Factors influencing urban environmental sustainability actions─an investigation on urban public space in the study area

ABSTRACT

What are patterns, outcomes, and factors emerging from the urban environmental sustainability actions? To what extent do the conditions of action arenas facilitate urban environmental actions? In this research, the community-level public space named ‘neighbourhood activity centres’ in Taipei City is observed and investigated. Besides the field observation effort, a data set is established with the combination of subjective and objective data sources collected from a questionnaire investigation (255 units of observations) and the governmental open data systems. After employing ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis, the author concludes that environmental friendly facilities (such as aquaponics systems), environmental tendency of the communities, exhibition of policies or regulations and action networks among participants, could facilitate the outcomes of urban environmental sustainability movement. However, the diversity among the participants negatively affects the relationships between some external factors and action outcomes. The divergence in actor preference increases the required transaction costs in the consensus process due to time-consuming communication and compromise. This study thus proposes recommendations, such as benchmark Lis and neighbourhood associations, as policy application that could enhance municipal implementation of sustainability policies.

KEYWORDS:

• Urban governance
• sustainable development
• environmental protection
• Urban Public Space

1. Introduction

Environmental protection of earth resources are fundamental concepts in sustainable environmental development and encompass the protection of marine ecology, forests, and soil. Urban environmental governance, by definition, is a reaction to the awareness of sustainability policy problems, and involves in the dynamic interaction among urban policy networks of environmentalists, economic developers, civic leaders and ordinary citizens (Hempel 2009, p. 41). The cognition of the needs of citizen participation mechanisms emerges along with the demands for life quality and community sustainable development. Urban environmental sustainability is referred to sustainable biological resource use, the adaptability for carrying capacity, and the development of sustainable society and economy (Brown et al. 1987, p. 713–719). Community public spaces can be used as action arenas for the successive implementation of urban environmental strategy plans, green economic development plans, and measures for environmental protection in everyday life (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009). This implementation can involve sustainable community development and ecological preservation and the enhancement of green jobs’ visibility. These spaces can also be used as places for green industries to congregate and to accelerate the development of renewable energy technology and regional green energy public construction to achieve the effect of economies of scale. Municipal governments can also provide urban environmental action arenas, using the accessibility of public spaces to prompt urban residents to participate in environmental action.

The significance of this research is the emphasis on urban public space – the patterns, outcomes and factors emerging from citizen participation dynamics. Previous studies placed the lenses on the complex interrelationships among human, environment and other creatures, and the discussion of the policy options towards environmental sustainability and the balanced ecology systems (Folke et al. 2002; Berkes 2004; Mitchell and Lankao 2004). Some literature promoted urban adaptive management strategies (Clark et al. 2004; Gallopin 2004) in response to social uncertainty and the various demands from urban actors. Based on an empirical investigation, this study attempts to contribute to community-oriented adaptation regarding locally and contextually specified nature. What are the patterns of urban environmental sustainability action in the community-level public space? What are the results and influencing factors of these actions? To what extent do the conditions of the study arenas facilitate urban environmental actions? Empirical data were collected from the observations and the investigation of a set of public space action arenas in Taipei city, namely neighbourhood activity centres. This selection was made primarily due to the public accessibility of Taipei neighbourhood activity centres; they are often adjacent to the office of each Li – a community-level administrative unit under the managerial structure of the municipal government – with their geographic locations distributed in the living areas of residents. Resident usage of the offices is not exclusive or monopolistic. Because the locations are within the spheres of residents’ everyday lives, with some neighbourhood activity centres directly located within communities (i.e., neighbourhood activity centres in certain public housing areas), these centres are universally accessible public spaces for residents. Furthermore, from 1999 to 2016, the Taipei City Government expended a budget of NT$1,574,015,674 (around USD 53,609,253.96 USD) to subsidise the rent of spaces for neighbourhood activity centres. In 2015 alone, 301 fixed neighbourhood activity centres and 495 temporary centres were subsidised.¹ The Taipei City Government has invested substantial resources in public spaces for resident activities.

This study used ‘Li’, a sub-administrative-unit under municipal districts, as the unit of analysis to explore the urban action patterns, and the influencing factors of urban environmental sustainability actions. The variety of green actions implemented by Taipei neighbourhood activity centres was studied to identify the contexts and key factors of environmental sustainability actions in Taipei City. The experience of Taipei could provide a reference for other cities and thereby improve the effectiveness of overall sustainability actions.

2. Literature review

Urban public spaces can be used as action arenas for environmental governance (Chen 2020). Essentially, urban environmental governance action is a management behaviour directed at natural resources. Research on environmental governance focuses on discussions of the nonexclusive use of environmental resources as a public good or common pool (Portney 2003; Fitzgerald 2010; Chen and Chen 2018; Chen 2019). The difficulty of assigning accountability for the use of public goods such as public spaces, air, and water, however, has prompted the tragedy of the commons (Maaravi et al. 2021; Vyse 2021; Frischmann et al. 2019; Leonhardt 2009; Ostrom 2005; Wilson 1985; Dales 1968; Hardin 1968; Gordon 1954, p. 124). Public rangelands are commonly used to illustrate this. If every household allows its livestock to graze on public rangelands unchecked, the natural resources of public spaces are eventually exhausted, the grassland disappears, and no livestock can graze again. An example is urban environmental governance action; the effects of urbanisation mean that urban expansion is difficult to control, and spillover effects are evident. Urban air, green space, and landscape resources belong to no one, and the enjoyment and usage of these resources is nonexclusive. Excessive consumption, thoughtless waste, or reckless sacrifice of the environment for economic development results in irreparable damage to resources and the environment, ultimately harming everyone.

Environmental governance behaviour in public space assumes the rational self-interest of each actor. To maximise personal interest, the actor selects the decision most favourable for themselves. Due to their distrust of others, expectation of betrayal and opportunistic behaviour (Cheung 1974, 1983; Hashimoto 1979; Barzel 1982, 1989; Feiock 2007) causes the actor to further neglect consideration of others’ positions. Short-sighted, limited rationality has become a strategy for maximising personal interest, and the tragedy of the commons often becomes the outcome of collective behaviour.

Ostrom (2007) indicated that through self-organisation for the purposes of collective action, individual rationality can be used in a constructive manner. Although the starting point of actors is entirely selective rationality, they may become aware of the advantages of abiding by institutions. The long-term rules of the game of survival in society or in groups are such that, because interactions occur among people or groups, actors become aware that they may be regarded as black sheep or may see advantages in enhancing their reputations in the group. Therefore, actors adopt collective rationality, a strategy to maximise public interest based on collective interests. This tendency towards collective public interest causes collective rationality to become possible and thereby forms a balanced system of collective action. Namely, this balanced form of environmental self-organisation that considers public interest and the consequences of collective action means that actors abide by new game rules. In addition, these collective actions that maximise public interest render environmental management actions effective.

Ostrom’s ‘Institutional Analysis Development (IAD) Framework’ (Ostrom 2007) supports the possibility of engagement in self-organisation by participants in a dynamic system. Namely, it is a possible practice of dynamic equilibrium and can be continuously adjusted to maintain the collective interest of self-organisation. The present study considers the collective interests of urban environmental sustainability actions and the autonomy of participants in actions. The contextual factors in the IAD framework (including exogenous variables and action arena factors) were adopted in this research, which indicates that self-organisation behaviours require the support of network factors (Shown as Figure 1). The results of collective interest, urban environmental sustainable development, may thereby be achieved.

Figure 1. Institutional analysis development framework, IAD framework.

Source: Adapted from E. Ostrom (2007)

The formation of a self-organisation system that affects the environment involves the discussions of the exogenous variables of collective action, the situations in action arenas, interaction patterns, and results. The action arena can be viewed as the primary space for the operation of actors’ self-organisation systems. The investigated content comprises the actors and situations of actions. Actors are participants in system operation and the protagonists of behaviour, and they engage in action in particular situations, which can be informational situations or can involve various tangible and intangible conditions, such as interactive networks. Exogenous variables that affect action arenas comprise tangible spatial conditions, descriptive community attributes, and game rules applicable subject to a consensus of action characteristics. Exogenous variables affect the operation of action arenas and indirectly affect action results.

1. Exogenous variables of urban environmental sustainability actions: physical and material conditions, community attributes, and rules-in-use

Discussions of exogenous variables in self-organisation systems can comprise physical or material conditions, community attributes, and rules-in-use. First, the influence of ‘physical or material conditions’ focuses on a discussion of the practicality of actions in physical or material conditions, the possible results generated by behavioural results in specific material conditions, the connection between behaviours and results, and the effects of the material world on information obtained by actors (Ostrom 2007, p. 39). Topics that may be mentioned include discussions of natural capital, production capital, and human capital (Wang and Chung 2015, p. 97–100; Ekins 2003; De Groot et al. 2002). Shih-Chi and Chen (2008) found that the selection of physical material affects indoor environments. Environmental improvement plans include measures involving the use of green building materials, a labelling mechanism for healthy furnishing, and diagnosis mechanisms for healthy indoor environments. By extending the discussion to the physical and material conditions of urban sustainable environmental governance, an allusion can be made to the spatial conditions of environmental actions. Subject to limits in urban public space, the aforementioned improvements comprise environmental or greening actions that are possible in limited space, facilities that can be installed, and natural lighting.

