COLLECTIVE INTEREST, ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND NEW ZEALAND’S RIVERS

Rebecca Smaill Psych 741

“Collective action is at the heart of many decisions on the management of natural resources.” (Adgar, 2003)

BRIEF OUTLINE

1. What is collective action?2. Common-pool resources and sustainability3. Barriers to sustainability: Free-riding4. Introduction to the ‘Collective Interest’

model5. Examples and case studies involving

Collective Interest and the environment6. Proposed research7. Discussion

WHAT IS COLLECTIVE ACTION?

“Collective action is traditionally defined as any action aiming to improve the group’s conditions (such as status or power), which is enacted by a representative of the group” (Wright et al,

1990)

COLLECTIVE ACTION: MAIN COMPONENTS

Perceived injustice i.e. Group-based anger towards globalised environmentally unsustainable

actions as motivation to rectify state of unfair deprivation Perceived efficacy

i.e. The objective, structural resources necessary to mobilize change relating to the environment through social protest

Social identity i.e. People strive to achieve and maintain positive social identities

associated with their group memberships Individual level environmental collective action involves the

widespread adoption of particular, individual level behaviours, protection of the environment and the production of collective goods (Everett, 1994)

COMMON-POOL RESOURCES, COLLECTIVE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY BEHAVIOURS

Public goods Common-pool resources e.g. water, fossil fuels

Procedural justice Environmental justice (Ikeme, 2003)

Moral aspects of global environmental decisions Differences between equity and environmental justice Term used extensively in the scholarship that has focused on different

exposure of minorities to environmental stresses and risks

Social Capital Networks and flows of information between individuals and groups

and are an asset of an individual or society (Adgar, 2003)

Necessary element of economic transactions and collective action on scarce environmental resources (Adgar, 2003)

WHAT’S STOPPING PEOPLE BEING SUSTAINABLE?

Individual actions have little influence over collective outcomes (Olson, 1970).

Perceived instrumental voice is low

Low perception of likelihood of success

Lack of personal efficacy (Finkel et al, 1989)

Low sense of urgency High individual cost (Lubell,

2007)

Low personal and collective benefits

FREE-RIDERS: HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO

Low efficacy = “Rational egoist” behaviour

Free-riders do not contribute to the production of a collective good but share in its benefit. (Everett, 1994)

Free-riding leads to an undersupply of environmental activism or oversupply of environmental harms (Hardin, 1982).

Incentives especially powerful in large groups individual actions have only a minuscule influence on collective outcomes (Olson, 1970).

Tragedy of the commons

COLLECTIVE INTEREST (CI) MODEL

First developed to explain protest behavior and social movement participation (Finkel & Muller, 1998; Finkel, Muller, & Opp, 1989; Gibson, 1997).

Function of citizen beliefs about collective benefits, the ability to influence collective outcomes and the selective cost/benefits of participation (Lubell, 2002)

Lubell, Zahran & Vedlitz (2007) People will participate in a collective endeavor when the expected

value of participation is greater than the expected value of non-participation.

People judge the expected value of participation by assessing the total value of the public good, the probability their participation will affect collective outcomes, and the selective benefits and costs of participation.

Perceived risk, personal efficacy, and environmental values are key features of CI model in relation to the environment Also found to be directly, and positively, related to support of government

policies and personal behaviors that affect global warming.

MARK LUBELL (2002) COLLECTIVE INTEREST AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM

Public good characteristics of environmental activism (Lubell, 2002)

“Key vulnerable groups are often excluded from making decisions on the public management of climate related risks” (Adger, 2003)

Study: 1,606 U.S. citizens from the

1993 General Social Survey (GSS)

Questions about environmental issues

Survey of environmental attitudes among 460 residents from around New York city

EXAMINATION OF CAUVERY (KAVERI) RIVER WATER DISPUTE IN INDIA (ANAND, 2007):

“Water disputes concern water resources that are public or common goods. Resolving such disputes requires inter-dependent actions by more than one party; that is, collective action” (Sandler, 1992; Anand, 2003).

