Upload
miluskasantos
View
10
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Community Psychology View of Environmental OrganizationProcesses
Julie H. Dean Æ Robert A. Bush
Published online: 21 June 2007
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract Environmental organizations have a key role in
addressing environmental degradation and promoting eco-
logically and socially sustainable societies. Psychosocial
processes underpin their work, however, empirical studies
of these processes remain underdeveloped. This paper
presents the first stage of a community psychology study
involving in-depth interviews with leaders in environ-
mental organizations. Qualitative analysis revealed a
framework of five types of psychosocial processes that
assist environmental organizations to achieve a range of
outcomes, namely: problem analysis; influencing decision-
making; inter-organizational relationships; community
participation and knowledge transfer. These psychosocial
processes were used in substantially different ways
depending on the organizations’ orientation. Three key
orientations towards outcomes were evident: on-ground
conservation, developing innovation in specialist areas and
transforming wider social institutions. The findings provide
a model of the psychosocial processes involved in fostering
sustainable futures and exemplify the contribution of
community psychology to this critical global issue.
Keywords Socially and ecologically sustainable futures �Environmental organizations � Psychosocial processes �Diversity � Multiple levels of analysis
Introduction
There is little serious debate denying the existence of
widespread environmental degradation and its conse-
quences for human and non-human species. Finding ways
to sustain both humans and the ecologies that support life
on earth are central to ‘‘the basic issues of human survival,
development and welfare’’ (United Nations University,
Environment and Sustainable Development Program,
2004). However, there remain profound differences in
views on the nature, extent, causes and proposed solutions
to this environmental crisis.
After nearly everybody – heads of state and heads of
corporations, believers in technology and believers in
growth – has turned environmentalist, the conflicts in
the future will not centre on who is or is not an
environmentalist, but on who stands for what kind of
environmentalism. (Sachs, 1993, p. xvi)
Technological innovation clearly plays a role in alleviating
environmental degradation. However, a focus on techno-
logical progress alone risks overlooking the human factors
critical to successful environmental problem-solving. This
is illustrated by the issue of salinity. Although knowledge
about salinity has existed since the Sumerian period several
thousand years ago, and mitigating strategies have been
available since the late 19th century, this has not prevented
growing degradation from salination (Ludwig, Hillborn, &
Walters, 1993). It is the human and social dimensions to
environmental care that provide the societal will to act on
available knowledge, or as Miller asserted:
‘‘environmental management is really a matter of
managing people rather than the biophysical envi-
ronment’’ (1999, p. 6).
J. H. Dean (&)
School of Population Health, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
R. A. Bush
Department of Public Policy, Faculty of Business, Economics
and Policy Studies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong,
Brunei
123
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
DOI 10.1007/s10464-007-9123-2
Psychosocial processes refer to an interaction between
individual abilities and behaviours and the social environ-
ment. This terminology draws attention to the concept of
communication and relationships, rather than processes
remaining within an individual or organization. In short,
these processes help shape the attitudes, values, decisions
and behaviours that influence our will to act on knowledge
about environmental issues (Bazerman, 1997; Miller, 1999;
Oskamp, 2000).
This paper uses community psychology principles to
investigate the psychosocial processes used by environ-
mental organizations in their work. The contribution of
community psychology has not yet been clearly articulated
in relation to promoting socio-ecologically sustainable
societies, or societies that sustain ecological viability and
social justice (Hatzius, 1996; Ife, 2002). The study aims to
demonstrate how community psychology makes an inno-
vative contribution to this field.
Community Psychology and Socio-Ecological
Sustainability
Interest in environmental care in the discipline of psy-
chology is relatively recent, emerging in the latter decades
of the 20th century. Several streams within the field have
considered human responses to care for the environment.
Environmental psychology’s primary focus in is on the
factors that contribute to environmental behaviour in
individuals (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) and behaviour
change techniques such as recycling and energy conser-
vation (Bratt, 1999; Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004). An
emerging field, eco-psychology, is concerned with intra-
psychic factors such as psychotherapeutic behaviour
change, and the construction of self and identity in rela-
tionship with the natural environment (Metzner, 1999;
Roszak, Gomes, & Kanner, 1995). There is a small body of
organizational psychology literature on the work of envi-
ronmental organizations, concerned with intra-group
dynamics and improved organizational functioning (Cla-
ridge, 1997; Danter, Griest, Mullins, & Norland, 2000). A
community psychology approach has the potential to
broaden the analysis through a consideration of factors that
impact on the capacity of individuals, organizations and
communities to care for the environment.
The ‘ecological viewpoint’ is a defining theme in
community psychology (Rappaport, 1977, p. 2), empha-
sizing relationships between people and their social and
physical environments. The focus shifts from the nature of
programme implementation within formal organizations
(an organization development approach) to community
wide processes beyond the implementing organization
(Goodman, 2000). This perspective is founded on the
premise of inter-dependence between social systems, and
understanding multiple levels of these systems including
individual, organizational and community levels.
An ecological approach to social systems...places the
focus of analysis upon the transactions between per-
sons and systems, and not only on the independent
qualities of persons or systems. (Kelly, Ryan, Alt-
man, & Stelzner, 2000, p. 134)
Indeed, while the Random House Dictionary definition of
‘community’ cited by Rappaport (1977, p. 1) referred to a
social group within a larger society, Brody (2000, p. 941)
noted that this dictionary also defines ‘community’ as ‘‘an
assemblage of plants and animal populations occupying a
given area’’. Thus, the concept of community is embedded
in a context of non-human life, place and other dimensions
of the non-human environment.
Historically, community psychology research on envi-
ronmental issues has mainly focused on community
responses to local environmental hazards (Edelstein, 1988;
Rich, Edelstein, Hallman, & Wandersman, 1995). This
literature emphasizes participative processes that assist
communities to resolve environmental problems, such as
constructive and collaborative problem-solving in partner-
ship with key stakeholders. A 2004 special issue of the
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology
featured the topic of ‘multi-party collaboration as learning
for inter-dependence in natural resource management’. The
central theme was participative processes in decision-
making. Several papers considered the impact of ‘frames’
(or ways to ‘make sense’ of an issue) on building collab-
orative partnerships (Dewulf, Craps, & Dercon, 2004;
Gray, 2004). Another focus was the paradox that contes-
tation of assumptions within ‘participatory approaches’
may provide the opportunity for new learning (Quagheb-
eur, Masschelein, & Nguyen, 2004). Although several
other topics linked to environmental protection occur
within the literature, these have tended to focus on intra-
individual phenomena and could be considered within the
environmental psychology literature. These have included
risk perception and coping with environmental threats
(Hallman & Wandersman, 1992; Wandersman & Hallman,
1993) use of behaviour analysis to change environmental
behaviours (Hake & Zane, 1981; Shippee & Gregory,
1982) and the nature and structure of environmental
attitudes and behaviours (Chan & Yam, 1995).
Psychosocial Processes
The community psychology and environmental fields share
an interest in the role of psychosocial processes. Five key
processes that emerge in both fields include:
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 147
123
• how people in the organization analyse the issue(s) of
concern (problem analysis);
• ways decision-makers in relevant social institutions are
influenced (influencing decision-making);
• development of inter-organizational collaboration (in-
ter-organizational relationships);
• involvement of the wider community (community
participation); and
• transfer of knowledge and skills beyond the organiza-
tion (knowledge transfer).1
The community psychology literature on organizing to
address intractable social issues is concerned with these
five psychosocial approaches. In the field the terminology
used to describe problem analysis includes ‘conceptions of
environments or systems’ (Rappaport, 1977); ‘problem
definition’ (Levine & Perkins, 1997); and ‘organizational
goal orientations or priorities’ (Riger, 1984). These terms
refer to the way analysis of a problem is embedded in
values and perspectives, which in turn shape proposed
solutions and responses.
Concern with influencing decision-making in social
institutions is evident in the concept of ‘empowerment’
(Hawe, 1994; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995); a process
through which people, organizations and communities gain
control over issues of concern to them (Rappaport, 1987)
and thus gain a critical understanding of the socio-political
environment (Zimmerman, 1995). Empowerment pro-
cesses involve connections between different levels of
social organization, or ‘‘links between individual strengths
and competencies, natural helping systems and proactive
behaviours, to social policy and social change’’ (Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995, p. 569).
The literature contains a profusion of terms referring to
inter-organizational relationships, such as ‘collaborative
partnerships’ (Fawcett et al., 1995), ‘alliances’ (Bookman,
1990), ‘coalitions’ (Goodman, Wandersman, Chinman,
Imm, & Morrissey, 1996a, 1996b), and ‘social organiza-
tion’ (Biglan & Taylor, 2000). These emphasize collabo-
rative action to address a specific problem in order to gain
outcomes that could not be achieved by the action of a
single organization alone.
Community participation concerns citizen involvement
in the wider community and its social institutions (Wan-
dersman & Florin, 2000). A key emphasis is on the role of
the professional as a coparticipant, sharing skills and
resources rather than controlling decisions and action
(Rappaport, 1977). Definitions of the term ‘community’
vary widely, including shared geographical location, rela-
tionships, interests, personal experiences, culture, beliefs,
and collective involvement in social action, among others
(Hawe, 1994).
Transferring knowledge and skills underpins organizing
for social change. The use of diverse types of knowledge
enhances the efficacy of a programme or community
response (Orford, 1992; Rappaport, 1977). Consciousness-
raising, advocacy and ‘dissemination of innovation’ allow
evidence about programmes and policies to be communi-
cated to relevant audiences (Biglan & Taylor, 2000; Fair-
weather, 1972; Mayer & Davidson II, 2000; Wagenaar
et al., 1999).