Second, ‘community attributes’ refer to the intangible attributes of actors such as tendency, preference, cognition, and culture, which greatly influence tangible actions and decision-making. Specific community traits can comprise the norms of behaviour commonly understood by participating members, culture, homogeneity in preference, and preferences in the distribution of resources (Ostrom 2007, p. 43). For those who possess public financial resources, if members establish a common understanding on values and interaction models, the scope included by this group’s self-organisation system expands substantially (Taylor 1987). Intangible cultural or atmospheric factors in action arenas, such as cognition, tendencies, and values, are often crucial for influencing the effectiveness of actions. Jeng (2000) focused on the Water Conservation Region in Shuangxi District, New Taipei City to investigate the role of community organisations in environmental sustainability actions and found that the shaping of vision in community culture can establish common understanding within a community and promote the formation of a larger scale operating organisation. Extending the discussion on the exogenous variable – community attributes – to urban environmental sustainability action, may point to observations of communities’ environmental protection tendencies. The tendencies in question specifically manifest as the green consumption preferences, environmental consciousness, and acceptance of environmental education expressed in neighbourhood activities.

Third, the ‘rules’ that influence action arenas refer to written or unwritten norms that restrict or prohibit certain behaviours by actors, define certain behaviours as deviation, or stipulate the types of behaviours required or permitted. The purpose of these rules is to establish the order of human behaviour and to add predictability to behaviour (Ostrom 1991; Crawford and Ostrom 2005). In practice, institutional factors affect the decision-making of local governments and the implementation of various policies. Chen (2010) conducted a study on collective action in community development in Jenju Community of Dongshan Township, Yilan County, Taiwan, and found that the establishment of a monitoring and incentive mechanism could mitigate the dilemma of collective action and effectively reduce free-riding behaviour.

Action arenas for urban environmental sustainability: Action situations and actors

The action arena refers to social activities in which individual actors engage in interactions, exchange goods and services, solve problems, and support or dominate one another. The constituent elements of the action arena comprise action situations and actors. Action situations are interaction situations or structures that provide actors with motivations for action and define cognitive structure, whereas the actors are individual or group participants involved in an action.

The description and interpretation of ‘action situations’ enables researchers to isolate the factors and concepts of human behaviour process and its results and thus form research variables. Action situation could emerge from participant types and their positions, permissible behaviour patterns in the action context, ongoing results of individual behaviour, information held by the actors regarding situation structures, and cost-benefit considerations forming behaviour motivation or resistance (Ostrom et al. 1993, 1994). Furthermore, the ‘actor’ is a key element in the action arena. Per assumptions of self-interest and bounded rationality, the actor undertakes appropriate actions in known behaviour situations. Researchers can generalise according to actor types. The decision-making strategies of various types of actors can differ according to their measured benefits and gains and losses as well as preferred outcomes (Radnitzky 1987).

1. Outcomes of urban environmental sustainability actions: patterns of interactions, outcomes, and evaluative criteria

In the discussion of an autonomous management system for public spaces, exogenous variables affect the operation of ‘action arenas.’ ‘Patterns of interactions’ and ‘outcomes’ generated by actors, both of which are affected by ‘evaluative criteria,’ are the results of actions. According to Ostrom’s (2007, p. 33–35) explanation, the evaluative criteria of outcomes comprise economic efficiency, fiscal equivalence, re-distributional equity, accountability, conformance to general morality, and adaptability. However, enabling outcomes to meet all evaluative criteria is complex and difficult. Therefore, compromise is often necessary as opposed to satisfying all criteria.

Summarising the aforementioned literature, the discussion of an autonomous management system for public spaces is focused on exogenous variables (physical or material conditions, community attributes, and rules), action arenas (action situations and actors), and post-arena elements (patterns of interactions, outcomes, and evaluative criteria). Urban environmental sustainability actions take the form of collective actions among urban members with the purposes to construct green spaces for offsetting the public resource problems of overconsumption. Urban residents can make extensive use of urban public spaces, as their action arenas, and actively engage in greening and energy-saving actions, with the costs paid or borne collectively and the respective achievements shared collectively. The relevance and research value of the ‘neighbourhood activity centre’ lies in its ability to serve as a source arena for urban environmental sustainability actions because of the non-exclusivity of public space usage and finiteness of environmental resources. The conditions and equipment inside the ‘neighbourhood activity centre’ server the roles (or functions) as ‘physical and material conditions’ addressed by the IAD framework. The characteristics and preference of citizen participants represent the ‘community attributes’, and the regulations as well as policies for the use of space reflect the ‘rules-in-use’ concept of IAD. Actors and their interaction patterns inside the neighbourhood activity centres illustrate what happens within the action arenas in the real world. And the evaluative criteria could be objective or subjective rating, to tell how well the outcomes of the urban environmental sustainability actions can achieve in the public space action arena. By nature, neighbourhood activity centres are suitable as an analysis target for autonomous resource management systems. In relation to urban environmental sustainability actions based in public space action arenas, the present study employs a two-stage research design to answer questions such as whether its current action pattern, influencing factors, and post-arena action output facilitate environmental sustainability actions in Lis.

3. Research design

This study adopted a two-stage research design. The first stage employed a field observation approach in which 68 observation records were used to compile relevant influencing factors for urban environmental sustainability actions, and the causal relationship of variables was constructed after dialogue with theory. The second stage employed a questionnaire survey to collect quantitative data. Objective data with measurability was integrated; after the integration of the database, statistical analysis methods were used to test the causal relationship between variables. The process is explained as follows.

Field observation

This study began with field observation. There were 68 trained observers who entered the field of neighborhood activity centers in Taipei City to observe and document the spatial conditions and environmental action patterns unobtrusively. Observers must be aware of their various selves when in the field: their research-based selves and situationally created selves (Reinharz 1997). The 68 observers were taught to comply with the observation’s code of conduct, for example, don’t involve in any form of intervening act during the observation, be polite to the Li chief and inform him/her in advance about the observation activities, take pictures of space conditions as well as its facilities/equipment, depict the participants’ actions and their interaction, describe the features of the participants, take immediate notes if they obtain any information from Li chiefs, etc.

Complying with the code of conduct, the observers observed and recorded spatial conditions and operating patterns. The observation notes provided an unconstrained record of observed phenomena and relevant opinions. Observers were required to complete “Observation diary” on the observation day or the following day and to prepare the observation record in the subsequent week (or when they were outside the observation situation). The design of Table 1 was revised from the observation record table of Brower and Jeong (2007).

Table 1. Observation records

Conditions and situations	Background conditions, conditions of situation
e.g., facilities	Description of spatial conditions: space size, cleanliness, lighting equipment, et cetera.
e.g., natural lighting	Description of observed situations.
e.g., environmental protection atmosphere in field	Community environmental protection tendencies.
e.g., environmental protection regulations and posted signs	Presence of environmental protection regulations and signs at the site.
Observation situation	Actions/Interactions
e.g., participant category	Number of, divergence, and consistency of categories.
e.g., problem solving	Observation of interaction situation and description of decision-making approach.
Consequences	Outcomes and Consequences
e.g., energy saving and carbon-reduction results	Description of specific energy-saving and carbon-reduction results.
e.g., green industry chain	Explanation of specific green economic development and the role of the green industry chain.

Source: Revised from Brower and Jeong (2007)

The observed field was initially set as fixed neighborhood activity centers in Lis selected by the Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government from 12 administrative districts (one Li selected from each district). Participant observation was conducted in these recommended Lis to use the benchmark of “star Lis” for investigating sustainable environment action patterns that may emerge from well-functioning Li mechanisms. These patterns were used to illustrate a model for the operational dynamics of the benchmark field and thereby construct the measurement items of a quantitative questionnaire. Namely, the selection of samples in this stage of field observation identifies ideals to be used for establishing measurement items or related benchmarks. The subsequent questionnaire was a survey.

The researchers first sent an official document to Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government to invite them as the cooperating agency. In the invitation letter, the researchers clarify the research objectives and request their assistance in providing the list of recommended Lis and the relevant contact information. The Department of Civil Affairs was then asked to assist with the distribution and collection of the paper questionnaire. When the observers contacted with the Li chiefs managing the listed 12 neighborhood activity centers, there is no reply from the chief of Guangneng Li in Datong District. For the remaining 11 neighborhood activity centers, the observers were able to successfully enter the observation fields. The researchers communicated with Li chiefs in advance regarding the acceptable number of observers and conducted observations with the agreed number of observers. Notably, based on the information acquired during observation, the researchers learned of ongoing Li environmental protection activities in other locations. Therefore, two more observation activity locations were arranged. During the observation period of Oct. 1. 2017 ~ Jan. 3. 2018, this study completed 68 observation records with a total of 13 observation locations. The list of administrative districts, observed locations, observation date and number of observation reports are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Field/location observation log

Administrative district	Observed location	Date	Number of observation reports
Zhongshan District	Longjiang Park, Jiangshan Li (Mid-Autumn Festival Activity)	Oct. 1. 2017	7
Zhongshan District	Jiangshan Li neighbourhood activity centre	Nov. 12. 2017	5
Songshan District	Jieshou Li neighbourhood activity centre	Oct. 24. 2017	6
Nangang District	Hongfu Li neighbourhood activity centre	Nov. 6. 2017	4
Zhongzheng District	Yongchang Li neighbourhood activity centre	Dec. 7. 2017	7
Daan District	Hushiau Li neighbourhood activity centre	Nov. 18. 2017	6
Wenshan District	Xingbang Li neighbourhood activity centre	Nov. 30. 2017	6
Shilin District	Fuzhi Li neighbourhood activity centre	Jan. 3. 2018	1
Shilin District	Tianyu Li neighbourhood activity centre	Dec. 22. 2017	3
Beitou District	Ronghua Li neighbourhood activity centre	Oct. 19. 2017	5
Xinyi District	Songguang Li neighbourhood activity centre	Nov. 17. 2017	5
Wanhua District	Xinzhong Li neighbourhood activity centre	Dec. 7. 2017	7
Neihu District	Xikang Li neighbourhood activity centre	Oct. 11. 2017	6
Total = 11 administrative districts	Total = 13 observed locations	Total = 13 observation time points	Total = 68 observation records

