Although well-theorized causal explanations exist at the person level, scholars of environmental behavior have long neglected the social nature of environmental activism. Using a unique data set of individuals nested within local communities along the Han River, South Korea, we propose a novel empirical model for analyzing the contextual effect of social capital on different sets of self-reported environmental behaviors. Our findings, based on multilevel structural equation modeling, indicate that the community-level construct of social capital is a significant predictor of spatial variations in both private and public environmental behaviors, whereas the person-level construct of community ties has predictive power for private environmental behavior. Understanding these multilayered paths in which social capital relates to pro-environmental behaviors provides a crucial balance to previous single-level findings.
AdlerP. S.KwonS.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 17-40.
2.
AgyemanJ.AngusB. (2003). The role of civic environmentalism in the pursuit of sustainable communities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 345-363.
3.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior. In KuhlJ.BeckmanJ. (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behaviors (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Springer.
4.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
5.
AmérigoM.AragonésJ. I.SevillanoV.de FrutosB.CortésB. (2007). Underlying dimensions of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmental beliefs. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 97-103.
6.
AndersonM. (2009). Beyond membership: A sense of community and political behavior. Political Behavior, 31, 603-627.
7.
AralS.van AlstyneM. W. (2011). The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 90-171.
8.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 83-95). Westport. CT: Greenwood Press.
9.
BulkeleyH.MolA. P. J. (2003). Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12, 143-154.
10.
BurtR. S. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19, 355-373.
11.
ChavisD.WandersmanA. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55-81.
ChiouJ.-S. (2001). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism among college students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 667-678.
14.
ChoY.-N.ThyroffA.RapertM. I.ParkS.-Y.LeeH. J. (2013). To be or not to be green: Exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1052-1059.
15.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
16.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
CorralizaJ. A.BerenguerJ. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: A situational approach. Environment and Behavior, 32, 832-848.
18.
DepaoliS.CliftonJ. P. (2015). A Bayesian approach to multilevel structural equation modeling with continuous and dichotomous outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22, 327-351.
19.
DiPreteT. A.ForristalJ. D. (1994). Multilevel models: Methods and substance. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 331-357.
20.
FehrE.SchmidtK. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817-868.
21.
GärlingT.FujiiS.GärlingA.JakobssonC. (2003). Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 1-9.
22.
GelmanA.PardoeI. (2006). Bayesian measures of explained variance and pooling in multilevel (hierarchical) models. Technometrics, 48, 241-251.
GranovetterM. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In NohriaN.EcclesR. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25-56). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
GuagnanoG. A.SternP. C.DietzT. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699-718.
26.
HadlerM.HallerM. (2011). Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. International Sociology, 26, 315-345.
27.
HardinR. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
JaegerC.DürrenbergerG.KastenholzH.TrufferB. (1993). Determinants of environmental action with regard to climatic change. Climate Change, 23, 193-211.
29.
KarpD. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28, 111-133.
30.
KayA. (2005). Social capital, the social economy and community development. Community Development Journal, 41, 160-173.
31.
KimI.KimH. (2009). Four major river restoration project of Republic of Korea. Korea Environmental Policy Bulletin, 7, 1-12.
32.
KimY. (2011). Understanding green purchase: The influence of collectivism, personal values and environmental attitudes, and the moderating effect of perceived consumer effectiveness. Seoul Journal of Business, 17, 65-92.
33.
KnackS.KeeperP. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1251-1288.
34.
KurzT.LindenM.SheehyN. (2007). Attitudinal and community influences on participation in new curbside recycling initiatives in Northern Ireland. Environment and Behavior, 39, 367-391.
35.
LaidleyT. M. (2013). The influence of social class and cultural variables on environmental behaviors: Municipal-level evidence from Massachusetts. Environment and Behavior, 45, 170-197.
36.
LayzerJ. A. (2002). Citizen participation and government choice in local environmental controversies. Policy Studies Journal, 30, 193-207.
37.
LeeS.-Y. (2007). Structural equation modeling: A Bayesian approach. West Sussex. UK: Wiley.
38.
LindenbergS.StegL. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117-137.
39.
LubellM. (2002). Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior, 34, 431-454.
40.
LüdtkeO.MarshH. W.RobitzschA.TrautweinU.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2008). The multilevel latent covariate model: A new, more reliable approach to group-level effects in contextual studies. Psychological Methods, 13, 203-229.
41.
MaciasT.NelsonE. (2011). A social capital basis for environmental concern: Evidence from northern New England. Rural Sociology, 76, 562-581.
42.
MaciasT.WilliamsK. (2014). Know your neighbors, save the planet: Social capital and the widening wedge of pro-environmental outcomes. Environment and Behavior, 48, 391-420.