These five psychosocial processes also emerge in the
environmental literature. Table 1 summarizes the key
psychosocial dimensions across three streams within the
field. The first is the globally accepted action plan for
sustainable development Agenda 21; the product of the
1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, signed by 178 countries. It remains a key
blueprint for action, with the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development reaffirming the commitments
from a decade earlier. The second stream is the envi-
ronmental management field; principally concerned with
environmental decision-making including the direction of
government policies and other institutional arrangements
(Harding, 1998). The third stream is social movement
organizing, which is defined by moral protest and con-
flict about such institutional practices, and characterized
by non-institutionalized actors and informal networks
(Diani & Donati, 1999; McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald,
1996).
Contrasting perspectives and approaches across these
literatures reflect the contentious nature of knowledge
underpinning action to promote socio-ecological sus-
tainability. Despite growing expert opinion and theoreti-
cal development, empirical research on the human
dimensions to the work of environmental organizations is
substantially under-developed. Using a community psy-
chology approach, this empirical investigation provides
an alternative viewpoint to other psychological and
environmental literatures. In particular, the focus of
analysis is on the relationships between organizations
and the wider social environment (e.g. inter-organiza-
tional collaboration, community participation), rather
than intra-individual or intra-organizational processes
(e.g. environmental attitudes, organizational leadership,
team dynamics). This emphasis was chosen due to the
scant empirical research on organizational actions which
influence environmental outcomes at the community,
industry and political levels of analysis (Bennett, 2005;
Stern, 1992).
1 Identification of these processes involved an iterative process
shifting between the literature review and the findings from this
qualitative study. Thus, while this article has a linear, incremental
structure, the academic process involved several cycles of literature
review, data analysis, reflection and further literature review.
148 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
Table 1 Contrasting types of psychosocial approaches evident in community psychology, Agenda 21, environmental management and social
movement organizing
Community psychology Agenda 21 Environmental management Social movement organizing
Problem analysis Problem analysis Problem analysis Problem analysis
Clearly articulates how analyses of
intractable social problems are
embedded in values and
perspectives, which shape
proposed solutions and
responses (Levine & Perkins,
1997; Rappaport, 1977). The
concept of multiple levels of
analysis is an example of how
different types of analysis shape
the way an issue is understood,
with implications for action
(Phillips, 2000)
The tensions involved in
negotiating the convention and
responses to the completed
document reflect differing
analytical orientations of
stakeholders. Criticisms
included failure to reexamine
the consequences of the
Western model of development
and global economic systems,
such as inequitable trade
mechanisms and consumption
(Braidotti, Charkiewicz,
Hausler, & Wieringa, 1994;
Chatterjee & Finger, 1994)
Typically viewed as
accommodating environmental
care within a framework of
economic growth and an
emphasis on technology to solve
problems. This value orientation
has been variously termed
‘light-green’, ‘technogreen’,
‘the dominant paradigm’, and
‘anthropocentric’ (e.g. Beder,
1993; Cotgrove, 1982; Dunlap,
Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones,
2000; O’Riordon, 1981)
Encompasses a plethora of
philosophical positions, origins,
goals and streams (e.g. Crook &
Pakulski, 1995; Lowe &
Goyder, 1983). More likely to
advocate fundamental social
change through radically
altering exploitative
practices—a value orientation
termed ‘deep green’, ‘the new
ecological paradigm’, and
‘ecocentric’ (Dunlap et al.,
2000 ; Merchant, 1992)
Influencing decision-making Influencing decision-making Influencing decision-making Influencing decision-making
The concept of ‘empowerment’
concerns decision-making in
social institutions (Hawe, 1994;
Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995).
Empowerment processes occur
at individual, organizational and
community levels (Bandura,
1986; Freire, 1973, Zimmerman
& Rappaport, 1988)
‘‘Agenda 21...reflects a global
consensus and political
commitment at the highest level
on developmental and
environmental cooperation. Its
successful implementation is
first and foremost the
responsibility of Governments.
National strategies, plans,
policies and processes are
crucial in achieving this...’’
(UNCED, 1992, Preamble,
Paragraph 1.3)
Interest in collaborative
approaches in decision-making,
such as stakeholder
representation and partnerships
between government and
community sectors.
International case studies
provide increasing empirical
evidence of beneficial outcomes
from such cooperative
institutional arrangements
(Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern, 2003;
Ostrom, 1990)
Tensions between cooperative and
adversarial approaches to
influencing decision-making
(Dalton, 1994; Doyle &
McEachern, 1998; Kamieniecki,
Coleman, & Vos, 1995).
Concern with the risks of
‘cooption’ or ‘containment’ of
movement issues by state
institutions/corporate interests
(Doyle, 2001; Gamson, 1975)
Inter-organizational relationships Inter-organizational relationships Inter-organizational relationships Inter-organizational relationships
Key themes include collaboration
between different sectors to
seek common interests
(Butterfoss, Goodman, &
Wandersman, 1996); facilitating
action to occur at multiple
levels through accessing the
skills and interests of diverse
organizations (Goodman et al.,
1996a, 1996b; Toro & Warren,
1999) and expanding resources
and skill to sustain action
(McMillan et al., 1995)
‘‘New forms of dialogue are also
being developed for achieving
better integration among
national and local government,
industry, science, environmental
groups and the public ...The
responsibility for bringing about
changes lies with Governments
in partnership with the private
sector and local authorities, and
in collaboration with national,
regional and international
organizations...’’ (UNCED,
1992, Paragraph 8.2)
Advocates ‘inter-organizational
relationships’ beyond the
traditional environment sector,
including action-oriented
partnerships with industry and
other stakeholder groups.
Benefits include enhanced
capacity to resolve value
differences, set priorities, and
research and implement
responses (Carley & Christie,
2000; Long & Arnold, 1995;
Poncelet, 2004)
Emphasizes collaboration between
environmental movement
organizations in the form of
loose networks. Benefits include
combining available resources
to sustain activity and widening
the agenda for action by
considering issues which may
not originally have been a core
concern (della Porta & Diani,
1999; Schlosberg, 1999; Yearly,
2005)
Community participation Community participation Community participation Community participation
Benefits from participative
processes to tackle complex
social issues include increasing
the quality of solutions through
accessing local community
knowledge, enhancing the sense
of responsibility towards the
wider community, augmenting
resources, and heightening
commitment to continue a
project over the long-term
(McMillan et al., 1995;
Wandersman & Florin, 2000)
Ten of the 40 chapters address the
community’s role in fostering
sustainable development,
identifying nine groups with key
roles
Interest in processes for engaging
community members in
decision-making (Beierle &
Konisky, 2000; Ross, Buchy, &
Proctor, 2002; Tuler & Webler,
1999)
Focus on citizen mobilization and
protest to foster cultural and
political change (Melucci, 1989;
Dalton, 1994; Tarrow, 1998)
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 149
123
Methods
This exploratory study used qualitative methods, under-
taking in-depth interviews with experienced workers in
environmental organizations based in southeast Queens-
land, Australia. Knowledge was generated about the
informants’ views of a ‘sustainable future’, ‘success’,
‘lesser success’ and other concepts understood through
eliciting meanings, experiences and interpretations (Lof-
land, 1971; Pope & Mays, 1995). The organizations aimed
to conserve or protect natural areas, non-human species or
natural resources, and were based across both community
and government sectors.
Grounded theory methodology provided the framework
for the development of knowledge, grounded in data
gathered and analysed in a systematic manner (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). This approach uses ‘constant comparative
analysis’; exploring the dimensions and properties of the
categories which emerged from the data, as well as the
patterns and inter-relationships between different catego-
ries (Strauss & Corbin, 1994).
Key Informants
The criteria for inclusion for key informants were that they
were based southeast Queensland, Australia, had at least
5 years involvement with environmental organizations, and
had undertaken at least two roles (e.g. member of executive
committee, project officer). The southeast Queensland
region covers an area of around 20,400 km2 with a popu-
lation of approximately 2 million people. It is situated
along the east coast of Australia, from the Sunshine Coast
in the North, south to the border of the state of New South
Wales, and west to the city of Toowoomba.
Theoretical sampling strategies were employed to select
categories of key informants with maximum variability
and representativeness (Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell, &
Alexander, 1995). The main sampling categories were:
community and government sector environmental organi-
zations, the geographical focus of the issues addressed (e.g.
local, regional, statewide, national); and informant gender.
The key informants were accessed through purposive
snowball sampling. This involved approaching several
individuals to participate in an interview who were rec-
ognized for their extensive experience within government
and community sector environmental organizations. These
individuals were then invited to suggest other people in
their networks of contacts who fitted the criteria for the
research project, but who would offer a ‘different per-
spective’ on environmental organization action. Further
recommendations were then gathered from each informant
during the interviews. Of the 23 informants invited only
one declined.
In total, 22 key informants were interviewed, including
both males (12) and females (10) across a range of ages
(28–62 years, mean 40.3 years). See Table 2 for main
sampling dimensions of key informants. The informants
had significant experience with environmental organiza-
tions, with a mean involvement of 14 years (ranging be-
tween 5 and 30 years). Three informants were from an
Indigenous Australian background. Twenty-one informants
reported that they had participated in training in environ-
mental issues aside from their practical experiences.
Twenty informants reported that they had engaged in
training through workshops, seminars and courses, 14
reported that they had undertaken tertiary courses related to
the environmental issues, and 19 reported that they had
professional experience related to environmental issues.
The informants were occupied in a variety of roles
involving responsibility and leadership (e.g. environmental
scientist, Indigenous land council member, mediation
consultant, manager in policy relating to public health and
environmental protection). The use of key leaders/opinion
leaders as sources of data has been utilized in organiza-
tional studies due to leader influence on organizational
culture and responses (Goodman et al., 19996a, 1996b).
Table 1 continued
Community psychology Agenda 21 Environmental management Social movement organizing
Knowledge transfer Knowledge transfer Knowledge transfer Knowledge transfer
Knowledge transfer processes
foster social change through
incorporating local and diverse
types of knowledge to enhance
the efficacy of a response,
consciousness-raising and
advocacy, and dissemination of
innovation (Fairweather, 1972;
Mayer & Davidson II, 2000;
Orford, 1992; Riger, 1984)
Agenda 21 included chapters
specifically focusing on
knowledge dissemination, i.e.