Source: the author

This study encoded and constructed concepts based on data from first-hand observation records. The data processing approach comprised three steps (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Brower and Jeong 2007): (1) open coding, in which the observation records are carefully scanned, and any “concepts” or meaningful fragments in the text are labeled; (2) axial coding, where categorization begins, and a conceptual prototype of causal relationships is constructed; and (3) selective coding, which extends and refines the steps of axial coding, and a causal model is constructed. For the selective coding operation of the third step, connections with the IAD analysis framework were established in the literature review of this study to formulate framework concepts and causal relationships suited for the subjects in this study. The conceptual coding of the field observation records and a comparison between theoretical and practical cases are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Conceptual coding of data from field observation records

Open coding	Axial Coding	Selective Coding
Labelled observations or material in source data of relevance and value for urban environmental sustainability	Concept categorisation/ labelling	Causal relationship of refined concepts – corresponding positions of system analysis and IAD framework and the variable concepts extended by this study
Established aquaponic system, used energy-saving light bulbs and energy-saving lamps and fans, used LED streetlight bulbs, replaced T9 or T8 tubes with T5 tubes, replaced halogen bulbs with LED or energy-saving bulbs	Sustainable facilities	Exogenous variable – physical and material conditions (spatial conditions)
Installed Glass wall to increase natural lighting	Natural lighting	Exogenous variable – physical and material conditions (spatial conditions)
Placed trash cans and recycling bins along the road, setup of recycling booths and garbage collection areas, setup of recycling centre …	Cleanliness	Exogenous variable – physical and material conditions (spatial conditions)
Paper cups not provided during activities, thermos use encouraged, disposable tableware not provided, ceramic or plastic water cups used, and environmentally friendly tableware used in all meals for seniors	Environmental friendliness of Li activities	Exogenous variable – community attributes (community environmental attributes)
Maintained good ventilation; used only one air-conditioning unit in summer, provided residences, offices, and shops with bags for paper (the district cleaning team then collects bags and sends them to the Neihu Refuse Incineration Plant for consolidated incineration); rewarded Li residents with environmental protection prize	Environmental consciousness	Exogenous variable – community attributes (community environmental attributes)
Ran environmental education courses, waste recycling, and reuse workshops	Attitude to environmental education	Exogenous variable – community attributes (community environmental attributes)
Enlarged fonts for signs on recycling trash cans, displayed notices on whiteboards and bulletin boards promoting environmental protection, enabled disposal of toilet paper in toilets, provided reusable bags, installed no smoking signs on the premises and other reminders, e.g., to turn off lights when not in use, unplug unused electrical appliances, and to reduce air-conditioning use and not set temperatures below 26°C. Posted notices promoting park cleaning. Posted relevant environmental regulations next to public facilities. Posted promotional notices for community social activities and community recycling, signboards for garbage collection points. Posted clear environmental protection regulations and codes of conduct at the neighbourhood activity centres or parks	Promotion of environmental protection regulations	Exogenous variable – rules – operating level: the extent to which on-site actions comply with environmental protection regulations and implement environmental protection policies (environmental protection regulations)
Facilitated Li chief’s management of the Facebook fan page, regularly announced resident activities, established Li donation boxes, contacted residents/etc through a mobile application, promoted actions/measures at the municipal level, …	Information delivery channels	Action arena – action situations (environmental sustainability action network)
Established community associations. Li chiefs or neighbourhood chiefs distributed ‘lucky bags,’ visited residents, formed Li disaster response teams, formed Li chief service teams, formed community patrol teams, and regularly scheduled environmental community volunteer team activities	Forms of interaction and participation in the field	Action arena – action situations (environmental sustainability action network)
Participants: Government: Taipei Municipal Refuse Incineration Plant, Department of Environmental Protection Resident: (1) Primarily seniors (2) All ages (3) In the afternoon, mostly seniors, followed by middle-aged residents; in the evening, more young people (4) Primarily middle-aged (especially wealthy women) (5) Li residents (fewer) and non-residents (more) Volunteers, crossing guards, service personnel School: (1) Co-organised activities with elementary schools such that children were led by older participants (2) Invited external lecturers Group: established recycling stations, temples, markets, firms, and shops in conjunction with Tzu Chi	Participant type (group diversity and age diversity)	Action arena – actors (diversity of action participant types)
Outcome patterns: Hosted activities: disinfection for dengue virus, park cleaning, disposal of large waste furniture, cleaning by community park volunteers, weekend environmental protection activities, activities for waste sorting in exchange for prizes, a neighbourhood environmental protection meeting, activities for recycling in exchange for small prizes (twice monthly), launch of a resource remuneration fund, exchange of home recyclables (batteries, broken electric fans) for daily necessities (firewood, rice, oil, salt) or small gifts; mountaineering activities to promote environmental protection, recycling activities with game levels, recycling of empty polyethylene terephthalate bottles to make reusable bags Used energy-saving transportation (electric motorcycles), recycling and relocation of discarded automobiles and motorcycles, planning of green pedestrian paths and bicycle lanes Facilitated environmental greening: ‘happy Li gardens,’ community farms, wall planting, vacant lot greening, planning for the repurposing of weed-filled lots as parks, planting of turf and trees, equipment upgrading, beautification and greening of spaces in several areas, adoption of farms vegetable gardens by residents, modification of most vacant lots into community vegetable gardens, neighbourhood parks, green corridors, cleanup of abandoned dormitory spaces to plant organic vegetables Received the second place award in the Taipei City Summer Energy Conservation Competition; passed the evaluation for the Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification by the Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan; received the Li Performance Award for the Energy Conservation and Carbon Reduction activity mark by the Environmental Protection Administration; Excellent Neighbourhood Park; received the second place award in the Li Overall Development Competition; received an award for Excellence in the Low-Carbon Group in the Golden Energy Conservation Awards presented by the Department of Environmental Protection, Taipei City Government; received the Golden Energy Conservation Award, Low-Carbon Li Group, Taipei City	Subjective results: frequency of environmental sustainability–related activities, degree of environmental greening in Li, operation of recycling mechanisms, resident integration of environmental protection into everyday life Objective results: Objective rating results	Patterns of interactions, action results, evaluation criteria (urban environmental sustainability consequences)

Source: The author’s field observation records

Through field observation, this study identified definitively the spatial conditions and operating patterns of urban environmental sustainability actions. The qualitative research results inferred the operating patterns of sustainable development in urban implementation, which were employed to construct a model framework of relevant influencing factors to facilitate model corroboration with survey results in a quantitative research design. Figure 2 shows the methodological diagram—how outputs from a stage serve as inputs for the next stage. Employing three-step processing of observation data presented in Table 3 and incorporating causal relationships between variables into the IAD analysis framework, the researchers of this study inferred the research hypotheses.

Figure 2. Methodological diagram.

Source: The author

Exogenous variables determine the degree to which public space conditions support environmental sustainability actions. For example, the following influence action arena situations and participant diversity: the extent to which the physical and material conditions (e.g., spatial conditions, natural lighting, installation of environmentally sustainable equipment) are environmentally friendly, whether the culture of a public space action is conducive to an environmentally friendly atmosphere (specifically exhibited in the environmental friendliness of Li activities, environmental consciousness, and attitude to environmental education), and the adherence to and implementation of environmental protection policies at action sites. When spatial conditions promote environmental sustainability, greening, planting, light paths, energy-saving facilities, and ecological facilities all exert a guiding effect on action situations and the behavioral choices of participants. For example, the presence of an aquaponic system guides conversation topics among those present. Discussions of symbiosis in the living environments of aquatic plants and fish (in relation to which, considerable differences were noted by the author prior to and after the installation at the arena site), as well as whether spatial conditions are conducive to planting and greening, also affect participants’ willingness to contribute to environmental sustainability in the green landscape. In spatial conditions lacking sunlight and vacant land for planting, providing a space for participants to engage in relevant activities is difficult, as are interaction and expanded participation. In addition, environmental community attributes, which are exogenous variables, as well as on-site adherence to and implementation of environmental protection policies can directly influence the action situations of participants and diverse participation possibilities. This includes community culture with environmentalist attributes. During activities, participants were required to supply their own tableware, and the site provided recycling facilities. Participants also complied with waste-sorting instructions. The on-site interaction rules were further based on adherence to environmental protection policies, including low-carbon diets, low-carbon transportation, low-carbon living, low-carbon weddings, and low-carbon travel itineraries, representing various patterns of environmental sustainability actions. Due to the increasing diversity of behavior patterns, this also increased participant diversity to include participants of all ages or with all preferences to participate in environmental sustainability actions. Therefore, according to this study’s hypothesis, when more external conditions are set, action arenas operate more favorably.

Hypothesis 1: When ‘exogenous variables’ of urban environmental sustainability actions are more conducive to environmental actions, its ‘action arena’ operates more favourably.

In addition to influencing the operation status of action arenas, exogenous variables also directly influence action consequences. Specifically, when action space conditions provide sufficient facilities, natural lighting, and cleanliness and when community attributes provide an atmosphere and culture that support environmental protection, the operating rules of the space efficiently enable environmental protection policies, and relevant environmental greening measures and actions can be executed more effectively. Action results can be presented in Li greening displays and the operation of relevant mechanisms; for visible measures and activities that promote environmental protection, the living sphere extended by its action arena can also participate in each environmental sustainability evaluation mechanism. When the external conditions of an arena support environmental sustainability action, both the subjective and objective evaluation results of action consequences are more likely to be exceptionally favorable.

