Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 765–771

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

Exploring environmental behaviour as the major determinant of ecological T

citizenship
⁎
Buket Asilsoya, , Derya Oktayb
a
Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Near East University, Near East Boulevard, 99138, Nicosia, North Cyprus, Mersin 10, Turkey
b
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Ondokuz Mayis University, Guzel Sanatlar Campus, 55139, Samsun, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: ‘Ecological citizenship’, as an emerging dimension of sustainable urbanism, is an under-researched concept

Sustainable urbanism within environmental planning and policy agendas. It can be suggested that without residents establishing en-
Ecological city vironmentally responsive living as a lifestyle, the outcome of the sustainable urbanism debate would be in-
Ecological citizenship adequate or incomplete. In line with this hypothesis, this study revisits the concept of the Ecological City and its
Environmental behaviour
elements. In this context, ecological citizenship is conceptualized as the fifth dimension, following the known
Research model
dimensions of sustainable urbanism mainly concerned with the physical features of environmental management.
Furthermore, environmental behaviour is explored through a literature review. This paper, based on the derived
information, constructs a research model advocating that certain general values influence environmental atti-
tudes, namely ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes. These environmental attitudes influence environmental
awareness, and as a result of the problem awareness, the individual commits to performing a certain level of
environmental behaviour.

1. Introduction scientific information about the target public. Thus, it is necessary to

Environmentally based policies and regulations have recently been
the key focus of investigations concerning the role of citizens as cata-
lyzers of the efforts aimed at achieving a more sustainable urban de-
velopment. As a consequence of globalisation, adopting sustainable and
ecologically based lifestyles through everyday practices and actions has
become a key element of this new agenda in all countries, including
developing countries. Consequently, researchers, governments and
policy makers are currently seeking to find appropriate solutions and
tools in order to increase the levels of environmental awareness and
concern, and to encourage the behavioural change needed among
urban dwellers. All of these efforts have led to the introduction of a new
concept called ‘ecological citizenship’ within the discourse of sustain-
able urbanism.
It is the hypothesis of the authors that encouraging and enhancing
ecological citizenship is essential in paving the way towards sustainable
cities. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis is necessary to understand
the dynamics of ecologically responsive living. This paper, accordingly,
seeks to provide an analytical model of environmental behaviour as the
nucleus of ecological citizenship for future urban planning agendas.
According to the conceptual framework of the research, all planning
policies, regulations and strategies should be based on appropriate and
obtain accurate information about the values, environmental attitudes
and the day to day behaviour of citizens living in urban environments;
this information would then be used, scientifically, in the determination
and implementation of relevant environmentally responsive policies
(Fig. 1).
In line with these aims, the Ecological City is defined, and its di-
mensions are discussed. In this context, ecological citizenship is con-
ceptualized as the fifth dimension, following the known dimensions
that are mainly concerned with the physical aspects of environmental
management. The concept of environmental behaviour is then explored
through a detailed literature review. In light of all the derived in-
formation, a research model is constructed, and finally this is followed
by a critical discussion in the concluding section.
2. Ecological citizenship as a new dimension of the ecological city
From the late 1950s onwards, sustainable urbanism emerged as a
new discourse within the framework of sustainability and has been
acknowledged as an urban development and planning concern, pre-
dominatly in developed countries. In this context, the concept includes
quality of urban life, urban ecology, smart growth, alternative fuels and
renewable energy, compact cities, urban agriculture, green buildings,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: buket.asilsoy@neu.edu.tr (B. Asilsoy), derya.oktay@omu.edu.tr (D. Oktay).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.036
Received 30 April 2017; Received in revised form 23 February 2018; Accepted 23 February 2018
Available online 25 February 2018
2210-6707/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Asilsoy, D. Oktay Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 765–771