‘Transfer of environmentally
sound technologies’; ‘Science’;
‘Education, public awareness
and training’; and ‘Information
for decision-making’
Interest in moving beyond purely
scientific and technical
knowledge in decision-making
(Freudenburg & Youn, 1999;
Yencken & Wilkinson, 2000),
for example incorporating
Indigenous and multi-
disciplinary knowledge (Ewing,
Grayson, & Argent, 2000; Hill,
Baird, & Buchanan, 1999)
Concern with the construction and
interpretation of knowledge
(e.g. ‘framing’) to increase the
effectiveness of social
movement activity (Brand,
1999; Chesters & Welsh, 2004;
Tarrow, 1994), and the role of
the mass media in disseminating
environment movement
messages (Pakulski & Crook,
1998)
150 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
The organizations addressed a spectrum of environmental
issues (e.g. sustainable agriculture and social education
including cooperative practices, Aboriginal land and sea
management, radioactive and toxic waste dumps). Two
organizations had been active for less than 1 year, six
organizations had been active for between 1 and 5 years,
seven organizations had been active for between 5 and
10 years, and seven organizations had been active for more
than 10 years.
Interview Instruments
An Information Sheet outlined the nature of the study,
addressed issues of confidentiality and noted appropriate
ethical clearance from the Behavioural and Social Science
Ethical Review Committee at The University of Queens-
land in accordance with the National Health and Medical
Research Council guidelines. The letter advised that a copy
of the transcribed interview would be offered to the
informant if desired, and each informant would be posted a
summary of the research findings. The informants were
required to complete a ‘Consent to Participate’ form and
two questionnaires:
(a) Background Information questionnaire, eliciting
information regarding informant demographics,
involvement in environmental organizations, links
with Indigenous organizations and previous training
in environmental issues.
(b) Organization Actions to Promote a Sustainable
Future (OAPSF) scale, developed specifically for this
study. This examined 22 psychosocial processes
identified in the initial literature review as relevant to
effective action by environmental organizations.
These psychosocial processes included: inter-organi-
zational collaboration; conflict resolution skills; con-
sensus decision-making; knowledge transfer;
problem-solving; the geographical focus of the orga-
nization’s work; and community involvement. Infor-
mants were requested to rate their organization in
relation to a series of statements (e.g. ‘We are
effective in cooperating and collaborating with other
organizations in order to achieve goals’). The rating
ranged from ‘never true’ to ‘almost always true’ on a
five-point scale. This tool was used to elicit examples
of contrasts and similarities between organizations’
psychosocial processes. Informants were requested to
give five examples of processes that were rated with
either particularly low or particularly high scores.
The interview involved a semi-structured format. The
initial stage of the interview was designed with open-ended
questions, with the ‘funnelling’ technique employed in
order to minimize the influence of the researcher’s focus
(Minichiello et al., 1995). This involved posing general
and broad questions at the start of the interview, with more
specific questions including examples generated from the
rating scale discussed later in the interview. Topics covered
in the interview included: the informant’s history of
involvement in environmental organizations, reasons for
undertaking this work, visions of a sustainable future, an
example of both ‘success’ and ‘lesser success’ achieved by
the organization, organizational activities relevant to con-
tributing to a sustainable future, the characteristics of an
‘ideal’ environmental organization, examples of psycho-
social processes included on the OAPSF rating scale and
strategies likely to be important for environmental orga-
nizations in the future. The questions focused on experi-
ences within the previous 3 years in order to identify
strategies which had enhanced effectiveness within he
contemporary socio-political environment.
At the outset three pilot interviews were undertaken to
check for the clarity and relevance of the interview ques-
tions and to judge the time required to complete each
interview. These interviews, which were not included in
the analysis, resulted in a reduced number of questions and
changes in wording. The interviews were undertaken by the
first author in locations suggested by the informant
(workplace, home, cafe). The interview duration was
between 25 min and 1 h 50 min, with a mean of 50 min.
Table 2 Main sampling dimensions for key informants
10 government organizations 12 community sector organizations
5 state government 5 local government
1 national focus (male)
3 statewide focus (1 female, 2
male)
1 southeast Queensland focus (1
male)
2 local focus beyond metropolitan areaa (1 female, 1
male)
3 local focus in metropolitan areaa (1 female, 2 male)
2 national focus (2 male)
4 statewide focus (4 female)
2 southeast Queensland focus (1 female, 1 male)
3 local focus beyond metropolitan areaa (2 female, 1
male)
1 local focus in metropolitan areaa (1 male)
a Metropolitan area refers to the city of Brisbane, capital of the state of Queensland
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 151
123
Qualitative Data Analysis
The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim; the
first author transcribing 14 interviews and an assistant
transcribing the remaining eight interviews. The text was
analysed using NUD.IST computer software (Qualitative
Solutions and Research Pty Ltd., 1997). This programme
enables the coding of large amounts of unstructured text
through the facility to select parts of texts which reflect
‘themes’, and which can then be arranged in hierarchical
categories (nodes). Themes and categories can be rear-
ranged as interpretations change with the addition of
further material. Two inter-locking subsystems are avail-
able in the software, enabling searching of either document
text or coding categories.
Interview transcripts were coded in a paragraph-by-
paragraph analysis. The coding process involved analysing
each section of text in relation to a series of questions (see
Table 3). The analytic procedures of ‘making compari-
sons’, ‘asking questions’ (e.g. what outcomes and mean-
ings were associated with ‘success’ and ‘lesser success’?),
and exploring ‘incongruities and contrasts’ were used to
categorize and analyse the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
These assisted to improve the precision and specificity of
the concepts, and enhance the theoretical relevance of the
results (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Axial coding techniques
were used to develop an index of analytical categories and
to make connections between categories and subcategories.
Separate analysis of the data from the first seven interviews
and the remaining 15 interviews was undertaken to provide
a measure of the reliability/dependability of the categori-
zation. A second academic experienced in qualitative
research undertook a review of coding to ensure inter-rater
agreement (Mays & Pope, 2000). Comparison of the
categories identified in these two data sets found complete
congruence between the principal themes. Consensus
between raters in the interpretation of the properties and
dimensions of the subcategories was achieved through
ongoing discussion during the research process.
The contexts for salient contrasts between the themes
emerging in the interviews were then systematically
examined by identifying potential influencing factors.
Contexts that could be associated with these dimensions
considered in the analysis included: whether the organiza-
tion was government or community sector, the geographical
areas addressed by the organization, the informant’s gender,
whether they had been educated in science and technology
to a tertiary level, and the organization’s main objectives.
To assist this analysis a matrix was developed consisting of
key psychosocial processes that were clearly associated
with shared or contrasting properties (e.g. organizations
which were highly critical of the political system and those
who were not oriented towards political issues; deliberately
involving the broader community in decision-making or
less community engagement). The extent to which these
dimensions emerged within each informant’s interview was
then indicated on the matrix. This graphing of qualitative
dimensions further contributed to methodical consideration
of the contexts and conditions that were shared/dissimilar
between clusters of informants.
Results
The analysis set out to develop knowledge situated in the
everyday experiences of key informants involved in a wide
range of environmental organizations. The accumulated
evidence suggests that the psychosocial processes used by
Table 3 Questions utilized to assist coding of qualitative data
Areas for discussion Focus of questions which informed coding
• Vision of sustainable future • What contrasts emerged in the conceptualisation of a sustainable future?
• What contrasts emerged in the characteristics, processes and actions necessary to
contribute to a sustainable future?
• ‘Stories’ of ‘success’ and ‘lesser success’
• Examples from Rating scale—Organization Actionsto Promote a Sustainable Future
• Informant perspectives on an ideal organization
• Informant perspectives on strategies likely to be
important in the future
• What outcomes and meanings were associated with ‘success’ and ‘lesser success’?
• What were the processes and actions associated with ‘success’ and ‘lesser success’?
• In what contexts did the processes and actions which contributed to ‘success’ and
‘lesser success’ take place?
• What were the benefits of the processes and actions associated with ‘success’ and
effective action?
• What issues, dilemmas and incongruities were associated with these processes and
actions?
• What pattern of relationships were found between the processes and actions which
appeared to be important in contributing to ‘success’ and ‘lesser success’?
• Organizations actions which contribute to a
sustainable future
• What types of areas for action were associated with the activities of environmental
organizations?
152 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
environmental organizations differ in relation to the goals
and outcomes they work to achieve. Three contrasting
organizational orientations were evident: (a) conservation
organizations concerned with on-ground environmental
conservation and management; (b) specialist organizations
that develop innovation in specialist areas of socio-eco-
logical practice; and (c) systems transformation organiza-
tions aiming to transform wider social institutions which
impact on socio-ecological sustainability.
Conservation organizations were orientated toward
improving and embedding quality practice for environ-
mental protection and management into community,
industry and government activities.
I would much prefer to get out there and actually do
something on the ground. So I swung away from the
more politically-focussed groups to the practically
focussed groups...putting trees in the ground and that
sort of thing. (I20)
Specialist organizations developed and enhanced practices
in a specific field, embedding these in institutional deci-
sion-making structures and community practices.
We look after the policy side of waste...I want to see
a lot more emphasis placed not on waste disposal
technologies but on waste minimization, waste
elimination method...I want to see us progressively
move away from ‘end of pipe’ to trying to find the
start of some of these issues. (I4)
Systems transformation organizations worked to improve
and transform social, political and economic systems.