Hypothesis 2: When the ‘exogenous variables’ of urban environmental sustainability action are conducive to environmental actions, its ‘action consequence’ is more favourable.

(Hypothesis 3)

The operation of the action arena is the centre of the entire variable structure. In addition to being influenced by external conditions, it also directly influences action consequences. Participant diversity describes the inclusiveness and diversity of the action itself and whether a variety of preferences and needs are included in the collective actions. When the participation by and interactions among environmental sustainability action members are more favourable, information is delivered frequently, resources are exchanged frequently, and the actors interact enthusiastically. And, the favourable action consequences thus emerge.

(Hypothesis 3–1)

The resources provided by external conditions may also be enhanced during operation. In other words, action arena has a moderating effect that may strengthen the influence of exogenous variables on action consequences. Frequent network interactions can promote consensus and strengthen a collective culture and atmosphere in the field that supports the action. In this situation, relevant positive actions are easier to execute, the source of diverse information and resources may also supplement the technical aspects of environmental sustainability action, and the consequences of environmental sustainability action can be enhanced in both quality and quantity.

Hypothesis 3: When an urban environmental sustainability ‘action arena’ operates favourably, ‘action consequences’ are favourable.

Hypothesis 3–1: The urban environmental sustainability ‘action arena’ has an enhanced moderating effect on the relationship between ‘exogenous variables’ and ‘action consequences.’

Inferred from the aforementioned research hypotheses, the summarized conceptual framework is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Conceptual framework.

Source: The author

Quantitative questionnaire

After qualitative field observation, the quantitative research procedure began. A questionnaire was employed, with a survey area of neighbourhood activity centres in Taipei City. The survey content comprised centre conditions and operational information. Questionnaire respondents were asked to provide answers according to the external conditions, field operation network patterns and participant types, and consequences of environmental sustainability action in public space. Respondents have to choose the corresponding score within a 5-point Likert scale: the minimum score is ‘1’ corresponding to the least favourable conditions of the measuring indicators, the score of ‘3’ means the middle point of the favourable conditions, and the maximum score is ‘5’ corresponding to the most favourable conditions of the measuring indicators. Namely, questionnaire respondents represented the surveyed field in responding to ‘factual’ questions. Each Li has one neighbourhood activity centre. Five respondents participated from each Li: the Li chief, the Li officer (Taipei City is the only city in Taiwan with a Li officer at every Li), and three resident participants residing in the field. The unit of analysis for this research, ‘Li,’ used the mean scores of five questionnaire respondents to represent a Li’s measured score. To avoid common variance, the operationalised measurements of the independent and dependent variables included as much objective measurement data as possible, acquired from government public databases rather than entirely from questionnaire data.

The questionnaire was distributed to 301 Lis in Taipei City with neighbourhood activity centres, and 255 valid questionnaire responses were obtained, providing a response rate of 84.72%. The number of valid Li samples exceeded the observed value of 235, which was the result of sample calculation at a confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 3%.

In this study, the exogenous variables, action arenas, and action consequences of urban environmental sustainability action were explored, with the Lis of Taipei City adopted as the unit of analysis. Per the design of the conceptual framework and using the external conditions of action arenas as the primary independent variable, this study analysed the field situations and implementation results of urban environmental sustainability action in various spatial, awareness, and regulatory conditions. Table 4 summarises the corresponding variables, conceptual measurements, and operational indicators or key points of questionnaire items. The newly included objective indicators and measurements are also detailed in Table 4:

Five expert validity tests were conducted. The participants of expert validity tests comprised the following: the Officer of the Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government; the Officer of the Wenshan District Office, Taipei City; the Li chief of Taipei City; and two scholars. The selection of participants for expert validity was based on the municipal, district, and Li levels, with one tester from each level. The intention for the method was to include various measurement targets of the actual field situation by means of a questionnaire reviewed by practitioners at various levels. Regarding experts and scholars in academia, university professors who had served on the evaluation committee of a Taipei City neighborhood activity center were invited to inspect the development of factor structure in the scales by using their professional research capabilities. After five validity tests and revision in the operationalization of measuring concepts, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to establish whether the concept associated with each independent or dependent variable can be used to extract indicator measurement concepts. The acceptance range of factor loading value is greater than 0.70 with the Eigenvalue >1. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy associated with the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity for significance testing also reflect the suitability of the data for factor analysis. The acceptance range of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity significance is smaller than 0.05. In addition to the aforementioned CFA, this study also featured reliability analysis and testing of the scales. The acceptance range of Cronbach’s a reliability is greater than 0.7.

The analysis results show that the operationalized measurements in this study all passed the tests. Table 5 summarizes the operationalization of conceptual variables as well as the reliability and validity test results for the data sources and questionnaire. The coding procedures operate with the establishment of a set of objective measurement data and a questionnaire survey data set, with the unit of analysis of Li. The objective data source are mainly from the government open data systems, or provided by Taipei City Government (requested by the author). The questionnaire questions, coding method as well as source of data are also displayed in Table 5.

Table 4. Variables, conceptual measurements, and operational indicators

Variable	Conceptual measurements	Operational indicators/key points of questionnaire items
Independent variable: exogenous variable	Spatial conditions	Space size (unit: ping; 1 ping = 3.3057 square metre) natural lighting, cleanliness, sustainable facilities
	Community environmental attributes	Environmental friendliness of Li activities, environmental consciousness, and attitude to environmental education
	Environmental protection regulations	Promotion of environmental protection regulations, understanding of government environmental protection policies and regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘government policies and regulations’), subsidies for compliance with environmental protection policies and regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘compliance subsidies’)
Independent variable and moderating variable: action arena	Environmental sustainability action network	Interactions, forms of participation, and information delivery channels in the field
	Diversity of action participant types	Diversity of participant types (individual participants, local groups, groups of a specific nature such as religious and cultural groups, private enterprises) and diversity of participants’ ages (traditional generation; baby boomer generation; generations X, Y, and Z)
Dependent variable: Urban environmental sustainability action consequences	Subjective consequences	Perception of environmental sustainability consequences, resident integration of environmentalism into everyday life
	Objective consequences	Evaluation results such as certification of low-carbon sustainable homes (objective measurements)

Source: The author

Table 5. Operationalisation of conceptual variables, reliability, and validity tests of data sources and questionnaire^2.

