http://eab.sagepub.com
Environment and Behavior
DOI: 10.1177/0013916502034001002
2002; 34; 8
Environment and Behavior
Enric Pol
The Theoretical Background of the City-Identity-Sustainability Network
http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/1/8
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Environmental Design Research Association
can be found at:
Environment and Behavior
Additional services and information for
http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Email Alerts:
http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
OF THE
CITY-IDENTITY-SUSTAINABILITY NETWORK
ENRIC POL, Ph.D., is a professor of social and environmental psychology and di-rector of the master’s degree program Environmental Intervention: People, Society, and Management at the University of Barcelona.He is the editor of the seriesPsycho/ Socio/Environmental Monographsand an active member of the International Associ-ation for People-Environment Studies.He has carried out research and published extensively in the field of environmental psychology.His research interests include symbolism, appropriation of space, identity, sustainability, and environmental man-agement.
ABSTRACT: The City-Identity-Sustainability (CIS) Research Network aims to investigate the relationship between several conditions and processes that shape social identity—such as the quality of the urban area, residents’ satisfaction, commu-nity identification, and sense of cohesion—and the relationship between these fac-tors, taken as a whole, and sustainability. The objective of the project was to determine whether the presence of these factors favors sustainability and, likewise, whether the absence of some of the factors impedes sustainability. The CIS Network carried out its research in seven sites in Latin America and Europe, using the same questionnaire in each setting and complementing it with local qualitative research. The results showed a reasonable fit to the structural models of the hypothesized relationships. In light of the results, the research network suggests social and environmental intervention strat-egies to promote sustainability. This article focuses on the theoretical construction of the models.
The termssustainabilityandsustainable developmentseem to be invading every corner of our daily lives. Nonetheless, the data on the state of the planet presented in the World Watch Foundation’s annual report indicate that the real situation is alarming. The most frequently applied strategy to change this
situation has been to provide information to people. This strategy has not been enough to change people’s attitudes and behaviors. Searching for more efficient strategies is necessary for achieving sustainable development.
The City-Identity-Sustainability (CIS) Network assumes that sustain-ability is not possible without a well-established social fabric that allows peo-ple to recognize themselves as a group or as a community sharing prototypical features and having achieved certain levels of social cohesion (see Figure 1). We call thisidentity. Following psychosocial theories, this identity may be constructed throughout what Turner (1987) calls the “identi-fication model”—a person attributes to himself or herself characteristics and values of a group with which she or he identifies—or through a “traditional model” focused on social cohesion processes. Additionally, we assumed that in some cases, urban quality of a place might help in the construction of identity.
The CIS Research Network was proposed by the Barcelona team in Janu-ary 1996 as a way of validating the initial hypothesis in different contexts and countries. Seven research teams with 12 analyzed settings participated in the first stage of the research: Viladecans and Barcelona-Olympic Village from Spain, Caracas from Venezuela, Guildford from United Kingdom, Mexico Distrito Federal (DF) and Guadalajara from Mexico. Paris developed parallel studies and participated in network discussions but did not take part in the fieldwork. Brief reports from each analyzed setting make up this special issue ofEnvironment & Behavior.
IDENTIFICATION
COHESION IDENTITY SUSTAINABILITY
SATISFACTION
The objectives of the initial project and its theoretical and practical aspects were discussed via the Internet; data and results were exchanged in four meetings: Barcelona, 1996, 1999; San Francisco, 1998; and Paris, 2000.
THE PROBLEM FACING CIS
The conditions of modern life, especially in the cities, are a major obstacle to the adoption of sustainability values. Social realities differ widely from place to place, but social malaise is emerging in many cities as an expression of dissatisfaction. This situation is characterized by an increase in poverty, the presence of deviant behaviors, a lack of social cohesion in its social fab-ric, and the implementation of “individual survival strategies” (Castells, 1987). In these contexts, sustainable development does not appear to be viable.
In the CIS Research Network it was assumed that sustainability requires a well-established social fabric. This requisite is characterized by a broad net-work of formal and informal social relationships between residents based on informal social support. Its absence, in the best of cases, is replaced by the supply of very expensive social services from governments or nongovern-mental organizations. In some cases, the absence of social relationships is also replaced by mafia organizations supported by crime, which offer “safety” and “protection” to “their” people.