The chances of a sustainable future are slim...without
serious confrontation about a number of issues that go
to the core of our society...its commitment to eco-
nomic growth, its commitment to a certain view of
progress. It is more than just changing people’s atti-
tudes and values, important as that it. It is also a way
of challenging vested interests who have a stake in
maintaining things as they are. (I14)
Organization Background Characteristics
and Psychosocial Processes
Table 4 displays organization background characteristics
associated with these three organization types. Two char-
acteristics particularly differentiated the orientations. First,
while both community and government sector organiza-
tions were engaged in conservation and specialist work,
only community sector organizations were specifically
oriented towards systems transformation. Second, conser-
vation organizations were generally focused on local is-
sues, specialist organizations on state-wide issues, and
systems transformation organizations on regional, state-
wide and national issues. There were no apparent links
between the organizational orientation and the informant’s
gender, or tertiary education in science/technology.
Key contrasting qualities and properties of the psycho-
social processes used by organizations with different ori-
entations are considered below. These properties reflected
shared or contrasting themes and typically had been noted
by three or more informants within each organizational
orientation.2 Illustrative excerpts are included in the pre-
sentation of the organizational processes; assisting to
ground the analysis in the voices of the key informants,
Table 4 Characteristics of the three organizational orientations
Conservation orientation Specialist orientation Systems transformation orientation
Number of organizations Number of organizations Number of organizations
9 5 8
Community/Government sector Community/Government sector Community/Government sector
• 4 local government • 1 local government • 8 community sector
• 2 state government • 2 state government
• 3 community sector • 2 community sector
Geographical focus Geographical focus Geographical focus
• 6 local • 1 local • 1 local
• 1 regional • 4 state-wide • 4 regional
• 2 state wide • 1 state-wide
• 2 national
2 Data illuminating the psychosocial processes utilised by specialist
organizations, was limited in comparison with conservation and
systems transformation organizations. Fewer informants (five) rep-
resented this organization category, and these organizations addressed
diverse ecological issues. Where there was insufficient evidence of
consistent patterns or contrasting approaches for this orientation, in
comparison with conservation or systems transformation organiza-
tions, no discussion is included. Indeed, this paper argues that that in
many instances the approaches by specialist organizations reflect a
form of overlap or blurring between the more contrasting orientations
of the conservation and systems transformation orientations.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 153
123
validate the categorical system, and enhance the mean-
ingfulness of the findings. They were selected by their
capacity to most closely represent typical properties of the
concept. Further, the majority of informant voices are
included in these excerpts (16 of the 22 informants).
Problem Analysis
The informants’ conceptualisation of the socio-ecological
issues of concern—and associated psychosocial processes
required to address these—were linked to their orienta-
tions. Contrasts emerged in relation to time, place and
person; specifically their visions of a sustainable future,
processes involved in sustaining action over time, the role
of the individual in environmental care, impacts of social
disadvantage and the locality of organizational action.
Visions of a Sustainable Future
Organizations with different orientations presented dis-
tinctly contrasting ‘visions of a sustainable future’. The
work of conservation organizations focused on the pro-
tection of natural resources, the intrinsic rights of non-
human species and the capacity to meld ecological and
economic sustainability. By contrast, informants from
systems transformation organizations discussed their vision
of changed social, political and economic structures, and
often, more radical social transformation. Nonetheless,
there was great diversity between the visions of a sus-
tainable future within each of the organizational orienta-
tions. Informants in conservation organizations discussed
their visions about sustainable agriculture, biodiversity,
vegetation management, sea management and urban–rural
fringe planning issues, amongst others. Similarly, while the
following excerpts from systems transformation organiza-
tions share the perspective of political and economic sys-
tems as a target for change, the specific ‘visions’ ranged
from reduced consumption, to the vision of Australia as
a bioregional federation, and promoting Indigenous self-
management.
From a social point of view we need to create a
society that isn’t focused on consumption...for in-
stance, in a sustainable future we wouldn’t have an
advertizing industry, we wouldn’t have a society
based on promoting artificial needs and wants. (I11)
Our vision of a sustainable future... is Australia the
continental landmass, being a bioregional federation.
The bioregion in its essence is a statement of political
intent that we should align our political and admin-
istrative units with ecological units (so) that we
can better integrate our economy/politics with the
environment. (I3)
The Indigenous people of this country managed
[this country] sustainably for thousands and thou-
sands of years...People [should] look to the expert
knowledge of those elders of each area...the govern-
ment [should] recognize the value of Aboriginal
education instead of just looking at it as something
we can economically expand from...include it as a
good healing step and include our people in the
management of this country. (I21)
Sustaining Action
Different approaches to sustaining action over the long-
term were evident. Conservation organizations noted the
benefits of gaining short-term successes from practical
conservation projects, which helped boost morale and
organizational credibility.
...there are a few other things you can do to get runs
on the board, which is always important in demon-
strating your credibility. But at the same time
recognize that ... you need to be in it for the long haul
to achieve outcomes. (I15)
By contrast, systems transformation organizations spoke of
the necessity to sustain their work over long periods of
time, often facing the prospect of few successes in the
short-term.
...what you normally see in environmental reform,
like all other sorts of reform, is that it doesn’t sort of
come piece-meal, bit by bit by bit by bit. You have
real bad times, and fight like crazy, and think that you
are never going to get anywhere, and all of a sudden
things fall into place. (I14)
Geographical Sphere of Action
The aforementioned observation that organizations with
contrasting orientations have a different geographical focus
was corroborated in the interviews, illustrated in the
following excerpts about vegetation management. Con-
servation organizations made efforts to embed practices in
the local area.
Educating people about the importance of vegetation
and being aware of the issues so that they can par-
ticipate in vegetation management on a local level.
The issue is global, but people are responding locally.
(I7)
By contrast, the practices and institutions that specialist
and systems transformation organizations aimed to modify
154 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
were not necessarily locally based (e.g. state and national
policies, laws and industrial practices). As a worker in a
systems transformation organization noted:
We would take on an issue such as tree clearing.
Now, it is not so much tree clearing in the desert
uplands of Queensland, it would be tree clearing in
Queensland in its entirety, or tree clearing in Aus-
tralia in its entirety ...We would attack the whole
rather than smaller parts of it. (I12)
Role of the Individual
A theme shared across all types of organizations was the
importance of individuals having a sense of ‘agency’, or a
belief their actions would make a difference. The percep-
tion of efficacy involved having an ecologically oriented
worldview, understanding the concept of inter-dependence
and how all actions have consequences. Behaviour change
in individuals was also emphasized, although the focus of
this behaviour change differed. Some informants from
conservation organizations advocated incremental indi-
vidual behaviour change to enhance environmental care.
...modification of individual behaviours. Recognizing
that those individual behaviours add up to become
societal norms which then impact on all of us. I get
angry when I see individuals driving cars to work
when I am sitting in a traffic jam in a bus. And when I
know that it can’t be that much more difficult for
them to catch a bus. (I15)
Systems transformation organization informants linked the
individual’s knowledge and action with social institutions,
for example engaging in political action to alter policies or
legislation, or developing innovative pilot projects which
later become more widely adopted by government or cor-
porate institutions (e.g. ethical housing scheme or financial
institution). Some informants from specialist organizations
shared both these concerns.
I guess it is one primarily where individuals have taken
responsibility for their own resource consumption and
the impacts of what they do. But also, where govern-
ment policies are similarly directed towards sensible
long term planning to minimize impacts. (I6)
Social Disadvantage
Informants across the organization types identified ways
that social disadvantage impacted on the capacity to care
for the environment. One informant from a conservation
organization noted the effects of unemployment and
poverty.
Some of the most difficult areas that we work in
vegetation, are in really low socio-economic areas.
Where the breakdown of family and community has
made it impossible for people to care about sustain-
ability... There is inter-generational apathy and
depression which make it really impossible for those
people to participate. (I7)
Some workers from systems transformation organizations
spoke of how ‘structural’ conditions at a global level (e.g.
flows of finances between countries, international legisla-
tion, trade and aid agreements) hinder steps towards sus-
tainable futures, and that nations/people with greater access
to resources have the responsibility to help alleviate these
barriers.
The whole question of sustainable development is a
farce without looking at the issue of poverty and
development in developing countries. Unless devel-
oped countries address that issue seriously, then the
barriers in the way of a sustainable future are very
great indeed. (I14)
Notably, an Indigenous leader working in a systems
transformation organization highlighted the injustice of
caring for biodiversity, while failing to care for humans.
A lot of people are more concerned about marsupials
and all sorts of things, before they are [about] us.
They might run out and spend their time saving
whales or saving something else, while our children
are dying...(I21)
Influencing Decision-Making
The findings highlighted the common view that community
pressure can play a powerful role in shaping the direction
of government decisions and social institutions. Nonethe-
less there were clear tensions between different styles of
influence, such as cooperative/conflictual and realistic/
idealistic approaches.
Government or Community Influence
Informants from all types of organizations acknowledged
how leadership from community, government and industry
sectors play key roles in influencing social institutions. A
recurring theme was the critical role of fostering environ-
mental care at the community level. In the excerpt below a
worker from a conservation organization spoke of the how
community opinion influenced decision-makers.
Our council changed from being an extremely pro-
development council. It became obvious that the
community were more concerned about environ-
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 155
123
mental protection, and then the council turned around
to becoming quite green. (I17)
Some systems transformation organizations also initiated
innovative community projects, such as community-con-
trolled cooperatives. These provided a form of alternative
institution, paralleling government structures.
Community has an unlimited head of power to go out
and do things. We didn’t ask the federal govern-
ment’s permission to set up a shared workspace or to
start fighting organic standards or to push for the
legalization of alternative communities. Most of the
time alternative community’s people just went out
there and did them. (I8)
Disenchantment with government consultative processes
was a recurring complaint. Some workers in community
organizations had difficulty accessing advisory groups due
to meetings being held at inconvenient locations or times.
Government workers might be paid to attend meetings,
while other stakeholders were expected to participate with
no financial support. Community members felt dissatisfied
about being involved in only a limited part of a planning
process, with little feedback on how they contributed to the
final outcome.