important not to attach significant attention to the differences among

republican and liberal views. Such that, the ecological duties and ob-
ligations of a citizen, are as significant as the right to have fair ecolo-
gical justice. Hence, as Hayward (2006) also argues, ‘as long as there is
a need for obligations to reduce the inequalities of an ecological foot-
print, there is no less a need to maintain the right for all, to an equal or
fair entitlement to ecological space’.
Dobson (2003) further claims that ecological citizenship is a virtue
based version of citizenship that is non-reciprocal, noncontractual and
non-territorial. In that sense, according to Dobson, the term embraces
the world as a whole and it focuses on the common good via collective
responsibility. Consequently, he relates his suggestions about ecological
citizenship to a justice-based system (Seyfang, 2007). Seyfang (2007)
adds that, our public and private practices should lessen the ecological
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework of the Research. impact of our daily lives on other individuals. Dobson uses the ecolo-
gical footprint metaphor (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996) as a touchstone
for understanding the obligations of ecological citizens.
green economy, waste management and so forth, and has become the
At this point, when seeking a definition and classification of the
new focus area of the urban planning agenda. As an outcome, the
ecological duties of citizens, it can be advocated that there are different
paradigms of the New Urbanism (Lund, 2003; Song & Knaap, 2003;
opinions regarding the dominant sphere, whether public or private,
Stevens, Berke, & Song, 2010; Talen, 1999), Green City (Campbell,
where ecological citizenship is, or should be, practiced.
1996; Kahn, 2007), Slow City (CittaSlow) movement (Knox, 2005; Pink,
It can be suggested that ecological citizenship refers to citizenship of
2009), Ecological City (Platt, Rowntree, & Muick, 1994; White, 2002)
the private sphere more than the public sphere, because, as Barry
and Sustainable City (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005; Girardet, 1999;
(2006) argues, for the majority of individuals in modern western so-
Haughton & Hunter, 2004) have emerged and broadened in many re-
cieties, it is the private not the public/political sphere where their en-
gions of the world since the 1980s.
ergies are spent, and equally, he continues, that the private sphere is the
Among all of these related concepts, the Ecological City is one of the
place where they are actively encouraged to find fulfilment. Hence,
most prevailing and also promising movements within the discourse of
focusing firstly on the personal duties as obligations in and around the
sustainable urbanism; it suggests that the implementation of ecological
home, within the private sphere, seems to be a more necessary and
principles in urban planning, design and management is essential in
effective path towards sustainable societies. Dobson (2007) also claims
order to create and enhance environmentally and economically sus-
that private actions have public implications.
tainable cities.
However, several researchers argue that ecological citizenship is
The main principles of the Ecological City can be categorized in five
practiced within the public sphere as a form of political activity,
dimensions. After the first four dimensions, namely ‘sustainable urban
(Gustavsson & Elander, 2013; Spaargaren & Oosterveer, 2010).
form’, ‘sustainable transportation’, ‘urban ecology and biodiversity’ and
Spaargaren and Oosterveer (2010) argue that their suggested usage of
‘energy use and waste management’, ecological citizenship is con-
the concept of ecological citizenship remains a bit closer to the concept
sidered as the fifth dimension of the ecological city.
of ‘citizenship’ in the political sciences. In that sense, there are several
After the 1970s, it was determined that strategies such as merely
objections suggesting that the emphasis on individual actions in and
innovative waste management systems or green infrastructure, were
around the home could be the reason why the social context is over-
not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of ecologically based urban
looked and undermined, including socio-economic and political struc-
design and planning. In other words, without the help of residents who
tures (Spaargaren & Mol, 2008).
have adopted an ecologically based way of living, the outcome of the
On the contrary, within the democratic political system (where al-
efforts towards sustainable urbanism would be inadequate and in-
most all ecological citizenship debates are generated), it is necessary to
complete. Thus, it is hypothesized that residents with sustainable life-
have the goal of achieving lifestyle change among ordinary individuals.
styles who are conscious about health, walking, cycling, energy con-
When the historical background of sovereign political systems is eval-
servation, local cuisines, sustainable public transportation, green
uated, it can be easily recognized that the force behind change eminates
economy etc, possess great significance and priority.
from the vast majority of ordinary people, within communities coming
As the significance of ecologically responsive citizens has gained
together. Hence, if the target is to create a new kind of citizenship, as
attention recently, the term ‘ecological citizenhip’ has been introduced
Dobson suggests, this would not be possible without shaping the lives of
into the literature, although it still remains an under researched area.
ordinary individuals. Consequently, urban dwellers coming together
Dobson (2003) suggests that while environmental citizenship is a tra-
and increasing political pressure will create the environment for them
ditional form of citizenship, ecological citizenship is a radically new
to live as ecological citizens in green states. Otherwise, within demo-
kind of citizenship, which takes environmental issues seriously. He
cratic states, it can be perilous and even futile to force compulsory
makes a clear distinction between ecological and environmental citi-
work, imposed by legislation and laws, upon citizens. This is because
zenship. According to Dobson, environmental citizenship comes out of a
merely focusing on making a political basis within state-based solutions
liberal attitude, while ecological citizenship, as a new model, comes
for defining a new form, or a new notion of citizenship, can lead to a
from a civic republican perspective. Furthermore, Hayward (2006) ar-
weak structure that has no strong foundation of democratic participa-
gues that according to Dobson, ecological citizenship involves the du-
tion and public agreement.
ties (obligations in other words) of citizenship whereas environmental
This suggestion should not be misunderstood to imply that the re-
citizenship tends to concentrate on rights. Without proposing any dis-
lated laws and legislations are insignificant or redundant. Nor should it
tinction between environmental and ecological citizenship as Dobson
imply that the public sphere is not significant and valuable in defining
does, there are other theoricians who have neither a republican nor a
ecological citizenship. On the contrary, related laws and legislation,
liberal point of view.
generated by political institutions, must be among the key dynamics
However, it must be added that focusing on these political accounts
underlying the whole process. However, achieving the contribution,
in relation to the definition of ecological citizenship can cause us to
commitment and participation of individuals, and making the proposed
miss the core issue. In other words when defining the term, it is
green political structure familiar and harmonious with the lifestyle

