a community psychology view of environmental organization.pdf

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)


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)


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


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?


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.


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


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-


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


123

a community psychology view of environmental organization.pdf

Documents

environmental management

environmental crisis

human factorscritical

organizations orientation

preventedgrowing degradation

nonhuman species

basic issues of human

dean robert