Style of Influence
A number of tensions emerged over the development of
cooperative or confrontative relations with decision-mak-
ers. Informants from conservation organizations particu-
larly emphasized fostering cooperation through informal
collaborative processes. For example, community members
might be ‘coached’ in how to use communication styles and
language to influence decision-makers, or decision-makers
were invited to join informal activities to learn about issues
of concern. A related tension was evident between realistic
and idealistic stances towards acceptable outcomes. Con-
servation organizations spoke of the importance of being
pragmatic, balanced and compromising.
We are having a paradigm shift in some of the larger
clients that we work with in transport authorities and
local government ...because we take the middle road
– the compromising, pragmatic view. Some of those
organizations find that they can’t work with more
extreme elements. The more extreme elements may
not compromise, but then they never get anywhere
near what they want. (I7)
Indeed, some informants from conservation organizations
strongly criticized the use of confrontational approaches.
The old conservation way is outdated and out of
order. We have to move more to a negotiating
role...so they need to learn to be less threatening and
more agreeable. You get more flies with honey than
you do with vinegar. (I5)
By contrast, systems transformation organizations used
both confrontational and collaborative influencing strate-
gies in a dynamic and discriminating way, depending on
the specific issue and context. They spoke about radical
action, ‘pushing the boundaries’ and being at the cutting
(or ‘bleeding’) edge. Confrontational approaches included
high profile political campaigns, adversarial legal action,
civil disobedience, and investigation of the backgrounds of
decision-makers suspected of unethical activity.
Negotiation spans the full spectrum from dispute
resolution plus applying strategic pressure. Some-
times you have got to apply pressure to bring people
to the negotiating table...Other strategies include
media strategies, letters to the editor, not collaborat-
ing on short projects... So sanctions are a part of the
negotiation process as well as encouragements. (I8)
Specialist organizations tended to use both formal ap-
proaches to influence decision-makers (e.g. policy devel-
opment, written submissions) as well as informal
approaches (e.g. developing relationships with influential
persons). Again, specialist organizations acknowledged
the benefits in different styles, highlighting the dynamic
tensions between approaches.
...a mixture of idealism and realism in their approach
to what they can achieve. It’s necessary to try and see
what can realistically be achieved in a certain situa-
tion and to go forward with the preferred solu-
tion...Even if they took an idealistic stance against the
developments...(I6)
Inter-Organizational Relationships
Inter-organizational relationships across different sectors
were highly valued by informants across all organizational
types. Systems transformation organizations collaborated
with a particularly wide range of sectors and actively
sought to identify the connections between these different
interests. The need for commitment and skill to build and
maintain inter-organizational relationships was empha-
sized.
Contact with Different Types of Organizations
Conservation organizations collaborated with other types
of organizations, such as government, industry and com-
munity groups. Their projects often involved shared deci-
sion-making, contact over the long-term and exchange of
skills and resources. The following excerpt refers to a
156 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
collaborative project to increase the sale of native Aus-
tralian plants in commercial nurseries.
There is a very big issue about the role of the nursery
industry in growing environmental weeds. They are
growing plants for the home garden and selling them
to the public, although they are actually weeds that
are invading bushland. We are doing a cooperative
project between one of the councils, the nursery
industry, actual nurserymen, ourselves and perhaps a
corporate sponsor... to try to produce a bushland
friendly nursery scheme. (I7)
Systems transformation organizations not only developed
collaborative relationships with other environmental orga-
nizations from the community sector, but also organiza-
tions not typically perceived as closely linked to
environmental care (e.g. health, welfare, sports, recreation
and professional groups). Seeking unusual alliances was
seen as a way to facilitate social change at different levels.
The primary thing is looking for the various groups
that have an interest or a potential interest...We sought
funding to run a project on how more bicycling can
improve the water quality. Quite a lot of...the problem
with the water in pollutant terms is oil and run-off
from the roads hitting the rivers. We wanted to draw
linkages between that and school behaviour, and
riding to school, and caring for the creek. (I8)
Skills in Collaboration
The informants valued the process of building collabora-
tive relationships, noting the importance of ensuring there
were mutual benefits. Conservation organizations were
particularly concerned with the application of conflict
resolution skills such as taking the time to build trust,
communicating respect and empathy, seeking common
ground, involving respected community leaders and pro-
cesses to allow people to shift their decisions and per-
spectives without losing ‘face’. Systems transformation
organizations often developed loose ties with a range of
individuals, groups and organizations with shared interests
in an issue. These ties could be accessed when required, yet
might also lie dormant for extended periods of time.
‘Net weaving’ involves introducing people together,
building up common bonds and relationships,
knowing each other face to face and having some
trust in their capacity and judgement. And then you
can ring them up on a moments notice and say
‘‘Look, I need you to ... do x, y or z’’ and that is the
networking. Building the relationships is the net
weaving. That is our standard modus operandi. (I3)
Community Participation
Organizations involved the broader community (i.e. people
not involved in a major role within the organization) in a
range of ways. The importance of respecting the individual
was highlighted, involving harnessing individual strengths,
skills and motivations; facilitating social ties between
individuals from different social backgrounds; and ensur-
ing individual benefits from involvement.
Types of Participation
Informants cited a plethora of roles for community
members such as: voter in elections, a user of services,
participant in environmental education, financial donor,
advisory or management committee member, provider of
specialist skills, lobbying, protest/activism, hands-on
work to care for specific places and involvement in
community controlled cooperative projects. They noted
the benefits in accessing the unique skills and strengths of
individuals living in the local area, illustrated by the
following observation from a worker in a conservation
organization:
In southeast Queensland we have got lots of highly
skilled people, and often they retire at an early age
and are looking for new challenges. Some of the
groups have been very good at tapping into these
people and getting them to monitor the water, or if
they have got financial skills...(I13)
Building Social Ties
Informants noted an array of benefits from building ties
between people in a local area, as well as across regions
and nations. Such ties allow people to exchange knowl-
edge, skills and resources; develop a sense of community
identity; increase awareness of the many tasks involved in
caring for the environment; foster a sense of personal
responsibility through understanding the wider conse-
quences of one’s own actions; learn about worthwhile
projects and life choices; and increase the enjoyment of
their environmental work. Social ties also help challenge
‘stereotypes’ about people involved in environmental
organizations. Several informants from different organi-
zational orientations argued that caring for the environment
needs to become a mainstream concern, and that stereo-
types can be broken down over face-to-face interactions
(such as ‘cups of tea’). ‘Socially acceptable’ and ‘radical’
approaches often work together to create social change,
exemplified in the following excerpt from a systems
transformation organization.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 157
123
We had lots of protests, people sitting on top of tri-
pods. It rained and they lay in the mud for six days.
That is what the media showed. Dirty, filthy, rotten
greenies lying in the mud. Well, I was clean, sitting by
the fax machine. I was doing the protest differently... I
will not hear a word against those people...You would
not have [successful outcome] if it wasn’t for those
greenies buried up to their necks. (I9)
Benefits and Costs
Community members appreciated experiencing outcomes
from their efforts. Such outcomes included not only envi-
ronmental benefits, but also gaining knowledge/skill, plea-
surable recreation, social contact and access to resources
(e.g. community library, access to organic food, cooperative
housing or employment). One informant from a conservation
organization spoke of his organization’s public acknowl-
edgment of the work undertaken by community members.
... we value [members of bushcare groups] as much as
we value any staff member of the organization. We
actually have card-carrying members – council IDs
that say they are part of the community bushcare
program...We also hold a number of events during the
year to really give back to the people who have put in
the hard yards. (I20)
Community members also experienced risks and costs from
their involvement, particularly for individuals involved in
systems transformation organizations. Financial costs,
personal threats, large amounts of time, aggressive or
intimidating reactions from others and becoming ‘burnt
out’ were all reported.
The stress levels with green activists is terrible – and
they get burnt out...And you get these phone calls
saying ‘‘I’m sorry, I’m not going to complain any
more. I have just had my life threatened.’’ (I9)
Knowledge Transfer
Transferring knowledge assisted in fostering socio-ecologi-
cal worldviews across the wider community and dissemi-
nating innovative practices and policies. Informants
particularly emphasized the role of personal relationships. In
general technical and scientific knowledge were most highly
regarded, while other types of knowledge such as Indigenous
or historical knowledge were less frequently considered.
Multiple Methods of Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge was disseminated through formal methods (e.g.
seminars, publications, displays), electronic and media
forums (e.g. newspapers, Internet, television) and informal
approaches (e.g. recreational and participatory activities,
social relationships, role-modelling). Of particular note
was the role of personal relationships between individuals
and groups. These helped to pass on information about
innovative projects and to influence others to modify their
beliefs, opinions and norms of behaviour. For example, a
worker from a systems transformation organization spoke
of fostering environmental concern within one’s social
circles.
It is a matter of trying to use whatever information we
have and get it out there so people feel like they are
empowered. So when they go to a friend’s place for a
dinner and the issue comes up, they will have some
facts and figures to quote and feel confident and
empowered that they can hold their own in those
discussions. And by doing that hopefully influence
some other people. (I12)
Using the Mass Media
Organizations from all orientations disseminated knowl-
edge through the mass media. Interestingly, collaborating
with other organizations offered both benefits and disad-
vantages for gaining media attention. An informant from a
conservation organization spoke of the media attention
elicited from partnerships with groups who had previously
operated as adversaries.
Unusual alliances – good news stories of people
talking to each other are boring media. One thing that
is interesting media is if a full-blown conservation
organization and a full-blown producer organization
get together to do a deal and actually do something
different. (I10)
Informants from specialist and systems transformation
organizations noted how difficult it was to access the
media unless there was conflict, how stereotypes could be
reinforced, how the perspectives of people who promoted
more profound social change were often marginalized,
and the dangers in presenting complex issues in simplistic
ways.
Using Different Types of Knowledge
Scientific and technical knowledge was highly valued, al-
though not necessarily well-developed or utilized. People
from all types of organizations noted how little knowledge
was available about complex ecological systems and that
existing knowledge was not necessarily put into practice, as
reflected in the following comment from a worker in a
conservation organization.