43.
ManzoL. C.WeinsteinN. D. (1987). Behavioral commitment to environmental protection: A study of active and nonactive members of the Sierra Club. Environment and Behavior, 19, 673-694.
44.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.NagengastB.TrautweinU.MorinA. J. S.AbduljabbarA. S.KöllerO. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47, 106-124.
45.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.TrautweinU.AsparouhovT.MuthénB.NagengastB. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 764-802.
46.
McKenzie-MohrD. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543-554.
47.
McKenzie-MohrD. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing (3rd ed.). Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.
48.
McMillanD.ChavisD. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
49.
MillerE.BuysL. (2008). The impact of social capital on residential water-affecting behaviors in a drought-prone Australian community. Society & Natural Resources, 21, 244-257.
50.
MobleyC. (2016). What matters when explaining environmentalism at the watershed level: Who you are, where you live, what you see, or what you perceive?Environment and Behavior, 48, 1148-1174.
51.
MuthénB. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 338-354.
52.
MuthénB.AsparouhovT. (2012). Bayesian SEM: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313-335.
53.
MyersT. A. (2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 297-310.
54.
NormileD. (2010). Restoration or devastation?Science, 327, 1568-1570.
55.
O’BrienR. M. (1990). Estimating the reliability of aggregate-level: Variables based on individual-level characteristics. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 473-504.
56.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
ParisiD.TaquinoM.GriceS. M.GillD. A. (2004). Civic responsibility and the environment: Linking local conditions to community environmental activeness. Society & Natural Resources, 17, 97-112.
59.
ParkS.-Y. (1998). A comparison of Korean and American gift-giving behaviors. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 577-593.
60.
PayneG. T.MooreC. B.GriffisS. E.AutryC. W. (2011). Multilevel challenges and opportunities in social capital research. Journal of Management, 37, 491-520.
61.
PerkinsD. D.LongD. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In FisherA.SonnC.BishopB. (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291-318). New York, NY: Plenum.
62.
PisanoI.LubellM. (2017). Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environment and Behavior, 49, 31-58.
63.
PortesA.SensenbrennerJ. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1320-1350.
64.
PortneyK. E.BerryJ. M. (2010). Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in U.S. cities. Urban Affairs Review, 46, 119-139.
65.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
66.
PrettyJ. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302, 1912-1914.
67.
PrettyJ.WardH. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29, 209-227.
68.
PutnamR. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.
69.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
70.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
71.
RaudenbushS. W.RowanB.KangS.-J. (1991). A multilevel, multivariate model for studying school climate with estimation via the EM algorithm and application to U.S. high-school data. Journal of Educational Statistics, 16,295-330.
72.
RileyM. W. (1963). Special problems of sociological analysis. In MertonR. K. (Ed.), Sociological research I: A case approach (pp. 700-725). New York, NY: Harcourt.
73.
RydinY.PenningtonM. (2000). Public participation and local environmental planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5, 153-169.
74.
SampsonR. J.MorenoffJ. D.EarlsF. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633-660.
75.
SchullerT.BaronS.FieldJ. (2000). Social capital: A review and critic. In BaronS.FieldJ.SchullerT. (Eds.), Social capital (pp. 1-38). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
76.
SchultzP. W.ColehourJ.VohrJ.BonnL.BullockA.SadlerA. (2015). Using social marketing to spur residential adoption of ENERGY STAR®-certified LED lighting. Social Marketing Quarterly, 21, 61-78.
77.
SmallM. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
78.
SønderskovK. M. (2009). Different goods, different effects: Exploring the effects of generalized social trust in large-N collective action. Public Choice, 140, 145-160.
79.
StegL.BolderdijkJ. W.KeizerK.PerlaviciuteG. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115.
80.
TakahashiB.SelfaT. (2015). Predictors of pro-environmental behavior in rural American communities. Environment and Behavior, 47, 856-876.
81.
TalòC.MannariniT.RochiraA. (2014). Sense of community and community participation: A meta-analytic review. Social Indicators Research, 117, 1-28.
82.
ThompsonS. C. G.BartonM. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.
83.
TuckerP. (1999). Normative influences in household waste recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42, 63-82.
84.
ViderasJ.OwenA. L.ConoverE.WuS. (2012). The influence of social relationships on pro-environment behaviors. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63, 35-50.
85.
WinshipC.RadbillL. (1994). Sampling weights and regression analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 23, 230-257.
86.
ZanetellB. A.KnuthB. A. (2004). Participation rhetoric or community-based management reality? Influences on willingness to participate in a Venezuelan freshwater fishery. World Development, 32, 793-807.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