At the beginning of the 21st century, cities are undergoing processes of profound internal change and accelerated growth. Sometimes this growth is planned, but sometimes it is spontaneous (i.e., the illegal or barely legal occu-pations of land with houses, etc., built by the settlers themselves). When new human settlements are established (either spontaneous or planned), there is no preexisting network of social support, either formal or informal, but we assume that its development can be accelerated by well-planned and per-formed social intervention. On the other hand, urban planning frequently causes changes in the physical structure of the city, breaking down the condi-tions and the relacondi-tionships that had given rise to the existence of a group with a strong sense of community. On other occasions, urban planning generates enforced relocation (generally met by fierce resistance from the residents), as in the case of new settlements.
new forms of organization at a local level (Castells, 1987, 1996); thus, in this project we will consider neither the national nor the ethnic level.
Urban planning generally respects the existence of buildings and monu-ments of architectural or historical interest. It should be equally respectful of preexisting social networks due to the high social cost that their dismantling involves. The time required for urban change is much shorter than for social change; it depends on the amount of money available. Social change is far slower and involves social as well as economic costs. Among these costs there is the implementation of individual survival strategies and the resis-tance to sustainable values.
In this context, information campaigns aimed at persuading the public to adopt the values and the behaviors of sustainability do not appear to consti-tute an effective strategy. The task requires action in terms of social relations
TABLE 1
Assumptions and Initial Hypothesis: City-Identity-Sustainability Research Network 1996-2000
1. Sustainability is not possible without a vertebrated society (that is to say, a com-munity with a social identity as the maximum expression of the existence of a for-mal and an inforfor-mal network of social support). A society dominated by individual survival strategies cannot achieve sustainability. This implies responsibility for the environment, human solidarity, and equity.
2. Information is not enough to advance sustainability. People are not always ratio-nal and congruent.
3. Sustainability requires biological diversity. This is not possible without social di-versity. Originally, each community tends to interact with its ecosystem in a spe-cific and balanced way that is broken when foreign and inappropriate ways of life are adopted.
4. Sustainability implies solidarity, the capacity for cooperation and mutual aid (for-mal and infor(for-mal social support) within the same generation and solidarity with future generations.
5. Space appropriation (sense of belonging and attachment) helps to increase indi-viduals’ sense of responsibility for their surroundings.
6. The characteristics of the space can facilitate and may even accelerate appropri-ation and attachment (the person and the group integrate the space into their own selves as a trait that characterizes their own identity and differentiates them from others).
7. Personal and collective identity play a decisive role in the adoption of the values of sustainability when these values are prototypical features for the group. 8. If characteristics of the physical surroundings play a role in the construction of the
social identity, urban characteristics may aid or hinder the construction of social identity.
and organization and in terms of urban structures. It requires the adoption of management strategies of urban change that respect the consolidated social groups regardless of their level of wealth.
In Table 1, we summarize the initial assumptions and hypothesis of the CIS Research Network that we assumed in the theoretical construction of the CIS models, as we will go on to describe in the next section.
THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF CIS MODELS
In this section we outline the theoretical foundations of the models that have served as the basis for the questionnaire applied by all members of the research network.
SUSTAINABILITY: THE PSYCHOSOCIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development was defined by the World Commission on Envi-ronment and Development as one that satisfies the needs of current genera-tions without compromising the capacity and resources of future generagenera-tions (Brundtland, 1987).
Sustainability seems to be a straightforward, widely accepted concept. Nevertheless, for some authors sustainability is a passing fashion, something ephemeral. For others, it merely reflects political opportunism and lacks any real substance. The definitions of sustainable development have been criti-cized as vague, inoperative, and technocratic (Allende Landa, 1995; Cobb, 1995; Martínez Alier, 1992; Olson, 1995). Nonetheless, the concept of sus-tainable development can represent a meeting point (we stress meeting rather than agreement). Its lack of specificity (which some people see as calculated) makes it an umbrella for groups and sectors representing diametrically opposed interests (e.g., environmentalist groups vs. industrial sectors). This facilitates its incorporation as a positive social value in society.
The concept of sustainability has not been widely studied from the per-spective of environmental and social psychology. Recent psychological liter-ature consists of such classical references as Bechtel (1997), Bonnes (1998), Corraliza (1998), Gardner and Stern (1996), Levy-Leboyer and Duron (1992), McKenzie-Mohr and Oskamp (1995), Pol (1997a, 1999, in press), Moreno and Pol (1999), Moser et al. (2000), Stern (1992), Stern and Easterling (1999), and Winter (1996).
