsto act responsibly and show leadership in protecting theenvironment, policies to protect the environment will onlytake the form of an enforcement mechanism where individ-ual behavior will be that much more constrained and mayeven be costly. Furthermore, the role of trust may need tobe reassessed in the context of collaborative governance.While social capital and citizen participation literature positthat developing trustful relationships helps advance govern-ment policies, it is not clear whether it has a similar impactwithin the context of environmental policies whose fate ulti-mately depends on the cooperative and collective behavior ofindividuals.

Mixed findings were also observed in group civic partici-pation where those who were members of any group whosemain aim is to preserve or protect the environment wereless likely to participate in recycling, while the direction ofrelationship between group civic participation and water usewas positive as hypothesized. Although individuals who aremembers of pro-environmental organizations benefit fromthe channels of information for increased awareness regard-ing environmental issues (Wakefield et al., 2006) and aretherefore more likely to behave in ways that promote envi-ronmental sustainability as was the case in water use, it isconceivable that members of any organization that promotesenvironmentalism rely on their institutions to represent theirconcerns without actually practicing such behaviors at theindividual level, which may have been the case in recycling

Although full discussion of the mixed findings betweencivic participation at the group level and the five areas ofenvironmentally responsible behavior are beyond the scopeof this article, we speculate that there are largely two issuesthat potentially contribute to these phenomena. First, themixed findings suggest that each area of environmentallyresponsible behavior from recycling to water use containscharacteristics that are unique. For example, while effortsto promote recycling behavior are often encouraged at thecommunity or organizational level, when it comes to choos-ing food products, decisions are more likely to rely onan individual’s own discretion. Similarly, organizations andcommunities may have less impact on an individual’s deci-sion to cut back on driving to save gas or to reduce energyconsumption at home. Secondly, the measurement of grouplevel civic participation is limited to identifying whether oneis affiliated with an organization whose aim is to preserve orprotect the environment. Because environmental coalitionsoften serve a limited number of agendas, any environmen-tal policy area that falls outside of the specific mission ofthe organization may not appear to be significantly related togroup level civic participation.

This study shows that both compliance with social normsand individual civic participation significantly influence citi-zens’ behavior in diverse environmental areas. Two themes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS 405

emerge from this. First, despite some early concerns andcriticisms about “direct democracy” in which citizens canengage directly in matters of public decision-making ratherthan relying on representatives to act on their behalf forpolicy initiatives (e.g., Cleveland, 1975; Dahl, 1989), theresults show that citizen participation in various forms canbe a healthy exercise in promoting environmentally respon-sible behaviors for citizens. Second, the significant impactof compliance with social norms suggests that citizens whoaccept the general tendency observed in a community aremore likely to display pro-environmental behavior in variousareas of the environment, from recycling to energy conser-vation efforts and water use. This implies that governmentleaders will have a better chance of promoting cooperativebehavior from citizens by firmly establishing the legitimacyof their operations through greater transparency with theirstakeholders who might be indifferent towards a proposed orimplemented policy (Anderson, 2006; Jones et al., 2009a).Overall, social capital variables that focus on enhancingindividual leadership (compliance with social norms andindividual civic participation) were consistent in generatingpro-environmental behavior, while social trust, institutionaltrust, and group civic participation showed signs of weaknessfrom relying on others to lead.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that the components ofsocial capital work differently and that each component’sinfluence also varies depending on the context of the envi-ronmental issue. Most importantly, the findings suggest thatpromoting sustainable environmental citizenship on the partof the citizenry should be a priority to enable effective gov-ernment policies. In order to build environmental policiesthat are effective, government must first establish environ-mental leadership that is collaborative and voluntary innature. In order to establish this collaborative leadershipstyle, government leaders can

(1) promote transparent communication among all gov-ernance actors that includes citizens in knowledgesharing and increased issue awareness;

(2) monitor not just government performance but alsoinclude an assessment of each community’s cooper-ative behavior; and

(3) promote environmental citizenship at the individuallevel.

Several important limitations to this study must be noted.First, the study variables were subjective and therefore coulduse more rigorous measurement including the five categoriesof the dependent variable, all of which were single-itemmeasures. For example, it is possible to argue that energyconservation encompasses efforts in recycling, gasoline, and

water use. As reflected on some of the low correlationsamong the study variables in Table 2, attitudes can be weakpredictors of environmental behavior as correlations tend toincrease only when the attitudes reflect the specific environ-mental behaviors. Measures of behavior often rely heavily onself-reports due to its nature. More efforts to develop rigor-ous measurement and thus increase reliability are warranted.A more complete analysis would require adding more com-prehensive dimensions to each category of the dependentvariable.