Dimension	Conceptual definition	Operationalised measurements – objective indicators & data sources
Objective indicators
Exogenous variables	Spatial conditions	Space size (area): neighbourhood activity centre area (ping), data source: Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government; obtained by the author.
Urban environmental sustainability action consequences – objective consequences		Success of 2017 Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification, data source: ‘Certification Progress Inquiry’ system from the Low Carbon Sustainable Information System of the Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan. https://lcss.epa.gov.tw/LcssViewPage/Evaluate/EvalSearch.aspx
Control variables	Li population	Total Li population in January 2018, data source: Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government; obtained by the author.
	Li taxable income	The total amount of various types of income for tax units in Lis (unit: NT$1,000), data source: government open information platform – Table 166-A (2016), statistical table of types of income for each county, township, and Li. Generation date: 14 April 2018. Provided by: Fiscal Information Agency, Ministry of Finance. https://ws.fia.gov.tw/001/upload/ias/isa105/105_166-A.html
	Neighbourhood fund subsidisation of environmental protection and other activities	2017 neighbourhood funds, data source: Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government; obtained by the author.
Dimension	Conceptual definition	Operationalised measurements – subjective evaluation (questionnaire) (5-point Likert scale)	Factor loading
Subjective indicators (using mean score of five observers in each Li)
Exogenous variables	Spatial conditions	Natural lighting: How do you feel about the ‘natural lighting’ in this space?	0.87
		Cleanliness: How do you feel about the ‘cleanliness’ of this space?	0.88
		Sustainable facilities: How do you feel about the situation of environmental protection-related facilities installed in this space? (energy-saving, environmental protection, renewable energy, ecological facilities, such as the use of LED lamps, energy-saving air-conditioning equipment, and aquaponic systems)	0.85
		Eigenvalue	2.26
		Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sampling adequacy value	0.72
		Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance	0.00
		Cronbach’s α reliability	0.83
	Community environmental attributes	Environmental friendliness of Li activities: How do you feel about the environmental protection activities in your Li? (specifically exhibited in the use of environmentally friendly goods; local agricultural products; energy-saving equipment; and other sustainable goods such as environmentally friendly tableware and bags exclusively for paper money to consolidate paper money incineration)?	0.91
		Environmental consciousness: What do you think about the environmental consciousness of residents in your Li?	0.95
		Attitude to environmental education: What do you think about Li residents’ attitude to environmental education courses?	0.96
		Eigenvalue	2.65
		Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sampling adequacy value	0.74
		Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance	0.00
		Cronbach’s α reliability	0.93
	Environmental protection regulations: extent of regulation implementation in the field	Understanding of government policies: How well do you understand ‘government environmental sustainability policies’ and regulations in relation to the creation of a low-carbon sustainable society, the promotion of environmentally friendly products, and green consumption? Explanation: The questionnaire respondents were the Li chief, the Li officer, and three resident users. The purpose of this question was to measure the understanding of resident users of neighbourhood activity centres regarding the relevant regulations and to use this measure for identifying environmental protection regulations that can potentially be practiced in neighbourhood activity fields.	0.93
		Promotion of environmental protection regulations: What do you think of the visibility of ‘informational materials for environmental protection regulations’ (promotional material) posted in neighbourhood activity centres in your Li? Explanation: Informational materials on environmental protection regulations convey relevant information on regulations and thereby improve implementation. Therefore, the visibility of relevant informational materials was used to measure the potential implementation of regulations in a field.	0.91
		Subsidies for compliance with environmental protection policies and regulations: Has this Li received many subsidies for cooperation with government policies? Explanation: This study attempted to quantify the degree to which the field implemented environmental protection regulations, and used subsidy amounts obtained from complying with policies and regulations as an operationalised measurement of implementation.	0.85
		Eigenvalue	2.41
		Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sampling adequacy value	0.71
		Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance	0.00
		Cronbach’s α reliability	0.87
Action arena	Environmental sustainability action network	Interaction within the field: During environmental sustainability–related resident activities, how do you feel about the frequency of “interaction” among participants in neighbourhood activity centres?^3	0.94
		Information delivery channels: What do you think of your Li’s informational interactions regarding environmental sustainability activities online through social media or fan groups? (e.g., Facebook fan pages, Line groups, Li mobile applications, and official websites)	0.91
		Form of participation: What do you think of the “participation level of residents” for regular or functional volunteer groups involved in environmental sustainability in your Li? (e.g., community development associations, Li disaster response teams, and community environmental protection volunteer teams)^4	0.95
		Eigenvalue	2.62
		Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sampling adequacy value	0.74
		Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance	0.00
		Cronbach’s α reliability	0.92
	Diversity of action participants^5	Diversity of participant “types”: What types of activity participants are in the neighbourhood activity centres in your Li? (This is a multiple response question. Participants can have overlapping identities in type categorisation, please score them according to their category). Please score according to participation level, with a score of 5 indicating considerable participation and 1 indicating little participation. 1–1.Individual participants: such as neighbourhood volunteers and residents 1–2. Participants in local groups such as neighbouring schools and community development committees 1–3. Participants in groups for specific purposes such as religious groups and cultural promotion groups 1–4. Private enterprise participants such as a private telecommunications company providing smartphone operation education 1–5.Other (Coding: Calculate number of types with a score of 3 or more)	0.90
		Diversity of participant ‘age’: Ages of the participants in the neighbourhood activity centre? Please score according to the level of participation, with a score of 5 indicating considerable participation and a score of 1 indicating little participation. 2–1. Traditional generation: those born prior to 1945 (73 years and older) 2–2. Baby boomer generation: those born between 1946 and 1964 (54–72 years old) 2–3. Generation X: those born between 1965 and 1980 (38–53 years old) 2–4. Generation Y: those born between 1981 and 1994 (24–37 years old) 2–5. Generation Z: those born after 1995 (younger than 23 years) (Coding: Calculate number of types with scores of 3 or more)	0.90
		Eigenvalue	1.61
		Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sampling adequacy value	0.50
		Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance	0.00
		Cronbach’s α reliability	0.75
Urban environmental sustainability action consequences	Perception of environmental sustainability consequences	Please comment on the consequences of environmental sustainability development in your Li. Frequency of environmental sustainability–related activities such as ecotourism, neighbourhood environmental protection assembly, low-carbon folk activities, and eco-wellness mid-autumn festivals.	0.89
		Please comment on the consequences of environmental sustainability development in your Li. Environmental greening in Li such as community farms, wall planting, vacant lot greening, and green pedestrian paths.	0.91
		Please comment on the consequences of environmental sustainability development in your Li. Recycling mechanisms such as the exchange of waste electrical appliances for small gifts, the exchange of empty PET bottles for reusable bags, and collection of recycling points to exchange for special garbage bags.	0.84
		Eigenvalue	2.31
		Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin sampling adequacy value	0.71
		Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance	0.00
		Cronbach’s α reliability	0.85
	Resident integration of environmental protection into everyday life	What are your observations of residents’ integration of environmental protection into everyday life in your Li (such as home greening, simple acts of environmental protection, and energy saving)	-

Source: The author

4. Research findings and discussion

Descriptive statistics

First, regarding current spatial conditions, the minimum size of neighbourhood activity centres was 12.31 pings (1 ping = 3.3057 square metre), and the maximum size was 60 pings, with a mean size of 23.77 pings (standard deviation = 7.75). Based on the maximum rent subsidy of NT$30,000 provided by the Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government, spaces that could be rented in metropolitan areas were exceedingly limited. Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics of exogenous variables: spatial conditions (natural lighting, cleanliness, sustainable facilities), community environmental attributes (environmental friendliness of Li activities, environmental consciousness, attitude to environmental education), and environmental protection regulations (understanding of government regulations, promotion of environmental protection regulations, compliance subsidies). All scores achieved between 3 and 4 points on a 5-point scale, which indicated that the exogenous variable conditions of the field were moderately high. The highest scores were awarded for the cleanliness of spaces (mean of 3.93 points), which indicates that, although the spatial conditions were limited in terms of number of pings, the cleanliness maintenance of the spaces was approved by the questionnaire respondents.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics – status of urban environmental sustainability action and relevant factors

Exogenous variable – objective indicators of spatial conditions
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Space size – area (ping)	12.31	60.00	23.77	7.75
Exogenous variable – subjective evaluation of spatial conditions (5-point scale: means of five evaluations per Li)
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Natural lighting	1	5	3.58	0.88
Cleanliness	2	5	3.93	0.71
Sustainable facilities	1.4	5	3.56	0.76
Exogenous variable – subjective evaluation of community environmental attributes (5-point scale: means of five evaluations per Li)
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Environmental friendliness of Li activities	1.8	5	3.74	0.72
Environmental consciousness	2	5	3.70	0.66
Acceptance of environmental education	1.6	5	3.69	0.66
Exogenous variable – subjective evaluation of environmental protection regulations (5-point scale: means of five evaluations per Li)
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Understanding of government regulations	1	5	3.59	0.68
Promotion of environmental protection regulations	1.4	5	3.77	0.72
Compliance subsidies	1	5	3.29	0.83
Action arena – subjective evaluation of environmental sustainability action network (5-point scale: means of five evaluations per Li)
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Interaction within field	1.4	5	3.68	0.72
Information delivery channels	1	5	3.37	0.84
Forms of participation	1.2	5	3.62	0.75
Action arena – subjective evaluation of action participant diversity (5-point scale: means of five evaluations per Li)
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Diversity of participant type	0.4	5	3.35	1.15
Diversity of participant age	1	5	3.43	0.97
Urban environmental sustainability action consequences – objective indicators
Variable	Successful	%	Unsuccessful	%
2017 Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification	19	7.45	236	92.55
Urban environmental sustainability action consequences – subjective evaluation of perceived environmental sustainability consequences (5-point scale: means of five evaluations per Li)
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Frequency of environmental activities	1.6	5	3.83	0.74
Environment greening in Li	1	5	3.58	0.80
Operation of recycling mechanism	1	5	3.59	0.91
Urban environmental sustainability action consequences – subjective evaluation of resident integration (5-point scale: means of five evaluations per Li)
Variable	Minimum value	Maximum value	Mean	Standard deviation
Resident integration	1.2	5	3.64	0.76

Source: The author

The status of the neighbourhood activity centre action arena was as follows: For the environmental sustainability action network (interaction within the field, information delivery channels, and forms of participation) and diversity of action participants (diversity of type and age), all scores were between 3 and 4 points on a 5-point scale. This reflects the medium–high excellence of the action arena variable conditions of field operation. The highest scores were awarded for interaction within the field (mean of 3.68 points), which indicates that participants within the field interacted frequently and that the information exchange and message delivery networks were dense; the social capital established between them is worthy of anticipation.

The status of urban environmental sustainability action consequences was as follows: The effective sample of this study contained 19 winners (7.45%) of the Environmental Protection Administration’s 2017 Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification. The evaluation success rate for observed values in this study was not high. For the subjective evaluation of action consequences, questionnaire respondents provided scores of 3–4 points on a 5-point scale for the following: environmental sustainability consequence perception (frequency of environmental sustainability activities–related events, environmental greening in Li, operation of recycling mechanisms), and resident integration of environmental protection into everyday life (hereinafter referred to as ‘resident integration’). Consequence perception is thus of medium–high excellence; the highest scores were awarded for the frequency of environmental sustainability–related activities (mean of 3.83 points), which also demonstrates that the promotion of environmental sustainability actions by each Li in Taipei City is evident in the management of every activity.

Influencing factors of urban environmental sustainability actions – multiple regression analysis

1. Corroboration of hypothesis 1

Tables 7 and 8 present regression models with the dependent variables of the environmental sustainability action network (action situation) and diversity of action participant types (actors) in the action arena. The independent variables comprise the exogenous variables of spatial conditions, community environmental attributes, and environmental regulations. The control variables are the background variables of the Li population and economy as well as neighbourhood fund subsidisation of environmental protection and other activities. In Model 1–1, the following factors exhibited more than one positive significant relationships with the subcategories of environmental sustainability action network: the spatial condition of sustainable facilities, the environmental friendliness of Li activities, environmental consciousness, attitude to environmental education, promotion of environmental regulations, and subsidies for compliance with environmental protection policies and regulations. This supports Hypothesis 1. The spatial resources presented by spatial conditions (Shih-Chi and Chen 2008), the environmental protection action atmosphere formed by community attributes (Jeng 2000), and the implementation of environmental protection regulations can all generate an environmentally friendly action context (Ostrom 1991; Crawford and Ostrom 2005; Chen 2010). The support provided by this context should positively assist with interaction and resource exchange in the action arena (Ostrom 2007).