766
B. Asilsoy, D. Oktay Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 765–771

changes of their daily lives, can give the process and contents of these
institutional arrangements a more concrete and secure footing.
Based on this approach, a commited change in behaviour is neces-
sary in order to create communities who recognise their individual
environmental activities as duties and obligations, with the aim of
conserving the environment against global warming and other ecolo-
gical crisis. ‘They are only requested to do their part to protect the
universe and to reduce their impact on the environment’ (Melo-
Escrihuela, 2008).
In this research, ecological citizenship is proposed as a practice,
firstly in the private sphere, prior to being practiced in the public sphere
as a non-territorial, non-reciprocal, non-contractual account. Therefore,
examining and evaluating the socio-psychological and socio-cultural
dimensions of citizens and focusing on daily actions, lifestyles, attitudes
and behaviours of local people, with the goal of constituting more
sustainable and ecologically based communities, has received attention Fig. 2. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP) by Ajzen (1991).
within the discourse of sustainable urbanism.
to examine and survey environmental behaviour. Researchers have
3. Environmental behaviour
evaluated environmental behaviour from diverse perspectives. For ex-
ample, some studies achieved a socio-psychological perspective con-
As mentioned above, ecological citizenship should firstly be prac-
cerning the psychological determinants of the environmental beha-
ticed in the private sphere before being practiced in the public sphere as
viour. Furthermore, there has been a conspicuous amount of scientific
a non-territorial, non-reciprocal, non-contractual account. It can be
work focusing on the socio-cultural dimension.
further suggested that environmental action is the nucleus of ecologi-
Barr and Gilg (2006) state that, the most important and valuable
cally based living. In other words, environmental behaviour in and
model within the related literature, is the Theory of Planned Behaviour
around the home, is the primary element of ecological citizenship.
(TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), derived from the earlier theory of reasoned action
Therefore, what are these everyday activities and actions in and
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), as demonstrated in Fig. 2.
around the home that are the duties of an ecological citizen? How can
The TPB emphasizes two major predictors for conceptualizing social
the ecological practices of a contemporary citizen, which make the
behaviour. These are the ‘intention to act’ and ‘perceived behavioural
individual ‘ecological’ in an urban environment, be defined? What
control’ (or ‘how a human being perceives he is able to take action’).
characterises these activities and actions as duties and obligations?
Intentions are perceived as the outcome of a mixture of subjective
It can briefly be argued that these activities, that construct ecolo-
norms and attitudes towards environmental action. Ajzen (1991) ar-
gical citizenship, can be grouped into behavioural categories. In rela-
gued that value formulations are found to be only partly successful in
tion to the authors' previous article (Asilsoy, 2012) suggesting five ca-
dealing with these relations, as expected.
tegories, six behavioural categories (Asilsoy & Oktay, 2016) are
The researchers generated this theory with the aim of examining
determined within the present study, to be included in ‘public partici-
environmental behaviour. Although the TPB achieved the fundamental
pation’.
intention-behaviour relation theoretically, there have been discussions
that other influences are absent from the study. This has led researchers
■ Energy saving: using more clothes instead of more heating, using
to seek adaptations to the TPB, in order to determine the impact of
high efficient bulbs, using double glazed windows for buildings,
other principal determinants.
using energy efficient appliances and whitegoods, reducing the hot
Among these scientists, Carrus, Passafaro, and Bonnes (2008) sug-
water temperature, keeping heating low to save energy, switching
gested the existence of psychological predictors that have not been
lights off and reducing the heat in unused rooms and using building
sufficiently considered in this research field. They have underlined the
insulation and so forth.
existence and significance of factors such as ‘anticipated emotions’ and
■ Water conservation: reducing the number of baths/showers taken,
‘past behaviour’ and argued that these variables were not adequately
having a shower instead of a bath, turning off taps when soaping up,
addressed within the environmental behaviour studies. They proposed
turning off taps when washing dishes, turning off taps when
the Model of Goal-directed Behaviour (MGB), as an addition to the TPB.
brushing teeth, using plants that need less water, reducing toilet
They argued that this proposed model incorporates ‘past behaviour’,
flushes and so forth.
‘desire’ and ‘anticipated emotions’, together with the constituents of the
■ Waste management: reusing paper, reducing battery usage, recycling
TPB.
plastic bottles, composting garden waste, recycling cans, recycling
Furthermore, a discrepancy between ‘desire’ and ‘intention’ as de-
glass, recycling newspaper, reusing glass, donating furniture and
terminants achieving deliberate human action was also defined by the
clothes to charity, composting and so forth.
MGB (Fig. 3).
■ Public participation: involvement in the environmental decision
Alternatively, other researchers have assumed a socio-cultural per-
making process, involvement in environmental campaigns, being an
spective. These researchers emphasize values as predictors of environ-
environmental activist and so forth.
mental behaviour. As a new viewpoint related to environmental issues,
■ Sustainable transportation: using public transportation instead of a
fundamentally dissimilar questions have been asked by this kind of
car, walking short distances, carpooling, using a bicycle rather than
research. According to these studies, value is a significant foundation
a car and so forth.
for environmental attitudes. Two individuals can be equally worried
■ Green consumption: using own bag for shopping, buying locally
about the environment, for profoundly different reasons (Schultz &
produced foods, buying recycled toilet paper, buying less packaged
Zelezny, 1999).
products, buying organic products, avoiding the use of aerosols and
Rokeach (1973) argues that values tend to be single, stable beliefs,
toxic detergents, buying recycled writing paper, buying from a local
which are used as standards to evaluate action and attitudes. Within an
store and so forth.
individual’s belief system, values are a primary concern. They are the
basis for evaluative beliefs, and other linkages among beliefs. Rokeach
On that basis, scientific work has been ongoing since the late 1970s

