Collective Action, Environmental Activism, and Air Quality Policy

Abstract

This article attempts to respond to Ostrom’s call for a behavioral model of collective action by generalizing the collective interest model of mass political action to explain citizen policy support and personal behavioral intentions in the context of air quality policy. The collective action problems inherent in air quality policy provide a critical research setting for testing hypotheses of the collective interest model. Key elements of the collective interest model—perceived risk, trust in policy elites, knowledge of the policy problem, and efficacy—are found to be directly, and positively, related to support of government policies and intentions to engage in personal behaviors that might improve air quality. The article discusses the implications for using the collective interest model as general behavioral theory of collective action.

Environmental Movements in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Heterogeneity, Transformation, and Institutionalization

“…Participation in movements is also influenced by an individual's assessments of relative costs and benefits (37,38). There is evidence in the literature that collective interests predict movement participation in general (38) and environmental activism in particular (39,40).…”

Motivating residents to combat invasive species on private lands: social norms and community reciprocity

“…Incorporating the logic of collective action into models of individual decision making has helped explain other environmental activism behaviors, such as engaging in efforts to combat global warming and air pollution, supporting environmental policies, and signing petitions (Lubell et al 2006(Lubell et al , 2007. If such perceptions relating to the collective action nature of the problem are indeed important to IS control behavior, then interventions focused solely on enhancing knowledge or changing costs may not be as effective in achieving IS reductions across private lands as interventions that also alter perceptions of the collective context.…”

Spatial determinants of local government action on climate change: an analysis of local authorities in England

“…Whilst there is some diversity, Suffolk can be characterised as a sparsely populated county with relatively few young people and little deprivation with the exception of the skills domain. The observed clustering of high action local authorities gives weight to the argument that the adoption of pro climate policy is more likely when neighbouring localities are seen to be engaging in action (Lubell et al, 2006) and suggests that regional partnerships could prove an important tool in encouraging action on climate change.…”

“…In terms of social capacity, strong evidence has been found for a link between education (Higher education) and support for climate policy (Dietz et al, 1998;Elliott et al, 1997;Klineburg et al, 1998;Lubell et al, 2006;O'Connor et al, 2002;Zahran et al, 2008a;Zahran et al 2008b). Also, Young people are more likely to hold post materialist values than older individuals and are therefore more inclined towards making sacrifices for the sake of environmental protection (Klineburg et al, 1998 and Bulkeley, 2003;Lorenzoni et al, 2007).…”

“…Willingness to absorb the cost of implementing climate change initiatives increases with successive levels of education (Dietz et al, 1998;Elliott et al, 1997;Klineburg et al, 1998;Lubell et al, 2006;O'Connor et al, 2002;Zahran et al, 2008a;Zahran et al 2008b). Less convincingly, younger people and women are generally reported as showing greater environmental concern (Klineberg et al, 1998).…”