Green householders, stakeholder citizenship and sustainability

Abstract

In light of recent interest in theories of green citizenship, citizens' reported values in relation to policy for household sustainability are examined. Theory is combined with an empirical study of citizen attitudes in order to ask how established conceptions of citizenship might obstruct or foster opportunities for the practices that greens advocate. A prevailing conception of ‘stakeholder’ citizenship is outlined, and a critical pragmatic theoretical framework is introduced to establish some explanatory propositions. Stakeholder citizenship is oriented towards sustainable development, but in problematic ways. Stakeholder citizenship promotes individual self-responsibility within a growth-oriented economy: it is the form that citizenship takes as the state embraces ‘weak’ ecological modernisation. On the other hand, self-responsible stakeholder citizens are increasingly aware that individual contributions to structural problems are insufficient. Further debate is needed in green political theory on the status of citizenship as both a political and cultural phenomenon, and in policy circles over how best to leverage contemporary forms of citizenship for green ends.

Keywords:

• green citizenship
• personal responsibility
• environmental awareness
• political obligations
• environmental ethics

Acknowledgements

A portion of the research for this article was supported by Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, LP0990509. The authors thank John Barry and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and comments.

Notes

1. Local Concern (F(6, 284) = 2.57, p < 0.05,  ω = 0.18), Pro-Growth Attitudes (F(6, 275) = 2.54, p < 0.05,  ω = 0.18), Human Responsibility for Action on Climate Change (F(6, 247) = 2.20, p < 0.05,  ω = 0.17), Personal/Citizen Responsibility for Climate Change (F(6, 262) = 2.70, p < 0.05,  ω = 0.19), Support for Government Action on Climate Change (F(6, 234) = 2.35, p < 0.05,  ω = 0.18), and Urgency for Change (F(6, 266) = 2.30, p < 0.05,  ω = 0.17).

2. Greater/higher subscales: General Concern for the Environment (t(259) = 2.66, p < 0.05, r = 0.16); Pro-growth Attitudes (t(260) =−2.37, p < 0.05, r = 0.15); Personal Responsibility (t(257) = 2.91, p < 0.05, r = 0.18); Urgency for Change (t(264) = 2.28, p < 0.05, r = 0.14); Degree of Altruism (t(246) = 1.98, p < 0.05, r = 0.13) and for Pro-green Behaviour (t(284) = 3.51, p < 0.05, r = 0.20).

3. Greater/higher Local Need for Change (t(294) = 2.10, p < 0.05, r = 0.12); support for Pro-green Attitudes (t(266) = 2.94, p < 0.05, r = 0.18); both Human Responsibility for Action on Climate Change (t(247) = 2.37, p < 0.05, r = 0.15) and Personal Responsibility (t(248) = 2.17, p < 0.05, r = 0.14); control (t(236) = 1.99, p < 0.05, r = 0.13); Degree of Altruism (t(268) = 3.45, p < 0.05, r = 0.21) and tendency for Pro-green Behaviour (t(274) = 3.86, p < 0.05, r = 0.23).