767
B. Asilsoy, D. Oktay Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 765–771

Fig. 3. The Model of Goal-directed Behaviour (MGB) by Perugini and Bagozzi
(2001, 2004).
(1973) additonally argues that values are conceptualized as significant
life goals or standards which operate as guiding principles in a person’s
life.
Values are separate from attitudes or beliefs because they are uti-
lized as an organized system and are typically viewed as predictors of
attitudes and behaviours (Olson & Zanna, 1994). By using large scale
cross-cultural surveys, ten value types considered within four value
categories were identified by Schwartz (1994).
These four value categories are ‘self-transcendence’, ‘self-enhance-
ment’, ‘openness’ and ‘tradition’. The ten value types are ‘universalism’
and ‘benevolence’ (which are categorized within self-transcendence),
‘power’ and ‘achievement’ (which are categorized within self-en-
hancement), ‘self-direction’, ‘stimulation’ and ‘hedonism’ (which are
categorized within openness) and ‘tradition’, ‘conformity’ and ‘security’
(which are categorized within tradition) as demonstrated in Table 1.
According to the analysis of related literature, it can be recognized
that there is another term that must be considered in relation to en-
vironmental behaviour: environmental attitudes. One of the most re-
ferenced research works within environmental behaviour studies, Stern
and Dietz, 1994 (cited in Schultz & Zelezny, 1999) defines environ-
mental attitudes as the result of a person’s more general set of values.
According to these scientists, there are three forms of environmental
concern: ‘egoistic’, ‘social altruistic’ and ‘biospheric’. In other words,
Stern and his colleagues state that the individual, other individuals or
all living creatures are the reasons why a person experiences a parti-
cular environmental concern.
Egoistic environmental attitudes imply a primary concern about the
consequences that environmental damage may have on an individual.
Thus, the environment should be protected because the individual does
not want to swim in polluted water, or does not want to breathe pol-
luted air.
Social-altruistic environmental attitudes are primarily concerned
with individual benefits or individual objectives. Preserving nature is
significant, since not doing so could have extensive impacts on others.
In that sense, someone who has such values judges phenomena on the
basis of costs or benefits for a human group, such as a community,
ethnic groups, nation-states, or all of humanity (Stern & Dietz, 1994).
Biocentric environmental attitudes are based on beliefs about the
essential value of nature. Individuals must protect the natural en-
vironment since everything, including plants and animals, form a
complete entity within nature and all species have the right to survive
(Kempton, Boster, & Hartley, 1995).
This suggestion was later defined in their value-belief-norm (VBN)
theory (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). VBN theory is an
extension of Schwartz’s (1973, 1977); moral norm-activation theory of
altruism to explain environmental attitudes and behaviour (Stern,
2000).
Norm-activation theory was originally an explanation of altruistic
behaviour but has been extended to environmental behaviour
(Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999; Wiidegren,
1998). This theory suggests that the activation of a moral norm is a
significant precursor to environmental behaviour. In other words, ac-
cording to this theory, when an individual notices environmental si-
tuations that impact individual values (nature, other peoples’ well
being or their own well being), this activation takes place. As also in-
dicated, VBN theory proposes that an awareness of the harmful con-
sequences of environmental problems to a value or valued object is the
principal reason for concern about specific environmental issues
(Schultz, 2001).
Besides the suggestion of three dissimilar environmental value or-
ientations, VBN theory is actually the combination of three different