158 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
However, many of them have done no research and
collected no data as to what the original species were
in their area...they don’t know what the biodiversity
picture is like in that area and they are rushing ahead
planting millions of trees. We need to be more
technically responsible. (I5)
Informants also recognized the potential contribution of
multi-disciplinary teams and knowledge from the social
sciences. However, this was mentioned in the context of
reflections on ‘lesser success’ and ‘future directions’ rather
than current practice, suggesting that such approaches are
under-developed. Notably, only a few informants discussed
the place of Indigenous knowledges in promoting a
sustainable future.
Blending and Synergies Between Orientations
While there were clear patterns of psychosocial processes
for each of the organizational orientations, there were
instances of overlap and blurring in the way these pro-
cesses were utilized, depending on the context of the
organization’s work. Most significantly, as noted in the
consideration of the processes typical of the different
orientations informants from specialist orientations
tended to acknowledge the benefits of organization ap-
proaches used by both conservation and systems trans-
formation organizations. Another example of blending
between orientations was seen in relation to influencing
decision-making, where conservation organizations
engaged in more confrontational lobbying at times.
...the preservation of the remnant pocket of rainforest
on the coast. Originally that whole site was going to
be developed. And then the local group or organiza-
tion came together to council and lobbied council to
have that protected. And as a result now I think it is a
very small percentage (maybe 20%) of the site that
will be developed. (I17)
In turn, there were occasions in which systems transfor-
mation organizations highlighted an imperative to engage
in conflict resolution with people who hold opposing
worldviews.
But you have to try and find some common ground. If
you can try and find somewhere in that meeting a
little bit of common ground, you have taken a little
step forward. (I9)
Blending of different forms of collaborative styles was
seen in the following observation about a conservation
organization maintaining a wide range of loose networks
with other organizations.
(Our organization) is an open network, but the actual
membership is kept very small...although the network
is huge. All over Australia. (I5)
In some contexts systems transformation organizations
engaged in long-term partnerships with government orga-
nizations.
The communities of interest amongst those adminis-
trative authorities...so we have done a lot of work in
catchment coordinating committees to organize local
areas of community interest around geographical
features. (I3)
While the three main orientations were clearly predomi-
nant, on some occasions their psychosocial approaches
accommodated other styles and there was evidence of
permeability between the organizational types.
Overall, despite some informants’ criticisms of ap-
proaches used by other organizations, there was evidence
of synergy between the different orientations. An individ-
ual may initially become involved in an organization
through their interest in a specific local conservation issue,
however their participation may then assist them to gain a
broader understanding of the wider institutional issues. As
a worker in a conservation organization noted:
Most people don’t join those conservation organiza-
tions because they are committed to a better planet.
They join conservation organizations because some
bastard wants to knock down the trees next door and
they want to do something about it because they like
the trees. It may be that from that small beginning
they understand that knocking down those trees is
part of a bigger picture. (I10)
Informants from specialist organizations were particularly
sensitive to the tensions between working within current
paradigms and belief systems to achieve desired outcomes
in the immediate future, and challenging these social forces
to transform social, economic, political and cultural prac-
tices over the longer term.
In the immediate future it is coming to terms with
economic rationalism and trying to put forward
environmental arguments in a way that...is able to be
incorporated into an economic rationalist’s perspec-
tive. In the short term that is a practical way of get-
ting achievements. But at the same time there needs
to be organizations who are constantly undercutting
some of the fallacies in economic rationalist argu-
ments... (I6)
Similarly, informants from specialist and systems trans-
formation organizations noted the importance of optimiz-
ing the strengths of the different organizational styles and
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 159
123
engaging in a multitude of creative responses. A worker in
a systems transformation organization highlighted this
challenge:
I see a lot of value in groups of different strengths
operating, but not operating antagonistically. Like not
the cooperative group and the radical group slagging
off at each other because they are not radical enough,
or they are far too critical. But actually using
strengths and ways to work together. (I11)
Discussion
The central tenet to this paper is that psychosocial pro-
cesses play a key role in promoting ecologically and
socially sustainable societies. The findings lead to several
broad propositions. First, workers in environmental orga-
nizations consider that a wide variety of psychosocial
processes contribute to the success of their activities.
Second, these workers use different psychosocial
approaches in a dynamic and flexible manner, depending
on the outcomes they seek to achieve. Third, organizations
that are oriented towards altering or transforming social
institutions use a wider range of psychosocial processes
than organizations oriented exclusively to on-ground con-
servation.
These diverse orientations address different levels of
social change required to foster socio-ecological sustain-
ability. Conservation-oriented organizations promote
environmental care in specific areas and across a range of
social settings, and engage the broader community in these
projects. This on-ground work assists participants to gain a
sense of achievement, remain motivated and be less likely
to experience ‘burnout’. Organizations with a specialist
orientation extend environmental knowledge and practices
in their field, and integrate these into relevant social
institutions. Organizations seeking to transform social
institutions are particularly concerned with altering the
social, cultural and political practices that impact on the
environment. One approach to achieving these transfor-
mative objectives is through developing alternative insti-
tutions led by community decision-makers, beyond the
sphere of government. Considered collectively, this orga-
nizational diversity fosters care for the environment across
a spectrum of forms of social activity. Indeed, socio-eco-
logically sustainable societies would be unrealizable if
each of these domains were not addressed.
Key Cncepts: a Community Psychology View
The community psychology lens was the foundation for
insights into this pattern of psychosocial processes. Com-
munity psychology is concerned with an ‘ecological
viewpoint’ (Rappaport, 1977), emphasizing understanding
individuals in the context of their social and physical
environments. This analysis of the complementary roles of
different types of environmental organizations is consistent
with the community psychology emphasis on diversity
rather than a single standard of competence (Rappaport,
1977; Trickett, 1994, 1996). Collaborative relationships
that bridge differing orientations promote synergy across
their activities; harnessing strengths and actively problem-
solving differences. Failure to build on the strengths of
different perspectives risks stifling innovation, or ‘‘talking
past each other in mutual incomprehension...a dialogue of
the blind talking to the deaf’’ (Cotgrove, 1982, p. 33).
Workers in environmental organizations have the oppor-
tunity to move beyond a polarized ‘either/or’ approach to a
‘both/and’ stance when considering collaborative or con-
frontational approaches to influencing decision-making.
Divisions between ‘responsible’ and ‘extreme’ environ-
mentalists risk coopting the environmental agenda and
marginalising a more radical critique. Radical tactics have
the potential to pave the way for negotiations between
government and more conservative environmentalists
(Hutton & Connors, 1999).
Psychosocial processes manifest at different levels of
social organization. At the individual level of analysis such
processes foster a personal sense of efficacy and ecological
worldviews. This reflects the community psychology con-
cept of psychological empowerment, involving cognitive
praxis, or a shift in consciousness to transform individual
and social practices (Freire, 1973; Hawe, 1994). At the
group and organizational levels of analysis, connections
between people across different social circles develops a
sense of identity as part of a community rather than an
isolated individual, and provides the opportunity to
exchange knowledge, skills and resources (Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995). This organizational and political skill-
building is harnessed into collective activity to solve issues
of concern, including reforming and transforming social
institutions.
The findings highlight the need to integrate environ-
mental care into a plethora of social settings or ‘‘mediating
structures of society’’ (Rappaport, 1981, p. 19), such as
families, schools, workplaces, financial institutions, hous-
ing, transport, the marketplace and so forth. The inter-
dependence between these settings means that innovative
practices are disseminated and have the opportunity to
influence other individuals, organizations and social insti-
tutions (Kelly et al., 2000; Orford, 1992). In order to care
for the ‘ecologies’ that support human life, we need to
bridge the separation between ‘the environment’ and
‘everyday life’. Community psychology practitioners help
shape cultural attitudes, knowledge and practices across a
160 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
range of settings. Our work should embrace the bigger
picture of ecologically, as well as socially, sustainable
futures.
The framework of psychosocial processes has the
potential to be developed into a tool for community psy-
chology practitioners and others interested in fostering
socio-ecological sustainability. A preliminary step in this
task is the development of a series of ‘pointers’ to inform
decision-making about approaches to working with
environmental organizations (see Table 53).
Research Issues
There are several methodological limitations to this
exploratory, qualitative study. An array of themes was
encompassed within this framework of psychosocial pro-
cesses. The need for brevity meant that some were not
reported in this paper, and others undoubtedly deserve
attention. The framework provides only one way of orga-
nizing and considering psychosocial processes in the work
of environmental organizations. The propositions that
emerged require verification through complementary
quantitative research. Indeed, the second phase of this
study involved a quantitative survey investigating the
psychosocial approaches that best predicted organization
achievements (Dean, 2003). This is an exploratory study in
an area that has received limited investigation. This use of
qualitative research methods has been described as ‘‘a
prerequisite of good quantitative research’’ (Pope & Mays,
1995, p. 42), allowing propositions to be developed and
then examined in relation to specific cases (de Vaus, 2002).
The study did not adequately represent Indigenous
environmental organizations due to the small numbers of
such organizations in the region. The study of relationships
between environmental and Indigenous organizations is a
vital area for further attention, particularly to boost access
to a wide range of resources for Indigenous peoples
(including psychological, material, social and political) in
the context of caring for the environment.
While intra-personal and intra-organizational factors
(e.g. leadership skills, values, team dynamics) have been
highlighted in other studies to be critical determinants of
organizational success (Fawcett et al., 1995; Maton &
Salem, 1995; Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004) these did not
emerge as key processes in this analysis. For example, the
topic of leadership was raised only in relation to commu-
nity, government or industry leadership in fostering inno-
vation, in contrast to intra-organizational leadership.
Similarly, the informants did not raise the issue of team
relations within an organization; although they emphasized
the importance of inter-organizational relationships to
achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes.