Table 7. Model 1–1 action arena – regression model of environmental sustainability action network. (corroboration of hypothesis 1: exogenous variables → action situation of action arena)

	Model Dependent variable	Model 1–1a Interaction in arena	Model 1–1b Information delivery channels	Model 1–1 c Forms of participation
Variable concept	Subcategories of variable operationalisation	Regression coefficient (standard error)	Regression coefficient (standard error)	Regression coefficient (standard error)
Spatial conditions	Area	0.00	0.00	0.00
		(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
	Natural lighting	0.06	−0.08	0.00
		(0.05)	(0.06)	(0.04)
	Cleanliness	0.06	0.03	−0.06
		(0.06)	(0.08)	(0.06)
	Sustainable facilities	0.09	0.57***	0.30***
		(0.08)	(0.10)	(0.07)
Community environme-ntal attributes	Environmental friendliness of Li activities	0.27**	0.07	0.16*
		(0.08)	(0.10)	(0.07)
	Environmental consciousness	−0.05	−0.16	0.17†
		(0.10)	(0.13)	(0.10)
	Attitude to environmental education	0.20†	0.41**	0.19†
		(0.11)	(0.13)	(0.10)
Environme-ntal protection regulations	Understanding of government policies and regulations	0.0	−0.07	−0.17*
		(0.08)	(0.10)	(0.08)
	Promotion of regulations	0.18*	0.03	0.31***
		(0.08)	(0.10)	(0.07)
	Subsidies for compliance with policies and regulations	0.05	0.12†	0.05
		(0.06)	(0.07)	(0.05)
Control variables	Li population	0.00	−0.00	5.15e-06
		(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
	Li taxable income (Unit: NT$1,000)	−2.44e-08 (2.21e-08)	1.90e-08 (2.72e-08)	−3.61e-08† (2.12e-08)
	Neighbourhood fund subsidisation of environmental protection and other activities	−8.54e-07† (4.61e-07)	−1.07e-06† (5.66e-07)	−8.39e-07† (4.42e-07)
Intercept		0.27	0.18	0.34
		(0.22)	(0.27)	(0.20)
F value		34.61	28.82	44.29
Observations		255	255	255
R-squared		0.65	0.61	0.70

Note: †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001

Source: The author

Table 8. Model 1–2 action arena – regression model of diversity of action participant type. (corroboration of hypothesis 1: exogenous variables → actor of action arena)

	Model Dependent variable	Model 1–2a Diversity of participant type	Model 1–2b Diversity of participant age
Variable concept	Subcategories of variable operationalisation	Regression coefficient (standard error)	Regression coefficient (standard error)
Spatial conditions	Area	0.01†	0.00
		(0.01)	(0.01)
	Spatial conditions	0.08	0.14
		(0.10)	(0.09)
	Cleanliness	−0.18	−0.17
		(0.14)	(0.13)
	Sustainable facilities	0.22	0.21
		(0.17)	(0.16)
Community environme-ntal attributes	Environmental friendliness of Li activities	0.00	0.01
		(0.17)	(0.16)
	Environmental consciousness	−0.35	0.02
		(0.23)	(0.20)
	Attitude to environmental education	0.37	−0.14
		(0.24)	(0.22)
Environme-ntal protection regulations	Understanding of government policies and regulations	0.07	0.08
		(0.19)	(0.17)
	Promotion of regulations	0.13	0.13
		(0.17)	(0.16)
	Compliance subsidies	0.48***	0.30**
		(0.12)	(0.11)
Control variables	Li population	0.00	0.00
		(0.00)	(0.00)
	Li taxable income (Unit: NT$1,000)	3.61e-08 (4.89e-08)	−2.03e-08 (4.43e-08)
	Neighbourhood fund subsidisation of environmental protection and other activities	−1.07e-06 (1.02e-06)	4.63e-07 (9.24e-07)
Intercept		0.24	1.09*
		(0.48)	(0.44)
F value		9.21	5.64
Observations		255	255
R-squared		0.33	0.23

Note: †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001

Source: The author

However, the understanding of government policies and regulations among participants of neighbourhood activity centres significantly negatively affects actors’ participation in the action arena. This indicates that, when arena operation members understand rules more thoroughly, they are unwilling to participate in the operation of the arena; this refutes Hypothesis 1. The cause for this may be explained by the dual nature of rules. The rules of action operation can provide participants with behaviour guidelines to facilitate a collective consensus and to set clear standards for the definition of violations (Ostrom 1991; Crawford and Ostrom 2005). However, excessively strict rules and actors with a precise understanding of the rules may hinder freedom and autonomy, which causes actors’ participation to decline.

In Model 1–2 (see Table 8), the spatial condition of area (ping) for neighbourhood activity centres and compliance subsidies exhibited more than one significantly positive relationship with the subcategories of diversity of action participant type (actor). This supports Hypothesis 1. The spatial size of neighbourhood activity centres affects the number of people that can be accommodated at events. Provided that a space is large and suitable for the hosting of larger scale events, under normal circumstances, participant type diversity should increase due to an increase in the number of participants. Spatial conditions permitting, private enterprises and other groups may also be willing to borrow the venue or cooperate with Lis to host joint events. Compliance subsidies exert a significantly positive effect on the diversity of participant types and ages, which may be reflected in the received subsidies. This can shape the purposefulness and image friendliness of arena operation. Namely, a positive image is created for the arena, and activities that align with government policy directions may be more appealing. (Radnitzky 1987; Chen and Chen 2018) In addition to its material effect of balancing activity resources, the received subsidy also signifies that the operation of the arena conforms to environmental protection regulations or is highly beneficial to central environmental protection policy (Chen 2020).

Notably, among the exogenous variables, for community environmental attributes, the subcategory for ‘none’ in Model 1–2 exerted a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable – diversity of action participant type. This does not corroborate Hypothesis 1. The cause for this may be that the representation of community environmental attributes is concentrated in certain types or age groups of the population; even environmental protection attributes affect the participation of only certain people or of a few types/age groups. Namely, robust community environmental attributes do not indicate increases in the diversity of general participants in environmental protection activities. Potentially, in practice, only certain types of volunteer groups, public welfare groups, or age groups are willing to actively participate in urban environmental sustainability actions.

2. Corroboration of hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3

In Model 2 (Table 9), the spatial conditions of exogenous variables – sustainable facilities and community environmental attributes – the environmental friendliness and environmental consciousness of Li activities, and the promotion of environmental protection regulations exhibited more than one significantly positive relationship with the subcategories of urban environmental sustainability action consequences. This supports Hypothesis 2. Moreover, the environmental sustainability action network of the action arena – interaction within the arena and forms of participation – also exhibit a positive and significant relationship with at least one of the subcategories of the dependent variable, action consequences. This supports Hypothesis 3. The external and arena conditions of urban environmental sustainability action are the resource and network elements that comprise the actions of actors. Spatial conditions can provide sustainable facilities, which benefit the improvement of energy-saving and carbon-reduction consequences. Energy-saving effects are possible only with setup of energy-saving equipment (Shih-Chi and Chen 2008). Furthermore, the following elements can create an atmosphere for environmental sustainability action: the cultivation of community environmental attributes, behavioural norms of an informal system (Taylor 1987) established through the promotion of environmental protection regulations, and the interaction and resource exchange generated by the action network. New institutionalism emphasises the responsive actions of actors towards action environments and underscores the influence of context factors (Ostrom 1991). The friendly context constructed by an action atmosphere facilitates consensus among actors in collective action, enhances mutual trust within a collective action, and mitigates the transaction costs (Feiock 2007). Therefore, it is conducive to the improvement of collective interest in environmental sustainability action consequences.

Table 9. Model 2 – regression model of urban environmental sustainability action consequences. (corroboration of hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3: exogenous variables and action arena → action consequences)

	Model	Model 2–1a Subjective indicators	Model 2–1b Subjective indicators	Model 2–2 Objective indicators
	Dependent variable	Perception of environmental sustainability consequences	Resident integration	Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification
Variable concept	Subcategories of variable operationalisation	Regression coefficient (standard error)	Regression coefficient (standard error)	Regression coefficient (standard error)
Spatial conditions	Area	0.00	0.00	0.02
		(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.03)
	Natural lighting	0.04	−0.04	−0.24
		(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.47)
	Cleanliness	0.01	−0.07	−0.12
		(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.62)
	Sustainable facilities	0.18*	0.34***	0.11
		(0.07)	(0.08)	(0.77)
Community environme-ntal attributes	Environmental friendliness of Li activities	0.20**	0.08	−0.52
		(0.07)	(0.07)	(0.75)
	Environmental consciousness	0.01	0.32**	−1.41
		(0.09)	(0.10)	(0.93)
	Acceptance of environmental education	0.15	0.03	0.27
		(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.99)
Environm-ental protection regulations	Understanding of government policies and regulations	−0.28***	−0.14†	−0.11
		(0.07)	(0.08)	(0.77)
	Promotion of regulations	0.12†	0.00	0.21
		(0.07)	(0.08)	(0.78)
	Compliance subsidies	0.07	−0.03	−0.55
		(0.05)	(0.05)	(0.52)
Environm-ental sustainabili-ty action network	Interaction in the arena	0.10	0.11	1.88*
		(0.07)	(0.08)	(0.86)
	Information delivery channels	0.04	−0.02	−0.48
		(0.06)	(0.06)	(0.60)
	Forms of participation	0.26**	0.29**	0.05
		(0.08)	(0.09)	(0.77)
Diversity of action participant type	Diversity of participant type	0.02	0.02	0.33
		(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.35)
	Diversity of participant age	−0.00	0.06	0.25
		(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.36)
Control variables	Li population	0.00	−0.00†	−0.00
		(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
	Li taxable income (Unit: NT$1,000)	1.51e-08 (1.93e-08)	1.20e-08 (2.10e-08)	1.31e-07 (1.64e-07)
	Neighbourhood fund subsidisation of environmental protection and other activities	−2.68e-07 (4.02e-07)	−8.26e-07† (4.41e-07)	7.15e-06† (4.29e-06)
Intercept		0.25	0.42*	−2.74
		(0.19)	(0.21)	(2.09)
F value/LR chi2		38.55	35.44	18.81
Observed value		255	250	255
R-squared/ Pseudo R2		0.75	0.73	0.14

Note: †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001

Source: The author

However, not all statistical results exhibit positive support for the research hypotheses. A subcategory of exogenous variables – the understanding of government policies and regulations – exhibited a significantly negative relationship with the subjective indicators for dependent variables, perception of environmental sustainability consequences, and resident integration. This refutes Hypothesis 2. The statistical results indicate that a higher level of understanding of government policies and regulations decreases perception of environmental sustainability consequences. This may be because actors clearly understand the policy goals or regulations established by the government and hold a blueprint of expectations for relevant activities in the Li. Realistically, however, the actors perceive a gap between their expectations and the environmental sustainability action situation in their Li. This sense of a relative gap influences the results of subjective evaluation and therefore decreases the perception of consequence level.