Table 1
Value-items from Schwartz (1994) values instrument.
SELF-TRANSCENDENCE SELF-ENHANCEMENT OPENNESS TRADITION

Universalism Power Self-direction Tradition

Protecting the environment Social power Creativity Devout
A world of beauty Authority Curious Respect for tradition
Unity with nature Wealth Freedom Humble
Broad-minded Preserving my public image Choosing own goals Moderate
Social justice Social recognition Independent Accepting portion in life
Wisdom Detachment
Equality Achievement Stimulation
A world at peace Successful Daring Conformity
Inner harmony Capable A varied life Politeness
Ambitious An exciting life Honouring parents and elders
Benevolence Influential Obedient
Helpful Intelligent Hedonism Self-discipline
Honest Self-respect Pleasure
Forgiving Enjoying life Security
Loyal Clean
Responsible National security
True-friendship Social order
A spiritual life Family security
Mature life Sense of belonging
Meaning in life Reciprocation of favours
Healthy

768
B. Asilsoy, D. Oktay
Table 2
Revised NEP Items (Dunlap et al., 2000).
The reality of limits to growth (1,6,11):
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we only learn how to develop them.
11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
Antianthropocentrism (2,7,12):
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
12. Humans were meant to rule the rest of nature.
The fragility of nature’s balance (3,8,13):
3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impact of modern
industrial nations.
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
Rejection of exemptionalism (4,9,14):
4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unliveable.
9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to
control it.
The possibility of an ecological crisis (5,10,15):
5. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
10. The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been exaggerated.
15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe.
theories: norm-activation theory, value theory and Dunla;1;p and Van
Liere’s New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). In measuring the en-
vironmental attitudes and worldview, the New Environmental
Paradigm (NEP) has become one of the most noticeable theories in
recent years. It was originally based on a scale of 12 items (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978) but was consequently revised and an adjusted scale
with 15 items was developed (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones,
2000).
Table 2 displays these 15 items; three items were considered to tap
each of the five hypothesized facets of an ecological worldview: the
reality of limits to growth (1,6,11), antianthropocentrism (2,7,12), the
fragility of nature’s balance (3,8,13), rejection of exemptionalism
(4,9,14) and the possibility of an ecological crisis (5, 10, 15).
In line with VBN theory, scientific studies have focused for many
years on the individual’s value orientations and have sought to ascer-
tain the direct link between values and attitudes. Schultz and Zelezny
(1999) argue that either two or three distinct value orientations and
motives have been acknowledged by the majority of these studies.
Unlike Stern and Dietz (1994), Thompson and Barton (1994) sug-
gest that there are two motives instead of three. They proposed two
environmental attitudes in relation to environmental problems and is-
sues: ecocentrism and anthropocentrism.
Within this point of view, egoistic and social altruistic dimensions
would combine into a single dimension. Resultantly, the individual is
the primary concern of the relation, and a single profile of an anthro-
pocentric person, who values nature because of its involvement in the
quality of human life, is identified.
In contrast to this anthropocentric view, the other proposed motive,
which implies that the individual and the environment are on equal
terms forming a unit, can be referred to as the ecocentric perception of
the relationship (Amerigo, Aragones, Frutos, Sevillano, & Cortes, 2007).
According to Thompson and Barton (1994), anthropocentric people
value nature because of its imput into the quality of human life, and
ecocentric people value nature itself, including all of its valued entities
(plants, animals, marine life etc.).
Thompson and Barton (1994) indicated that anthropocentric mo-
tives are similar to Stern, Dietz, Kalof, and Guagnano (1995) egoistic
and social altruistic values, whereas ecocentric motives are similar to
biospheric values. They developed 25 items examined by a 5-point
Likert type frequency scale to measure the anthropocentric and eco-
centric attitudes of adults. The associations between the scales, and a
measure of general apathy toward environmental issues and self-
769
Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 765–771
reported conservation behaviours were also measured.
The results demonstrated that people who were more ecocentric
tended to exhibit less apathy towards ecological concerns, were more
likely to display conservation behaviour, were more likely to belong to
environmental organizations and offered more open-ended ecocentric
explanations for their concerns about nature. On the other hand, in-
dividuals who were more anthropocentric tended to express more en-
vironmental apathy and were less likely to have a conserving behaviour
(Eryiğit, 2010).
There is a substantial amount of research supporting the impact of
values on environmental concerns. For instance, Schultz and Zelezny
(1999) aimed to measure environmental attitudes across a diverse set of
English and Spanish speaking countries to examine the relationship
between attitudes and values. According to the results found in the