It is likely that this absence of attention to intra-orga-
nizational factors is due to the study’s primary focus on the
processes occurring between environmental organizations
and the wider social environment, reflected in the nature of
the questions posed in the interviews. The choice of
organization leaders as key informants may also have im-
pacted on the framing of informant responses: organization
leaders may be particularly oriented towards strategic
directions and the wider forces impacting on the natural
environment. Furthermore, the nature of the work of
environmental organizations in influencing the community
members, organizations and decision-makers who have
stewardship roles in caring for the environment may differ
in unique ways from organizations more oriented toward
human services; the latter generating the body of literature
considering the influence of intra-organizational processes.
The findings emerged within the social, political, cul-
tural, historical and environmental context of the region; an
history of western development, comparatively wealthy,
relatively low population per acre, and a democratic
political system which tolerates some level of protest and
public involvement in institutional decision-making. This
context will inevitably impact on the opportunities and
constraints in environmental action (Tarrow, 1992). The
study did not examine the impact of socio-political or
environmental contexts, or phases in the cycle of institu-
tional change. Future research should explore the transac-
tional inter-dependencies between intra-personal, intra-
organizational, inter-organizational and extra-organiza-
tional processes, along with the societal and ecological
contexts in which this activity occurs; contributing to a
broader ecological model of environmental organization
action and informing the wider body of knowledge on
organizational processes (Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004).
To this end, longitudinal research would allow further
examination of the patterns and dynamics underpinning
psychosocial processes occurring at different levels of
analysis, during times of change in the socio-political and
physical environment, as well as the role of individual and
organizational factors in these contexts.
Conclusion
This exploratory study makes an innovative contribution to
the under-developed empirical knowledge about human
dimensions in the work of environmental organizations. It
developed a broad ‘framework’ of psychosocial processes,
rather than focusing on a particular process in isolation.
The findings move beyond the dualistic view of ‘environ-
mental management’ or ‘social movement organizing’, and
3 An expanded version of these pointers was provided to the research
participants as part of the feedback about the study’s findings.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 161
123
Table 5 ‘Pointers’ on the role of environmental organization psychosocial processes
Your organization’s mission
• Consider whether your organization is most concerned with practical ‘on-ground’ conservation projects or changing the social institutions
which impact on the environment. Consider whether your organization is (or could be) concerned with both of these.
• Ensure your work considers both environmental and human well-being, recognising that people experiencing poverty or disadvantage are less
able to care for the environment. Think about whether your organization might work towards alleviating social disadvantage, while also caring
for the environment.
• Promote changes in lifestyle and culture that care for the environment. Start with yourself and the core people involved in your organization.
• Encourage the people you are working with to feel that they are making a difference—every little bit counts.
• Plan for short-term successes. This will help people feel that progress is being made, and increase the credibility of your work. On the other
hand, keep in mind that some successes take many years to achieve and need sustained effort (particularly if you are working to change social
institutions).
Influence decision-making
• In general, work in a cooperative and solution-focussed way.
• Remember, at times strategic pressure that may involve conflict and confrontation can be useful. In particular, it can help bring people to the
negotiating table.
• Be open to both realistic and idealistic approaches. Recognize that both compromising and creating entirely different (transformatory)
approaches to environmental care are helpful in different situations. Using both of these styles wisely may be more effective than either one or
the other.
• Use different ways to influence decision-making, such as formal approaches (e.g. submissions, advisory groups) and informal approaches (e.g.
contact decision-makers personally, encourage community members to express their views).
• Initiate innovative pilot projects led by the community. Government or industry organizations may be interested in implementing these later
when they are shown to be successful.
Develop relationships with other organizations
• Make contacts with different types of organizations that can contribute to your organization’s work. In particular, encourage the involvement of
people outside what is commonly considered the ‘environment sector’ (e.g. organizations representing Indigenous issues, industry, community
groups, welfare, education, sport and recreation, health). These links have the potential to generate innovative projects that create benefits to
society at many different levels.
• Stay in touch with other organizations even if you are not currently working together. If you need to work together in the future the links have
already been made.
• Build relationships with organizations representing issues of Indigenous peoples. This is a vital step towards working together to gain
innovative solutions that care for both the land and humans.
• When communicating with other organizations, highlight the benefits from this contact both for them as well as yourselves.
• Seek out workers in your organization that have experience not only in environmental issues, but also other backgrounds that could be useful
(e.g. community development, business, education).
• Remember that collaborating with other organizations takes time and skill. Learn and use skills in relationship-building and conflict resolution.
Involve the wider community
• Find out what the broader community thinks about the issue you are working on. Communicate with the community about your organization’s
perspective.
• Invite people outside the core workers in your organization to get involved. Find out about their skills and strengths, and use these
constructively.
• Encourage social contact between your organization and the people in the local community. This can create goodwill that may be helpful in the
future.
• Let the community members involved in your organization know about the worthwhile outcomes achieved from their work. Highlight how
much you value their assistance and make sure they gain benefits from their contributions.
• Be aware of the personal costs or difficulties people may experience when they work for your organization. Find ways to prevent or minimize
these.
• Break down stereotypes about what it means to be ‘green’. Encourage people from all walks of life to get involved in caring for the
environment. Build goodwill between different types of people (e.g. ‘radical greenies’ and ‘people in suits’). Recognize that it is the joint
efforts of people with both ‘radical’ and ‘pragmatic’ approaches that often brings success.
Pass on knowledge
• Seek up-to-date scientific/technical information about the issue your organization is working on.
• Search for other types of knowledge to contribute to your work (e.g. knowledge from Indigenous peoples, historical knowledge and knowledge
from local individuals and groups who have been dealing with the issue for many years).
• Gain knowledge from other fields e.g. psychology, anthropology, social planning, business management.
162 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
help understand the contributions of diverse types of
government and community-based organizations. The
framework has important implications for workers in the
environmental field, as well others in the wider community
who have contact with these organizations. Indeed, as
environmental organizations become an increasingly
essential part of civil society, a wide range of groups,
including community psychologists, will engage with this
sector.
Grounding the study in a community psychology view
highlights the field’s potential to contribute to this critical
global issue. The work of environmental organizations is to
integrate care for non-human life into every aspect of our
social structures. The inter-dependence between care for
humans and care for the earth should be a key community
psychology concern. Effectively promoting socially and
ecologically sustainable futures means being mindful of the
many perspectives and activities involved in this task. To
conclude in the words of one organization leader:
One of the things that made [our work] successful
was that everyone understood that there was a role to
play and no-one’s role was more important than
anyone else’s role. I think that everyone respected
that there were many kinds of spokes that made up
the wheel, and that we needed all those spokes to be
working together to make the wheel go around.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bazerman, M. H. (Ed.) (1997). Environment, ethics, and behavior:The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation.
San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
Beder, S. (1993). The nature of sustainable development. Newham,
Australia: Scribe Publications.
Beierle, T., & Konisky, D. (2000). Values, conflict and trust in
participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysisand Management, 19(4), 587–602.
Bennett, E. (2005) Environmental degredation and ecologically
minded alternatives. In G. Nelson & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.),
Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-being.
Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
Biglan, A., & Taylor, T. K. (2000). Why have we been more
successful in reducing tobacco use than violent crime? AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 28(3), 269–302.
Bookman, T. S. (1990). Self-help groups at the turning point:
Emerging egalitarian alliances with the formal health system.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 321–332.
Braidotti, R., Charkiewicz, E., Hausler, S., & Wieringa, S. (1994).
Women, the environment and sustainable development: Towardsa theoretical synthesis. London: Zed Books/Instraw.
Brand, K. W. (1999). Dialectics of institutionalisation: The transfor-
mation of the environmental movement in Germany. Environ-mental Politics, 8(1), 35–58.
Bratt, C. (1999). The impact of norms and assumed consequences on
recycling behavior. Environment & Behavior, 31(5), 630–656.
Brody, J. G. (2000). Contemporary intersections C. Environmental
issues. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook ofcommunity psychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1996).
Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion:
Factors predicting satisfaction, participation and planning.
Health Education Quarterly, 23(1), 65–79.
Carley, M., & Christie, I. (2000). Managing sustainable development(2nd ed.). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Chan, R. Y. K., & Yam, E. (1995). Green movement in a newly
industrializing area: A survey on the attitudes and behavior of
the Hong Kong citizens. Journal of Community and AppliedSocial Psychology, 5(4), 273–284.
Chatterjee, P., & Finger, M. (1994). The earth brokers: Power,politics and world development. London: Routledge.
Chesters, G., & Welsh, I. (2004). Rebel colours: ‘Framing’ in global
social movements. Sociological Review, 52(3), 314–335.
Claridge, C. L. (1997). Successful community-based environmentalmanagement through individual and group empowerment strat-egies. Brisbane, Qld.: Queensland Department of Natural
Resources.
Cotgrove, S. (1982). Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment,politics and the future. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Crook, S., & Pakulski, J. (1995). Shades of green: Public opinion on
environmental issues in Australia. Australian Journal of Polit-ical Science, 30, 39–55.
Dalton, R. (1994). The green rainbow: Environmental groups inWestern Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Danter, K. J., Griest, D. L., Mullins, G. W., & Norland, E. (2000).
Organizational change as a component of ecosystem manage-
ment. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 537–547.
de Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research. St. Leonards,
N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.
Table 5 continued
• Pass on information or skills in many ways (e.g. meetings, displays, written information, policies, electronic formats, videotapes, the media,
being a positive role model, on-ground training).
• Take care when you use the mass media—messages may be simplistic, misrepresented or marginalize the views of those seeking more
profound social change. Stories about unusual collaborations between traditional adversaries (e.g. environmental and industry organizations)
may be newsworthy.
• Publicize your innovative and successful projects.
• Encourage people in your organization to get involved in other environmental organizations, and learn from the knowledge and skills they gain.