Notably, for the diversity of action participant types in the action arena, the subcategory of ‘none’ in Model 2 exhibited a statistically significant relationship with the dependent variable, action consequences. This does not corroborate Hypothesis 3. This is because participant type diversity also indicates the diversity of characteristics for subgroups in the pool. The urban environmental sustainability action possesses the characteristics of collective action, and the collective interest of environmental sustainability can be achieved through consistent action among participating individuals. Per the perspective of collective action dilemmas to explain this nonsignificant statistical result, participant diversity is not necessarily conducive to consensus, and the divergence and self-serving considerations of subgroups’ action preferences may instead increase the transaction costs of collective action. Participant diversity may also increase the betrayal risk of collective action (Cheung 1974, 1983; Hashimoto 1979; Barzel 1982, 1989; Feiock 2007). Therefore, participant diversity may provide advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that, diverse participants can enrich action patterns, increase creativity, and enhance the diversity of actions. The disadvantage is that participants with diverse characteristics may cause actions to diverge and lack unity, such that action consequences do not significantly benefit.

3. Corroboration of hypothesis 3-1

This study further included the interaction terms of exogenous variables and the action arena in the regression models to test the action arena’s moderating effect on the influence of exogenous variables on action consequences. In Model 3 (see Table 10), the exogenous variables of spatial conditions and environmental protection regulations, as well as the environmental sustainability action network of the action arena, separately exhibited more than one significantly positive relationship with the subcategories of the dependent variable, action consequences. Particularly in Model 3–2, spatial conditions exhibit a more distinctly positive effect on the dependent variable of Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification. The statistical results indicate that neighbourhood activity centres with environmentally friendly spatial conditions can increase the possibility of a successful certification for that Li. Undeniably, if that space is large and suited for planting and ecological cultivation, has sufficient sunlight for maintaining environmental greening, is clean and comfortable such that actors are willing to remain on-site for activities, or has installed sustainable facilities, the space is more likely to receive the affirmation of the Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification. The certification mechanism comprises operational items such as ecological greening, green energy saving, resource circulation, low-carbon lifestyle, and sustainable management. The spatial conditions of area and sunlight have a positive relationship with ecological greening, and LED energy-saving lights and related equipment also have a positive relationship with green energy saving. The aforementioned appropriate spatial conditions should facilitate relevant actions and practices in a Li pursuing Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification.

Table 10. Model 3 – regression model incorporating enhanced moderating effect of action arena. (corroboration of hypothesis 3–1: exogenous variable and action arena and interaction → action consequence)

	Model	Model 3–1a Subjective indicators	Model 3–1b Subjective indicators	Model 3–2 Objective indicators
	Dependent variable	Perception of environmental sustainability consequences	Resident integration	Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification
Variable concept	Subcategories of variable operationalisation	Regression coefficient (standard error)	Regression coefficient (standard error)	Regression coefficient (standard error)
Exogenous variables	Area	0.01	0.02	0.25
		(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.19)
	Spatial conditions	0.68	−0.43	10.47†
		(0.47)	(0.53)	(5.90)
	Community environmental attributes	−0.82†	0.55	−3.26
		(0.47)	(0.53)	(6.23)
	Environmental protection regulations	0.86†	0.18	−7.67
		(0.49)	(0.54)	(6.57)
Action arena	Environmental sustainability action network	0.63*	0.39	7.05†
		(0.26)	(0.29)	(3.60)
	Diversity of action participant type	0.08	0.05	−1.29
		(0.19)	(0.21)	(2.52)
Interaction terms	Area* Action network	−0.00	0.00	0.02
		(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.07)
	Spatial conditions* Action network	−0.19	−0.14	−3.48†
		(0.13)	(0.15)	(2.02)
	Area* Participant type	−0.00	−0.01†	−0.09*
		(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.04)
	Spatial conditions* Participant type	0.05	0.29*	0.26
		(0.12)	(0.13)	(1.52)
	Community environmental attributes* Action network	0.34*	0.18	−0.16
		(0.16)	(0.17)	(2.02)
	Community environmental attributes* Participant type	−0.02	−0.24*	0.72
		(0.10)	(0.11)	(1.24)
	Environmental protection regulations* Action network	−0.19	−0.04	1.96
		(0.16)	(0.17)	(2.34)
	Environmental protection regulations *Participant type	−0.04	−0.01	0.21
		(0.12)	(0.13)	(1.58)
Control variables	Li population	0.00	−0.00	−0.00
		(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)
	Li taxable income (Unit: NT$1,000)	2.66e-09 (1.98e-08)	−1.51e-11 (2.18e-08)	8.08e-08 (1.89e-07)
	Neighbourhood fund subsidisation of environmental protection and other activities	−1.26e-07 (4.31e-07)	−6.32e-07 (4.78e-07)	5.14e-06 (4.49e-06)
Intercept		−0.80	0.56	−15.71
		(0.75)	(0.82)	(10.49)
F value/LR chi2		36.07	31.91	24.81
Observations		255	250	255
R-squared/ Pseudo R2		0.72	0.70	0.18

Note: †<0.1, *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001

Source: The author

In the test for moderating effect, the interaction terms of community environmental attributes and action network exhibited a significantly positive effect on the dependent variables, which supports the enhanced moderating effect from Hypothesis 3–1. However, a significantly negative effect occurred in Model 3–2. In addition, the exogenous variable of community environmental attributes and the action arena element of action participants’ type diversity both partially exhibited significantly negative effects, which are discussed separately as follows:

First, spatial conditions and action network each exhibited a significantly positive relationship with the dependent variables (see Model 3–1a of subjective indicators and Model 3–2 of objective indicators). However, their interaction terms exhibited a negative significant effect in Model 3–2, which refutes Hypothesis 3–1. This may be because, as the action network is expanding, participants may, based on the established social capital network as well as situation structure (Ostrom et al. 1993, 1994), expand their spheres of activity to spaces outside of neighbourhood activity centres. These include outdoor venues, parks, plazas, and Li temples. Therefore, the interior space conditions (natural lighting, cleanliness, and sustainable facilities) of neighbourhood activity centres represented by the variable concepts fail to benefit action consequences. Moreover, as the action network becomes stronger, the benefits of spatial conditions for action consequences diminishes; its interaction terms exhibit a detrimental moderating effect.

Furthermore, the enhancement of community environmental attributes was accompanied by an increased sensitivity regarding environmental sustainability consequences. The community activities/events that are usually followed may focus on relevant topics of environmental sustainability and may correspondingly increase expectations of action consequences. The gap between ‘expectation’ and ‘reality’ situations may reduce the perceived level of consequences. A detailed inspection of Model 3–1a (with a dependent variable of the subjective indicator, perception of environmental sustainability consequences) revealed that, after community environmental attributes interacted with the action network, a significantly positive effect on subjective action consequences occurred. In the same model, an inspection of the single variable of community environmental attributes revealed a significantly negative effect, which indicates that the action network has a positive moderating function on the relationship between community environmental attributes and subjective action consequences. This finding supports Hypothesis 3–1. Simply put, community environmental attributes can be fully exerted only with strengthened participant interaction network relationships. By means of the information exchange, resource exchange, and mutual encouragement during the interaction process (Wang and Chung 2015, p. 97–100; De Groot et al. 2002), residents’ environmental consciousness can project environmentally friendly ideas into the perception of environmental sustainability consequences.

Third, after the exogenous variables of area and community environmental attributes interacted with participant type diversity, they separately exhibited significantly negative effects in Model 3–1b (with a dependent variable of the subjective indicator, resident integration) and Model 3–2 (with a dependent variable of Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification). This statistical result refutes Hypothesis 3–1. Namely, after the exogenous variables interacted with participant type diversity, they often exhibited negative effects in both subjective and objective consequence indicators. This is because an increase in action participant diversity ostensibly indicates the difficulty of unified action. For participants with a broader distribution of type and age, action preferences are more divergent, and consensus is more difficult. In addition to the transaction costs (communication, negotiation, and compromise) during the collective action decision-making process, collective action also has monitoring costs (Feiock 2007). For example, a substantial gap may exist between participants of a commercial organisation and those of an environmental volunteer organisation regarding their requirements and action goals for environmentalism. The traditional generation (those older than 73 years) and Generation Z (those younger than 23 years) may also diverge immensely in their action methods; even decisions such as turning on the air conditioner or the setting of its temperature may require a great deal of communication to reach a mutual decision. Therefore, in Model 3, the diversity of action participants presents a negative influence and detrimental moderating effect on numerous measurement subcategories, whether it is observed independently or through its interaction terms with exogenous variables.