research, they supported the distinction between different types of
environmental attitudes. The scores on the NEP (New Environmental
Paradigm) scale and the ecocentrism scale were predicted by uni-
versalism (positively), power (negatively), and tradition (negatively).
In contrast, anthropocentric concerns were significantly related to
benevolence (negatively), power (positively), tradition (positively), and
security (positively). They suggested that these findings support the
value basis theory of environmental attitudes.
In another research study, the determinants of waste recycling as a
category of environmental behaviour were examined (Barr, Gilg, &
Ford, 2001). The researchers claimed that waste recycling can be de-
termined in three categories as displayed below in Fig. 4.
Environmental values and attitudes: Researchers have argued that
individuals who have more positive environmental values and attitudes
are more inclined to have higher scores for recycling actions. These
‘attitudes’ are normally measured on Likert-response scales in ques-
tionnaire surveys. Examples of these attitude scales include the ‘eco-
logical attitude-knowledge’ scale (Maloney & Ward, 1973; Maloney,
Ward, & Braucht, 1975), the ‘environmental concern’ scale (Weigel &
Weigel, 1978), Thompson and Barton’s (1994) ‘ecocentric-anthropo-
centric’ scale and, the often quoted Dunlap and Van Liere’s ‘New En-
vironmental Paradigm’ (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al.,
2000).
Situational variables: These are identified as a person’s private cir-
cumstances at a given time, characterized by entry into, or information
and experience of, environmental action.
Psychological variables: These are perceptions and private qualities of
the human being. It is suggested that altruistic tendencies, intrinsic
motives or rather enjoyment of that behaviour, perceptual factors, and
subjective norms are all related with environmental behaviour.
Additionally Hansla, Gamble, Juliusson, and Garling (2007) suggest
that different people become engaged in environmental issues and
perform environmental behaviour because they believe in, and are
concerned with the adverse consequences of environmental problems
for themselves (egoistic beliefs and concerns), others (social altruistic
beliefs and concerns), or the biosphere (biospheric beliefs and
Situational
variables
Environmental Environmental Environmental
values intension behaviour
Psychological
variables
Fig. 4. Environmental Behaviour (Barr et al., 2001).
B. Asilsoy, D. Oktay
concerns). They suggest that their research within the study provides
empirical support for the assertion that egoistic, social-altruistic, and
biospheric environmental concerns are related to the corresponding
awareness-of-consequences belief, and that both the beliefs and en-
vironmental concerns are related to the three value types of power,
benevolence, and universalism.
According to the same research, the results showed that bene-
volence is related to social-altruistic awareness-of-consequences belief
and environmental concerns, whereas universalism is related to bio-
spheric awareness-of-consequences belief and concern. Furthermore,
the results showed that power was positively related to egoistic
awareness-of-consequences belief and concern.
At this point, it can be additionally suggested, that there has been
research undertaken emphasizing the role of values is more predictive
than other determinants. For example Steg, De Groot, Dreijerink,
Abrahamse, and Siero (2011) examined to what extent values, world-
views (i.e., NEP) and environmental concerns predict personal norms,
policy acceptability, and intentions. They found that values (especially
biospheric) to be more predictive of personal norms, policy accept-
ability and intentions, than worldviews and environmental concern.
In summary, according to the present theoretical evaluation, en-
vironmental behaviour appears to be a concept with diverse predictors.
It has been, and is still examined and evaluated according to scientists’
diverse views. According to the theoretical evaluation conducted within
this study, environmental behaviour is theorized as displayed in Fig. 5.
This proposed model is assumed to be a combination of disparate
variables evaluated within this study. According to this proposed
model, there are general values based on Schwartz’s Social Value
Instrument (1994) that influence environmental attitudes. Based on
Thompson and Barton (1994), these environmental attitudes are either
anthropocentric or ecocentric. These environmental attitudes influence
environmental awareness, and as a result of the problem awareness, the
individual commits to performing a certain level of environmental be-
haviour. Furthermore, there are two more factors influencing the be-
havioural intention: situational variables and psychological variables.
As Barr et al. (2001) also stated, situational variables can be defined
as a person’s private circumstances at a given time, characterised by
entry into, or information and experience of, environmental action. The
physical context surrounding the individual and the availability of en-
vironmental technology are all situational variables, while psycholo-
gical variables are perceptions and private qualities of the human being,
such as subjective norms.
Fig. 5. Research Model of Environmental Behaviour.
770
Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 765–771
4. Discussion and conclusions
This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive insight into environ-
mental behaviour, as the nucleus of ecological citizenship, via a re-