• Don’t underestimate the power of personal relationships to be a positive influence on people, events, situations and projects.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 163
123
Dean, J. (2003). Environmental organization achievements: The roleof psychosocial processes. Unpublished Ph.D., The University of
Queensland, Brisbane.
della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (1999). Social movements: Anintroduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). How issues get framed
and reframed when different communities meet: A multi-level
analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the
Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community and Applied SocialPsychology, 14, 177–192.
Diani, M., & Donati, P. R. (1999). Organizational change in Western
European environmental groups: A framework for analysis.
Environmental Politics, 8(1), 13–34.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern
the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.
Doyle, T. (2001). Green power: The environment movement inAustralia. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales
Press.
Doyle, T., & McEachern, D. (1998). Environment and politics.
London: Routledge.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000).
New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
Edelstein, M. R. (1988). Contaminated communities: The social andpsychological impacts of residential toxic exposure. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Ewing, S., Grayson, R. B., & Argent, R. M. (2000). Science, citizens
and catchments: Decision support for catchment planning in
Australia. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 443–459.
Fairweather, G. W. (1972). Social change: The challenge to survival.Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.
Fawcett, S. B., Paine-Andrews, A., Francisco, V. T., Schultz, J. A.,
Richter, K. P., Lewis, R. K., Williams, E. L., Harris, K. J.,
Berkley, J. Y., Fisher, J. L., & Lopez, C. M. (1995). Using
empowerment theory in collaborative partnerships for commu-
nity health and development. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 23(5), 677–697.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York:
Seabury Press.
Freudenburg, W. R., & Youn, T. I. K. (1999). Institutional failure in
environmental management: Toward a fuller understanding of
social problems and public policy. Research in Social Problemsand Public Policy, 7, 3–18.
Gamson, W. A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, Ill:
Dorsey Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of groundedtheory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld
& Nicolson.
Goodman, R. M. (2000). Bridging the gap in effective program
implementation: From concept to application. Journal of Com-munity Psychology, 28(3), 309–321.
Goodman, R. M., Wandersman, A., Chinman, M., Imm, P., &
Morrissey, E. (1996a). An ecological assessment of community-
based interventions for prevention and health promotion:
Approaches to measuring community coalitions. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 24(1), 33–61.
Goodman, R. M., Wandersman, A., Chinman, M. J., Imm, P. S., &
Morrissey, E. (1996b). An attempt to identify and define the
dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for
measurement. Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258–278.
Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to
collaboration. Journal of Community and Applied SocialPsychology, 14, 166–176.
Hake, D. F., & Zane, T. (1981). A community-based gasoline
conservation project: Practical and methodological consider-
ations. Behavior Modification, 5(4), 435–458.
Hallman, W., & Wandersman, A. (1992). Attribution of responsibility
and individual and collective coping with environmental threats.
Journal of Social Issues, 48, 101–118.
Harding, R. (1998). Environmental decision-making. The roles ofscientists, engineers and the public. Leichhardt, N.S.W.: The
Federation Press.
Hatzius, T. (1996). Sustainability and institutions-catchwords or newagenda for ecologically sound development. Brighton, UK: IDS
Publications.
Hawe, P. (1994). Capturing the meaning of ‘community’ in commu-
nity intervention evaluation: Some contributions from commu-
nity psychology. Health Promotion International, 9(3), 199–210.
Hill, R., Baird, A., & Buchanan, D. (1999). Aborigines and fire in the
wet tropics of Queensland, Australia: Ecosystem management
across cultures. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 205–223.
Hutton, D., & Connors, L. (1999). A history of the Australianenvironment movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ife, J. W. (2002). Community development: Community-basedalternatives in an age of globalisation. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W:
Pearson Education.
Kamieniecki, S., Coleman, S., & Vos, R. O. (1995). The effectiveness
of radical environmentalists. In B. R. Raymond Taylor (Ed.),
Ecological resistance movements: The global emergence ofradical and popular environmentalism. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Kelly, J. G., Ryan, A. M., Altman, B. E., & Stelzner, S. P. (2000).
Understanding and changing social systems: An ecological view.
In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of communitypsychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people
act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environ-
mental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–
260.
Levine, M., & Perkins, D. V. (1997). Principles of communitypsychology: Perspectives and applications. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitativeobservation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Long, F. J., & Arnold, M. B. (1995). The power of environmentalpartnerships. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
Lowe, P., & Goyder, J. (1983). Environmental groups in politics.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Ludwig, D., Hillborn, R., & Walters, C. (1993). Uncertainty, resource
exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science,260(17), 36.
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of
empowering community settings: A multiple case study
approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(5),
631–655.
Mayer, J. P., & Davidson, W. S. II (2000). Dissemination of
innovation as social change. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman
(Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care:
Assessing quality in qualitative research. British MedicalJournal, 320, 50–52.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.) (1996).
Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political oppor-tunities, mobilizing structures and cultural framings. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
164 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123
McMillan, B., Florin, P., Stevenson, J., Kerman, B., & Mitchell, R. E.
(1995). Empowerment praxis in community coalitions. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 699–728.
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. Social movements andindividual needs in contemporary society. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Merchant, C. (1992). Radical ecology: The search for a livable world.
New York: Routledge.
Metzner, R. (1999). Green psychology: Transforming our relation-ship to the earth. Rochester, Vt.: Park Street Press.
Miller, A. (1999). Environmental problem-solving: Psychosocialbarriers to adaptive change. New York: Springer.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis. Melbourne:
Longman.
Orford, J. (1992). Community psychology: Theory and practice.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
O’Riordan, T. (1981). Environmentalism (2nd ed.). London: Pion.
Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychological contributions to achieving an
ecologically sustainable future for humanity. Journal of SocialIssues, 56(3), 373–390.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The political economy ofinstitutions and decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pakulski, J., & Crook, S. (1998). The environment in Australian print
media, 1983–1996. In J. Pakulski & S. Crook (Eds.), Ebbing ofthe green tide? Environmentalism, public opinion and the mediain Australia. Hobart: University of Tasmania, School of
Sociology and Social Work.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory,
research and application. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 23(5), 569–579.
Peterson, N. A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). Beyond the individual:
Toward a nomological network of organizational empowerment.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1/2), 129–145.
Phillips, D. A. (2000). Social policy and community psychology. In J.
Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of communitypsychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Poncelet, E. C. (2004). Partnering for the environment: Multistake-holder collaboration in a changing world. Lanham, Md.:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental
concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household
energy use. Environment & Behavior, 36(1), 70–93.
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995). Reaching the parts other methods cannot
reach: An introduction to qualitative methods in health and health
services research. British Medical Journal, 311, 42–45.
Quaghebeur, K., Masschelein, J., & Nguyen, H. H. (2004). Paradox of
participation: Giving or taking part. Journal of Community andApplied Social Psychology, 14, 154–165.
Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd. (1997). QSR NUD.ISTuser guide: Software for qualitative data analysis. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications Software.
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values research andaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of
empowerment over prevention. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 9(1), 1–25.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of preven-
tion: Toward a theory for community psychology. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 15, 121–148.
Rich, R. C., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W. K., & Wandersman, A. H.
(1995). Citizen participation and empowerment: The case of
local environmental hazards. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 23(5), 657–676.
Riger, S. (1984). Vehicles for empowerment: The case of feminist
movement organizations. In J. Rappaport & R. Hess (Eds.),
Studies in empowerment: Steps towards understanding andaction. New York: The Haworth Press.
Ross, H., Buchy, M., & Proctor, W. (2002). Laying down the ladder:
A typology of public participation in natural resource manage-
ment. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 9,
205–217.
Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (1995). Ecopsychology:Restoring the earth, healing the mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books.
Sachs, W. (1993). Global ecology: A new arena of political conflict.London: Zed Books.
Schlosberg, D. (1999). Networks and mobile arrangements: Organi-
zational innovation in the US environmental justice movement.
Environmental Politics, 8(1), 122–148.
Shippee, G. E., & Gregory, W. L. (1982). Public commitment and
energy conservation. American Journal of Community Psychol-ogy, 10(1), 81–93.
Stern, P. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269–302.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An
overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tarrow, S. (1992). Mentalities, political cultures and collective action
frames: Constructing meaning through action. In A. D. Morris &
C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp.
174–202). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movement, collectiveaction and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements andcontentious politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Toro, P. A., & Warren, M. G. (1999). Homelessness in the United
States: Policy considerations. Journal of Community Psychology,27(2), 119–136.
Trickett, E. J. (1994). Human diversity and community psychology:
Where ecology and empowerment meet. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 22(4), 583–592.
Trickett, E. J. (1996). A future for community psychology: The
contexts of diversity and the diversity of contexts. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 24(2), 209–226.
Tuler, S., & Webler, T. (1999). Voices from the forest: What
participants expect of a public participation process. Society andNatural Resources, 12, 437–453.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED). (1992). Agenda 21: Programme of Action forSustainable Development. New York: United Nations Depart-
ment of Public Information.
United Nations University, E. a. S. D. P. (2004). Mission statement.Retrieved 20 August 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://
www.unu.edu/env/.
Wagenaar, A. C., Gehan, J. P., Jones-Webb, R., Toomey, T. L.,
Forster, J. L., Wolfson, M., & Murray, D. M. (1999). Commu-
nities mobilizing for change on alcohol: Lessons and results
from a 15 community randomized trial. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 27(3), 315–326.
Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2000). Citizen participation and
community organizations. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.),
Handbook of community psychology. New York: Kluwer Aca-
demic/Plenum Publishers.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166 165
123
Wandersman, A. H., & Hallman, W. (1993). Are people acting
irrationally?: Understanding public concerns about environmen-
tal threats. American Psychologist, 48(6), 681–686.
Yearly, S. (2005). Cultures of environmentalism: Empirical studies inenvironmental sociology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yencken, D., & Wilkinson, D. (2000). Resetting the compass.Australia’s journey towards sustainability. Collingwood, Vic:
CSIRO Publishing.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and
illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5),
581–599.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation,
perceived control, and psychological empowerment. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750.
166 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 40:146–166
123