Second, this study is based on cross-sectional data col-lected in 2010 and therefore any causal relationships mustbe read with caution. Developing a longitudinal study couldhelp in understanding the potentially changing perceptionsof social relations and their impact on pro-environmentalbehaviors. However, this study makes several important con-tributions to the existing literature. First, this study hasproven that increasing the level of social capital is not anautomatic panacea for resolving all environmental issues andthat the various components of social capital can affect indi-viduals’ behaviors differently depending on the context ofthe environmental issues. Second, this study is one of the firstefforts to compare each component of social capital in multi-environmental settings and has shown that while compliancewith social norms and individual civic participation weresignificant factors in the five environmental areas discussedhere, trust in fellow citizens and relying on the governmentor membership-based associations had either little impact ormixed results at best.

Government leaders must recognize that government poli-cies can only be effective when citizens recognize the col-lective benefit of working together with government andbecoming leaders in the public policy process. More rigorouscomparative studies on pro-environmental behavior in differ-ent policy areas should be conducted in the future to advanceour understanding of social capital as a policy mechanismfor government leaders. Government leaders must realizethat, in the long run, ultimate government “efficiency” can beachieved when citizen initiatives are recognized as legitimatein the public arena.

REFERENCES

Altomonte, H., Coviello, M., & Lutz, W. F. (2003). Renewable Energyand Energy Efficiency in Latin American and the Caribbean: Constraintsand Prospects. CEPA-SERIE Recursos naturales e infraestructura,No. 65. Retrieved from http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/1/

13411/Lcl1977i.pdfAnderson, D. H. (2002). Role of civic responsibility in learning and think-

ing about natural resources. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues,9(7). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol9/issl/7

Anderson, J. E. (2006). Public policymaking: An introduction. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory andpractice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4),543–571.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

406 JIN

Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerfordand Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants ofpro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27,14–25.

Baum, F., Palmer, C., Modra, C., Murray, C., & Bush, R. (2000). Families,social capital and health. In I. Winter (Ed.), Social capital and public pol-icy in Australia (pp. 250–275). Melbourne: Australian Institute of FamilyStudies.

Beierle, T. C., & Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in practice: Publicparticipation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: RFFPress.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.),Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp.241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social capital and community governance.The Economic Journal, 112(483), F419–F436.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes andconsequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science,41(3), 999–1023.

Broadbent, J. P. (2000). Social capital and labor politics in Japan:Cooperation or cooptation. Policy Sciences, 33(3), 307–321.

Brooks, A. C. (2005). Does social capital make you generous? SocialScience Quarterly, 86(1), 1–15.

Carroll, T. F., & Bebbington, A. J. (2000). Peasant federations and ruraldevelopment policies in the Andes. Policy Sciences, 33(3), 435–457.

Casey, T., & Christ, K. (2005). Social capital and economic performance inthe American states. Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), 826–845.

Chen, J., & Lu, C. (2007). Social capital in urban China: Attitudinaland behavioral effects on grassroots self-government. Social ScienceQuarterly, 88(2), 422–441.

Chen, X. (2000). Both glue and lubricant: Transnational ethnic social cap-ital as a source of Asia-Pacific subregionalism. Policy Sciences, 33(3),269–287.

Cleary, M. R., & Stokes, S. C. (2006). Democracy and the culture of skep-ticism: Political trust in Argentina and Mexico. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Cleveland, H. (1975). How do you get everybody in on the act and still getsome action? Public Management, 57, 3–6.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environ-ment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7–71.

Craft, E. S., Donnelly, K. C., Neamtiu, I., McCarty, K. M., Bruce, E.,Surkova, I., et al. (2006). Prioritizing environmental issues around theworld: Opinions from an international Central and Eastern Europeanenvironmental health conference. Environmental Health Perspective,114(12), 1813–1817.

Cramb, R. A. (2005). Social capital and soil conservation: Evidence fromthe Philippines. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics, 49(2), 211–226.

Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Flora, C. B. (1995). Social capital and sustainability: Agriculture and com-munities in the Great Plains and Corn Belt. Research in Rural Sociologyand Development, 6, 227–246.

Frank, J. (2003). Making social capital work for public policy. Horizons,6(3), 3–6.

Grafton, R. Q., & Knowles, S. (2004). Social capital and national envi-ronmental performance: A cross-sectional analysis. The Journal ofEnvironment & Development, 13(4), 336–370.

Groothuis, P. A., & Miller, G. A. (1997). The role of social distrust inrisk-benefit analysis: A study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposalfacility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15(3), 241–257.

Hall, P. A. (1999). Social capital in Britain. British Journal of PoliticalScience, 29(3), 417–461.

Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J. R., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth,W. C., & Zoido, P. (2011). Developing a framework for assessing envi-ronmental literacy. Washington, DC: North American Association forEnvironmental Education. Retrieved from http://www.naaee.net.

Ikeda, K., & Richey, S. E. (2005). Japanese network capital: The impactof social networks on Japanese political participation. Political Behavior,27(3), 239–260.

International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) Research Group. (2010).International Social Survey Programme (ISSP): Environment.Distributor: GESIS Cologne Germany ZA4850, Data Version 2.0.0(2012-05-01).

Jones, N. (2010). Investigating the influence of social costs and benefitsof environmental policies through social capital theory. Policy Sciences,43(3), 229–244.

