Identifying Barriers and Catalysts to Fostering Pro-Environmental Behavior: Opportunities and Challenges for Community Psychology

Original Paper


In this paper, we report on an exploratory study of perceived barriers and catalysts to increasing pro-environmental behavior among people associated with the environmental movement. Perceived barriers include time, money, low efficacy and hopelessness. Catalysts focus on changing social norms, especially through education and institutional support. We discuss the tragedy of the commons and free-riding as impediments to change. We use this study as an entryway to hypothesize opportunities and challenges that community psychologists face in motivating and supporting actions to reduce the impact of global climate change. We provide examples of how community psychologists can foster these changes. In short, we argue that community psychology is well positioned to take a leading role in the fight for a carbon neutral future.


Pro-environmental behavior Behavior change Global climate change Catalysts 


  1. Andreasen, A. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health, social development, and the environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Angelique, H., & Cunningham, K. (2006). Media framing of dissent: The case of initial anti-nuclear protests following the Three Mile Island accident. The Australian Community Psychologist, 18, 42–57.Google Scholar
  3. Angelique, H. L., Reischl, T. M., & Davidson, W. S. (2001). Promoting political empowerment; Evaluation of an intervention with university students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(6), 815–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Bhate, S. (2002). One world, one vision: Are we close to achieving this? An exploratory study of consumer environmental behavior across three countries. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2(2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, P., & Mikkelson, E. J. (1990). No safe place: Toxics, leukemia and community action. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J. (1988). Free-riders and zealots: The role of social networks. Sociological Theory, 6(1), 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Culley, M. R., & Angelique, H. L. (2003). Women’s gendered experiences as long-term Three Mile Island activists. Gender & Society, 17, 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Culley, M. R., & Hughey, J. (2008). Power and public participation in a local hazardous waste dispute: A community case study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 99–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edelstein, M. R. (1988). Contaminated communities: The social and psychological impacts of residential toxic exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  11. Flacks, R. (2004). Knowledge for what? Thoughts on the state of social movement studies. In J. Goodwin & J. Jasper (Eds.), Rethinking social movements: Structure, meaning, and emotion (pp. 135–153). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Flatt, V. (2008). Act locally, affect globally: How changing social norms to influence the private sector shows a path to using government to control environmental harms. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 35(3), 455–479.Google Scholar
  13. Gelbspan, R. (2005). Global warming and political power. Organization and Environment, 18, 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotel rooms. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (2003). Notes from Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Third assessment report: Climate change. World Meteorological organization and United Nations Environment programme (UNEP).Google Scholar
  18. Klandermas, B., & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks, and barriers: Steps towards participation in social movements. American Sociological Review, 52, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koelen, M. A., & Lindstrom, B. (2005). Original communication: Making healthy choices easy choices: The role of empowerment. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kramer, D. (2007). Determinants and efficacy of social capital in the lake associations. Environmental Conservation, 34(3), 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lant, C., Ruhl, J., & Kraft, S. (2008). The tragedy of ecosystem services. BioScience, 58(10), 969–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis, J. S. (2006). The function of free-riders: Toward a solution to the problem of collective action. Unpublished dissertation. Bowling Green University.Google Scholar
  23. Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2008). Communication and marketing as climate change-intervention assets: A public health perspective. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 488–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maton, K. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 4–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mercuri, A., & Angelique, H. (2004). Children’s responses to natural and technological disasters. Community Mental Health Journal, 20, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pelletier, L., & Green-Demers, M. (1997). The impact of behavior difficulty on the saliency of the association between self-determined motivation and environmental behaviors. Canadian Journal of Science, 29(3), 157–165.Google Scholar
  28. Pruneau, D., Doyon, A., Langis, J., & Vasseur, L. (2006). When teachers adopt environmental behaviors in the aim of protecting the climate. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(3), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, R. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  31. Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reich, M. R. (1991). Toxic politics: Responding to chemical disasters. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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 Community Psychology, 23, 657–676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryland, E. (2006). Gaia rising: A jungian look at environmental consciousness and sustainable organizations. Organization and Environment, 13, 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Speth, J. G. (2005). The single greatest threat. Harvard International Review, 27(2), 18–23.Google Scholar
  36. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Uzzell, D. (1999). Education for environmental action in the community: New roles and relationships. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vasi, I. B., & Macy, M. (2003). The mobilizer’s dilemma: Crisis, empowerment and collective action. Social Forces, 81(3), 979–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wall, G. (1995). Barriers to individual environmental action: The influence of attitudes and social experiences. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 32(4), 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walsh, E. J. (1988). Democracy in the shadows: Citizen mobilization in the wake of the accident at Three Mile Island. NY: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  41. Walsh, E. J., & Warland, R. (1983). Social movement involvement in the wake of a nuclear accident: Activists and free-riders in the TMI area. American Sociological Review, 48, 764–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Webb, D. B. (1989). PBB: An environmental contamination in Michigan. Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zimmerman, M. A. (1989). The relationship between political efficacy and citizen participation: Construct validation studies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(3), 554–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HarrisburgUSA
  2. 2.School of Behavioral Sciences and EducationPennsylvania State UniversityMiddletownUSA

Personalised recommendations