Karnataka vs. Tamil Nadu Dispute over perceived inequity of shares of river

water. Issues related to justice and fairness

How citizens perceive their claim over river water

Extent to which citizens are able to collectivize their claims through location,

Economic activity and identity, and use their voice to influence the state;

The extent to which the state policy and actions reflect the ‘voice’ and

Collective interests of different groups; How the various riparian states recognize

and deal with each others’ claims. Sustainability a “natural resource

constraint” on development, imposing limits such as “how much water can be extracted or used”.

Collective Interest and Common-Pool Resources: New Zealand Rivers Study

PROPOSED RESEARCH

OBJECTIVE AND AIMS

1. Using the CI model I would like to explore the effect of perception of personal efficacy and perceived risk on attitudes and behaviours regarding the water consumption in an area within New Zealand which has access to the water from a river

2. I want to explore whether those who have access to the main river that hosts hydroelectric generating stations for Mighty River Power (i.e. Waikato river) have varied attitudes to their rights to water due to the recent plans to sell shares of the Mighty River Power company.

3. I want to explore whether processes of procedural justice and issues around perceived efficacy have an effect on the value that the participants place on the river resource.

HYPOTHESES

1. I hypothesise that those whose attitudes towards the environment are aligned with sustainability and conscientious consumption of water will also display sustainable behaviours.

2. I hypothesise that those same individuals will also rate that they perceive higher efficacy with regards to sustainability of river water in the survey will also rate their consumption of water as low i.e. probability their participation will affect collective outcomes will be rated as high

3. I hypothesise that those who reside in the Waikato area will feel more strongly about their right to access the river than the other participants.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Sample design Non-probability Sampling

technique Purposive/Judgmental

sample

Operational Design Qualitative semi-structured

interviews

Statistical Design Qualitative research

methods

METHODOLOGY

Subjects Study 1

N= 30, Male/Female Aged 18-50

Procedure 30 interviews will be conducted over a period of about 3 months 20 participants will be chosen using a non-probability sampling method in order to

ensure that I can obtain those who live in a region that has access to a river. 10 participants will be recruited from the Waikato region (located near the Waikato

river) 10 participants will be recruited from an area with access to the Mahurangi river in the

Auckland region. The remaining 10 participants for study 1 will be sampled from a region of New

Zealand that has no access to any river and will act as a ‘control group’ Data Collection

Qualitative semi-structured interviews over a period of 3 months All of the interviews will be recorded (with consent from the participants)

SAMPLE QUESTIONS(Part 2) Value of common pool resources: General attitudes towards river resources:

2. How important are the rivers for communities?

5. What do you think about the state of the fresh water sources in New Zealand? (e. g. Rivers and lakes)

(Part 3) Procedural justice: Attitudes towards

12. Would you say that the future of the Waikato River is secure? Is it fair that the government is selling share of Mighty River Power?

13. How do you think the Mighty River Power sale is going to affect you and your family/whanau?

DISCUSSION

1. Do you personally believe that personal efficacy has an effect on your behaviour as a sustainable consumer?

2. What are some of the other elements involved in the development of attitudes towards ‘common-pool resources’?

3. Do you think that this is something that should be tackled through qualitative or quantitative research?

REFERENCES

Adger, N. W. (2003). Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography , 79 (4), 387-404.

Anand, P. B. (2007). Capability, Sustainability, and Collective Action: An Examination of a River Water Dispute. Journal of Human Development , 109-132.

Everett, J. W. (1994). Environmental Collective Action: Residential Recycling Programs. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice , 120, 158-176.

Finkel, S. E., & Muller, E. N. (1998). Rational choice and the dynamics of collective political action: Evaluating alternative models with panel data. American Political Science Review , 92, 37-49.

Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N., & Opp, K. D. (1989). Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action. American Political Science Review , 83, 885-903.

Gibson, J. L. (1997). Mass opposition to the Soviet putsch of August 1991: Collective action rational choice and democratic values in the former Soviet Union. American Political Science Review , 91, 671-684.

Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore: Resources for the Future. Lubell, M. (2002). Environmental Activism as Collective Action. Environment and Behaviour

, 431-454. Mark, L., Sammy, Z., & Arnold, V. (2007). Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global

Warming. Political Behaviour , 29, 391-413. Olson, M. (1970). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sandler, T. (1992). Collective Action. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. The Global Compact. (2012). The CEO Mandate: Guide to Water Related Collective Action.

Author. Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a

disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58, 994–1003.