Jones, N., Halvadakis, C. P., & Sophoulis, C. M. (2011). Social capital andhousehold solid waste management policies: A case study in Mytilene,Greece. Environmental Politics, 20(2), 264–283.

Jones, N., Malesios, C., & Botelzagias, I. (2009a). The influence of socialcapital on willingness to pay for the environment among Europeancitizens. European Societies, 11(4), 511–530.

Jones, N., Sophoulis, C. M., Iosifides, T., Botetzagias, I., & Evangelinos,K. (2009b). Social capital and environmental policy instruments.Environmental Politics, 18(4), 595–611.

Kim, S. (2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state: Anintegrative model. Administration and Society, 37(5), 611–635.

Nakamura, A., & Kim, S. (2010). Public trust in government in Japanand South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter? PublicAdministration Review, 70(5), 801–810.

Krishna, A. (2002). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of developmentand democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Krishna, A., & Shrader, E. (1999). Social capital assessment tool.Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 22, The World Bank,Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/

scapital/wkrppr/wrkppr.htmKrishna, A., & Shrader, E. (2002). The social capital assessment tool:

Design and Implementation. In C. Grootaert & T. van Bastelaer (Eds.),Understanding and measuring social capital (pp. 17–38). Washington,DC: World Bank Publications.

Lavergne, K. J., Sharp, E. C., Pelletier, L. G., & Holtby, A. (2010). The roleof perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined andnon-self-determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 169–177.

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lipsey, M. (1977). Personal antecedents and consequences of ecologi-cally responsible behavior: A review. Catalog of Selected Documents inPsychology, 7(4), 70.

Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. W. (1975). Psychology in action.American Psychologist (July), 787–790.

Miller, E., & Buys, L. (2008). The impact of social capital on residen-tial water-affecting behaviors in a drought-prone Australian community.Society and Natural Resources, 21(3), 244–257.

Moisander, J. (2000). Complexity and multidimenstionality of ecologi-cally responsible consumer behavior. Helsinki School of Economicsand Business Administration. Retrieved from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/user/scistud/esf/mois.htm.

Narayan, D., & Cassidy, M. F. (2001). A dimensional approach to measuringsocial capital: Development and validation of a social capital inventory.Current Sociology, 49(2), 59–102.

Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. American BehavioralScientist, 40(5), 575–586.

Newton, K., & Norris, P. (2000). Confidence in public institutions: Faith,culture, or performance? In S. J. Pharr & R. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffecteddemocracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries? (pp. 52–73).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS 407

Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multipleindicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88–127.

Pelletier, L. G., & Sharp, E. (2008). Persuasive communication and pro-environmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framingcan improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined moti-vation. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 210–217.

Petts, J. (1998). Trust and waste management information expectationversus observation. Journal of Risk Research, 1(4), 307–320.

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources.Science, 302(5652), 1912–1914.

Pretty, J. N. (1998). Participatory learning in rural Africa: Towards bet-ter decisions for agricultural development. In F. H. J. M. Coenen, D.Huitema, & L. J. O’Toole (Eds.), Participation and the quality of envi-ronmental decision-making (pp. 251–266). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. WorldDevelopment, 29(2), 209–227.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of Americancommunity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, R. D., & Goss, K. A. (2002). Introduction. In R. D. Putnam (Ed.),Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporarysociety (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.

Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work:Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Putnam, R., Pharr, S. J., & Dalton, R. J. (2000). Introduction. What’stroubling the trilateral democracies. In S. J. Pharr & R. Putnam (Eds.),Disaffected democracies. What’s troubling the trilateral countries? (pp.3–31). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Saxton, G., & Benson, M. A. (2005). Social capital and the growth of thenonprofit sector. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 16–35.

Selman, P. (2001). Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning.Planning Theory and Practice, 2(1), 13–30.

Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significantbehavior. The Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407.

Thomas, C. W. (1998). Maintaining and restoring public trust in govern-ment agencies and their employees. Administration and Society, 30(2),166–193.

Uslaner, E. M. (1999). Democracy and social capital. In M. Warren(Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 121–150). Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Uslaner, E. M., & Conley, R. S. (2003). Civic engagement and particular-ized trust: The ties that bind people to their ethnic communities. AmericanPolitics Research, 31(4), 331–360.

Van Oorschot, W., Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2006). Social capital in Europe.Measurement and social and regional distribution of a multifacetedphenomenon. Acta Sociologica, 49(2), 149–176.

Wagner, C. L., & Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2008). Does community-based collaborative resource management increase social capital? Societyand Natural Resources, 21(4), 324–344.

Wakefield, S., Elliott, S., Eyles, J. D., & Cole, D.C. (2006). Taking envi-ronmental action: The role of local composition, context, and collective.Environmental Management, 37(1), 40–53.

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for devel-opment theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer,15(2), 225–249.

Woodhouse, A. (2006). Social capital and economic development inregional Australia: A case study. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 83–94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

09 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014