However, the aforementioned detrimental moderating effect of participant type diversity has one exception: The interaction of the exogenous variable, spatial conditions, and participant type exhibited a significantly positive effect in Model 3–1b (with a dependent variable of the subjective indicator, resident integration). This, by contrast, supports Hypothesis 3–1. The researchers of this study believe that participant diversity is a highly unique variable. In most models, participant diversity can exhibit a statistically significant effect on the subcategories of various dependent variables. These effects are primarily negative; however, one positive effect is the interaction with spatial conditions (natural lighting, cleanliness, sustainable facilities). This may be related to the essential resources provided by spatial conditions for environmental actions. The suitability (e.g., cleanliness and natural lighting), prompting (e.g., recycling bins), and instrumentality (e.g., aquaponics systems) provided by spatial conditions for environmental sustainability actions can, due to diverse action participant attributes, facilitate various creative environmental sustainability actions. Actors with various group attributes can make effective use of spatial conditions based on their unique expertise.

5. Conclusion

This study clarified the context of external conditions, the action arena, and the consequence situation of urban environmental sustainability action and explored the causal relationship of related effects. The operation status of urban environmental sustainability action in the action arena of public space is demonstrated, in terms of action patterns and action consequences, in the following: the installation of aquaponics systems and energy-saving equipment (e.g., LED lights), the operation of recycling mechanisms, the implementation of encouraging rules such as the use of ecological tableware and paper cups during activities, the establishment of bags exclusively for paper and mechanisms for incineration consolidation, the promotion of relevant environmental protection and energy-saving message, and diverse designs for information delivery (e.g., the management of a Facebook fan page by Li chiefs, Li donation boxes, a mobile application contact system, a resident Line group, and official websites). In practice, although the neighbourhood activity centres in Taipei City are merely 23.77 ping on average, the resident action network and social capital shaping facilitated by these public spaces can expand environmental sustainability consequences to outdoor spaces outside of the neighbourhood activity centre and benefit the environmental sustainability actions of the entire Li. The following received scores indicating moderately high excellence in this study’s questionnaire: spatial conditions of neighbourhood activity centres, environmental protection attributes of residents, implementation level of environmental protection regulations, environmental sustainability action networks formed in the arena, and participant diversity. The subjective action consequence, perception, was also presented primarily as a moderately high, positive impression. The objective action consequence of success in the Low-Carbon Sustainable Homeland Certification, however, was not high. Its success rate was merely 7.45% (refer to Table 6), which indicates that opportunities for enhancement remain for action consequences in the objective results area.

This study found that, for the external and action arena conditions of the public space of neighbourhood activity centres, the inclusion of sustainable facilities (such as aquaponics systems) among the spatial conditions of a centre) was conducive to urban environmental action. Regarding community attributes, increases in the environmental friendliness of Li activities and in residents’ environmental consciousness benefitted action consequences. The promotion of environmental protection regulations enhanced environmental sustainability action consequences. Among factors related to action arena, the composition of action networks influenced the primary factors of action consequences. Action networks partially exhibited the effect of enhancing action consequences, both in their direct effect on action consequences and in their effect on the relationship between exogenous variables and action consequences; action networks also strengthened the influence of external conditions. The action network weaves together a network of resident interaction, information exchange, and resource exchange. Its influence extends to facilitating the projection of residents’ environmental ideas onto the perception of environmental sustainability consequences as well as conveying the operational rules for practicing environmental sustainability regulations. The benefit of the action network lies in the implementation of various energy-saving measures.

The diversity of participants in neighbourhood activity centres does not benefit urban environmental sustainability action consequences. The direct influence of participant diversity on action consequences was non-significant; moreover, in the causal relationship between external conditions and action consequences, participant diversity exhibited a detrimental moderating effect. Urban environmental sustainability action possesses the attributes of collective action; it is public and nonexclusive, and the goal of sustainable development can only be achieved with the collective action of actors. Because it constitutes collective action, participant diversity may cause divergence in actor preferences. Furthermore, based on the rational considerations of self-interest, types of participants focus on achieving the action consequences of their own groups (e.g., the action preferences of commercial organisations and environmental volunteer organisations differ, and the concerns and activity preferences of seniors and young people are usually inconsistent). The unification of collective action is difficult, and greater transaction costs may be required in the consensus process (e.g., spending time in communication and compromise); a monitoring mechanism can even be required to ensure the implementation of collective decisions. Therefore, the diversity of action participants often does not benefit the enhancement of urban environmental sustainability action consequences.

Accordingly, this study proposed relevant recommendations for policy application. First, sustainable facilities, such as energy-saving air-conditioning or LED lamps and aquaponics systems, provide distinct benefits for urban environmental sustainability action. In the allocation of public space or the purchase of building equipment, policy subsidies can be employed to enhance environmentally sustainable facilities. Second, during Li- or community-hosted activities, more promotional slogans can be posted. This boosts participants’ perception of the environmental friendliness of Li activities. The promotional narratives can also become channels for environmental education to convey environmental sustainability knowledge and increase environmental consciousness. Finally, the participation and connectivity of participants in neighbourhood activity centres enhances the environmental sustainability–related action of the entire Li. In addition to on-site attendance and participation, diverse information delivery channels such as the Li chief’s Facebook fan page, a mobile app for Li announcements, a resident Line group, and an official Li website also substantially benefitted environmental sustainability actions. The policy implication from these research findings could be related to Li chiefs’ sharing of relevant experiences and the practices of the best-performing Lis–serving as educational benchmarks for spreading effective practices to the other Lis. Some ideas of sustainable community development thus emerge. Hawken (2007, p. 223), for example, collects almost 9000 sustainable community ideas, and in his website of www.wiserearth.org there is a list that shows over 1100 organisations devoting to promote sustainable communities. Neighbourhood associations and community gardens would be good policy choices to develop sustainable communities (Hempel 2009). The formal or informal networking among neighbourhood members can facilitate information flows and would further the willingness to adopt environmental actions.

The research limitations of this study lie primarily in the self-management system operation of the public space of neighbourhood activity centres, causing difficulty in completely separating from the activity scope of the entire Li. For example, Li residents gather, prepare equipment, and engage in related contacting tasks in activity centres. They then visit nearby parks for recycling activities and outdoor venues to engage in the renovation of collective gardens and green corridors. Therefore, the observations and discussion in this study could not be confined merely to the indoor spaces of neighbourhood activity centres; its action benefits often involve the scope of the entire Li. The disadvantage of this research limitation is that the observation subject cannot be accurately restricted to indoor space. The advantage, however, is that the neighbourhood activity centre can be viewed as the source arena of the entire Li’s environmental sustainability–related actions. The self-management system through which its public space is operated can be beneficial for the action consequences of the entire Li.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [106-2621-M-305-002].

Notes on contributors

Ssu-Hsien Chen

Ssu-Hsien Chen (Olivia) has a Ph.D. in Public Administration and Policy from Florida State University. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Policy at National Taipei University (NTPU), Taiwan. She is also the Director of Institute of Public Opinion & Election and a research fellow at the Center for Global Change and Sustainability Science (CGCSS) at NTPU. Her research interests include policy analysis, local/metropolitan governance, energy and sustainability policies, interlocal collaboration, and the use of performance measurement in public sectors.

Notes

1. Information on Taipei City Government’s subsidisation of neighbourhood activity centres was obtained from the Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government. Date of information acquisition: 7 November 2016.

2. This study also added the control variables of ‘Li population,’ ‘Li taxable income,’ and ‘neighbourhood fund subsidies for environmental protection and other activities.’ This was because the population and economic background conditions of a Li represent the background attributes of the city. The population size and economic development affect the possibility of collective action and the obstacles to the consensus process for policy preferences. Furthermore, neighbourhood funds can be used each year to subsidise public welfare and environmental protection and other related activities. The variability effect in this portion cannot be excluded from discussions of urban action attributes and patterns. However, population and economic background conditions and neighbourhood funds are not the variable focus of the series of research designs in this study. Therefore, these conditions were included as a control variable, serving as an essential element in the model for the subsequent quantitative analysis variables.

3. In this question, respondents were asked to observe the frequency of resident interactions when participating in relevant activities. Based on Granovetter’s (1973) finding that those with high frequency of contact in social networks exhibit strong ties, which also includes opportunities for repeated interaction, this question is designed to measure the strength of network connections among participants.

4. The design intention of this question is the measurement of residents’ involvement in environmental sustainability-related activities. The questionnaire clarifies the activity target as a ‘regular’ or ‘functional’ activity, which broadly indicates one-time or repetitive activities. Activity items include but are not limited to the examples provided in the questionnaire. The respondents of this questionnaire are Li chiefs, Li officers, or residents who have participated in activities; due to their experience of participation in field activities, even without joining any groups, they are situated in the field activity context and culture and should be able to provide relevant observations or thoughts. For example, respondents who have never joined community environmental protection volunteer teams would nevertheless have heard broadcasts from the Li chief notifying them of the time and place of volunteer activities and thereby learned of any engagement in environmental volunteering activities. In the responses to this question, residents with different participation levels may reveal different feelings. The measurement scores for each variable in this study are thus obtained from the mean scores of five questionnaire responses for each Li to mitigate extreme values and common variance.

5. This study adopted two measures for ‘diversity of action participants.’ The first was ‘type’ diversity and the second was ‘age’ diversity; this categorisation was based on the participants’ observations in this study. The observations revealed group/individual attributes possessed by the participants and also that diversity occurred in the group behaviour attributes of participants from different age groups. Therefore, ‘type’ and ‘age’ were employed as participant diversity measurements. However, only two types of materials exist for the composition of this factor component, which should not be suitable for factor reduction. To test reliability and validity and to achieve consistency with other variables, factor analysis for validity testing was also conducted.