search model. Each of the components conceptualized within this re-
search model should be taken into consideration and be investigated
scientifically in order to obtain the most appropriate data for moti-
vating residents in urban environments to perform positive environ-
mental behaviour in and around their homes.
However, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats may
differ from one country to another or from one culture to another.
Therefore the role of each determinant needs to be individually eval-
uated in each case. Cultural background, existing traditions and values
may support the efforts to encourage individuals to perform appropriate
environmental behaviour in and around their homes on a daily basis. In
another case, environmental awareness and concern achieved with the
help of education, can be the opportunity for a country.
The existence of sustainable urban environments with mixed land
uses, walkable and bikeable streets, household recycling facilities and
sustainable modes of transportation, as situational variables, can posi-
tively and directly influence the behavioural intention of community
members.
Therefore, the questions such as ‘which determinant is strength-
ening the achievement of environmental behaviour?’ or conversely
‘within this case, which component is becoming a threat for adopting
environmentally responsive lifestyles?’ should be clearly asked within
the policy studies aiming to understand and adopt successful and ap-
propriate environmental behaviour.
However, it must be added that it is necessary not to undermine that
this proposed model is fundamentally rooted in general values having
the ability to be transformed into environmental attitudes. Thus, be-
sides considering the other variables, the most direct way to create
environmantally conscious individuals is by sustaining or implementing
their environmental values.
Furthermore, it will be necessary to discuss the dwellers’ traditional
citizenship profile in each case. This is because, the perception of duties
and rights by the dwellers as citizens, the definition of traditional ci-
tizenship by the state and the role of environmental laws and legisla-
tions within the state may help or complicate the development of
ecological citizenship.
In that sense, it must be remembered that for the fulfilment of this
transition towards ecological citizenship, it is useful to focus on
B. Asilsoy, D. Oktay
politicisation on the level of the individual. Hence politicisation on the
level of the individual will achieve citizens who have the capacity to
participate publicly in shaping society (Kenis, 2016). Resultantly, citi-
zens will have the potential to generate the needed political pressure
via their environmental behaviours for the optimal achievement of the
political structure.
Finally, urban planning and policy agendas need to have a decisive
focus on the ‘ecological citizenship’ topic in order to achieve effective
collaboration with the legislative context, which can lead to the
transformation of traditional citizenship into ‘ecological citizenship’.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the final editing by Robert John Lewis of
the Department of Architecture at Ondokuz Mayis University.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Amerigo, M., Aragones, J. I., Frutos, B., Sevillano, V., & Cortes, B. (2007). Underlying
dimensions of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmental beliefs. The Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 97–103.
Asilsoy, B. (2012). A survey study on environmental consciousness in Famagusta, AicE-Bs
2011, Famagusta. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 35, 675–681.
Asilsoy, B., & Oktay, D. (2016). Environmental attitudes as predictors of ecological citi-
zenship: Findings from a survey in Famagusta, North Cyprus. Open House International
(Special Issue on Transformations of Architecture and Urbanism of Cities in the Global
South, Eds: A. Salama & D. Grierson), 41(2), 47–55.
Barr, S., & Gilg, A. W. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and
around the home. Geoforum, 37(6), 906–920.
Barr, S., Gilg, A. W., & Ford, N. J. (2001). A conceptual framework for understanding and
analysing attitudes towards household waste management. Environment and Planning
A, 33, 2025–2048.
Barry, J. (2006). Resistance is fertile: From environmental to sustainability citizenship. In
A. Dobson, & D. Bell (Eds.). Environmental citizenship. Massachusetts Institute Of
Technology.
Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance
and the ‘Urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42–63.
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the
contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 62(3), 296–312.
Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., & Bonnes, M. (2008). Emotions, habits and rational choices in
ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 28, 51–62.
Dobson, A. (2003). Ecological citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dobson, A. (2007). Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development.
Sustainable Development, 15, 276–285 [Wiley InterScience].
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of
the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56,
425–442.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A proposed
measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9,
10–19.
Eryiğit, A. (2010). A cross age study on elementary syudents’ value orientations, environmental
optimism and environmental concern. Unpublished Msc Thesis. Ankara: Middle East
Technical University.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behaviour: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Girardet, H. (1999). Creating sustainable cities schumacher briefings. Green Books
Publishing [ISBN: 9781870098779].
Guagnano, G., Stern, P., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behaviour relation-
ships. A natural experiment with curb side recycling. Environment and Behaviour,
27(5), 699–718.
Gustavsson, E., & Elander, I. (2013). Households as role models for sustainable con-
sumption. The case of local climate dialogues in two Swedish Towns. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 56(2), 194–210.
Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Garling, T. (2007). The relationships between
awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 28, 1–9.
Haughton, G., & Hunter, C. (2004). Sustainable cities. Routledge.
Hayward, T. (2006). Ecological citizenship: Justice, rights and the virtue of resourceful-
ness. Environmental Politics, 15(3), 435–446.
771
Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 765–771
Kahn, M. E. (2007). Green cities: Urban growth and the environment. Washington, USA:
Brookings Institution Press.
Kempton, W., Boster, J., & Hartley, J. (1995). Environmental values in American culture.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kenis, A. (2016). Ecological citizenship and democracy: Communitarian versus agonistic
perspectives. Environmental Politics, 25(6), 949–970.
Knox, P. L. (2005). Creating ordinary places: Slow Cities in a fast world. Journal of Urban
Design, 10(1), 1–11.
Lund, H. (2003). Testing the claims of New Urbanism: Local access, pedestrian travel, and
neighboring behaviours. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 414–429.
Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. Z. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the people. An objective
scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American
Psychologist, 28, 583–586.
Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. N. (1975). A revised scale for the measure-
ment of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 30(7), 787–790.
Melo-Escrihuela, C. (2008). Promoting ecological citizenship: Rights, duties and political
agency. UK: Collection at ACME Editorial Collective.
Olson, J., & Zanna, M. (1994). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
44, 117–154.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal
directed behaviours: Broedening and deepening the Theory of Planned Behaviour.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 79–98.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between desires and intentions.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 69–84.
Pink, S. (2009). Urban social movements and small places. City, 13(4), 451–465.
Platt, R. H., Rowntree, R. A., & Muick, P. C. (1994). The Ecological city: Preserving and
restoring urban biodiversity. USA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other
people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:
Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19,
255–265.
Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behaviour: A critique, pro-
posal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 349–364.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Vol. Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 10, (pp. 221–279). New York
Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Seyfang, G. (2007). Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local
organic food. Networks Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 383–395.
Song, Y., & Knaap, G. J. (2003). New urbanism and housing values: A disaggregate as-
sessment. Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 218–238.
Spaargaren, G., & Mol, A. P. J. (2008). Greening global consumption: Redefining politics
and authority. Global Environmental Change, 18, 350–359.
Spaargaren, G., & Oosterveer, P. (2010). Citizen-consumers as agents of change in glo-
balizing modernity: The case of sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 2,
1887–1908.
Steg, L., De Groot, J. I. M., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse, W., & Siero, F. (2011). General
antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: The role of va-
lues, worldviews, and environmental concern. Society and Natural Resources, 24,
349–367.
Stern, P. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of en-
vironmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Stern, P., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social
Issues, 56, 121–145.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proen-
vironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1636.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, I., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief- norm
theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in
Human Ecology, 6(2), 81–97.
Stevens, M. R., Berke, P. R., & Song, Y. (2010). Creating disaster-resilient communities:
Evaluating the promise and performance of new urbanism. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 94, 105–115.
Talen, E. (1999). Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An assessment of the
social doctrine of New Urbanism. Urban Studies, 36(8), 1361–1379.
Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes
toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on
the earth. New Society Publishers.
Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure.
Environment and Behaviour, 10(1), 3–15.
White, R. R. (2002). Building the ecological city. Woodhead Publishing, eBook [ISBN:
9781855738683].
Wiidegren, Ö. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment
and Behaviour, 30(1), 75–100.