For the CIS Research Network,sustainabilityis not merely a new label for
environmental concern. It is much more than this. It involves the adoption of a holistic and transactional perspective that links all the dimensions of the milieu as an ecosystem with individual and social behaviors and at the same time with values, lifestyles, forms of production, technologies, policies, and social structures.
Solidarity, satisfaction, and quality of life.The Declaration of Rio in 1992 (see United Nations, 1992) proposed to reduce and eliminate nonsustainable forms of production and consumption as well as to promote suitable demo-graphic policies.Agenda 21(the most important action document passed at the 1992 Rio summit; see United Nations, 1999) stressed the need for a spe-cific strategy to combat poverty, promoting education, empowerment, and awareness to reinforce attitudes and values that are compatible with sustain-able development. The Fifth European Program (European Commission, 1993) insists on the need for major changes in the patterns of human behavior and consumption. For this program, sustainable development involves the maintenance of quality of life, continued access to natural resources, and an end to environmental damage. This should imply substantial modifications in community policy. The Aalborg Letter (see International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, 1994) establishes that sustainable development helps to consolidate the quality of life at a rhythm that respects the limitations of natural resources (intergenerational solidarity). It considers that sustain-able development is not possible without a broader concept of social justice that should be based on an equitable economic structure and respect for the environment (intragenerational solidarity).
However, as cited in the literature, there are not enough natural resources to extend Western world levels of welfare to the whole world. Thus, the con-cept of quality of life must be reconsidered (in the way of Levi & Anderson, 1975) in terms of social and environmental balance rather than accumulation of wealth. The concept of quality of life cannot be applied to the defense of achieved privileges. It has to do with solidarity and equity (Pol, 2002).
network—when appropriate—(where the city is one of the main expressions) and a social fabric with formal and informal social support (where identity is one of its expressions).
CITY: PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OR COMMUNITY?
Above, we specified some of the social dynamics linked to the urban habi-tat that is predominant nowadays, which may present obstacles to achieving sustainable development. Among them, there is the crisis in social relation-ships in what we might callsense of communityand its expression in the form of social identity. We will focus now on some of the structural characteristics of the urban form, its symbolic dimension, and the sense of community.
The city as a physical structure.The city as a physical structure serves to condition social interactions by either facilitating or impeding them. The physical shape of the city also molds attitudes toward the environment. Sus-tainable development requires the protection of natural resources and, in par-ticular, controls the levels of consumption of renewable resources such as water and energy. Another prerequisite for sustainable development is that the emission of pollutants does not exceed the capacity of the air, water, and soil to absorb and process them. Environmental impact varies according to the physical structure of the city. For example, cities that cover large areas have greater energy needs and cause more atmospheric pollution than com-pact cities, due to the overriding need for motor transport (i.e., forced mobil-ity). One strategy put forward to promote sustainability favors compact and diverse cities. “A sustainable strategy devised for urban systems may be based on raising complexity; or put another way, on increasing the probabil-ity of contact between the different elements without any increase in con-sumption of energy and resources” (Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona, 1998, p. 96). The structure of the city also conditions forms of production, consumption, organization of services, and people’s attitudes to waste production, collection, and treatment.
The city as a shared symbolic universe and as a community.The city is more than a mere organization of land; it is above all, de facto, a social entity. The city connects dwellers with their surroundings, enhancing the meaning of everyday life and strengthening the identity of the group and the self (Lynch, 1960). Surroundings transmit norms and rules of behavior (Rapo-port, 1974); some of its symbols are accepted by the group as expressions of its identity and are adopted by its inhabitants (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Identity, not only of individuals but also of communities, is based on a symbolic mutual interaction via an ecological relation linked to specific local areas that allows identification and differentiation (Hunter, 1987). As Stokols and Shumaker (1981) stressed, the living space is always a sociophysical environment made up by both material and symbolic features.
Some authors, such as Lefebvre (1970-1971), refer to the way in which living spaces are traditionally constructed on the basis of social agreements involving a certain level of participation on behalf of the inhabitants. This leads to a strong identification of people with their creation and the space and thus acquires a meaning for its inhabitants, regardless of its structure. The current forms of construction depend on planning processes (sometimes strict, sometimes not) that take little or no account of the sensibilities of the population. Surroundings may appear alien to them. This may generate social malaise and inhibition in front of the nearest environmental problems. Else-where, we defined this question as the distinction between symbolism a priori (the attempt to create a space with a preestablished significance) and symbol-ism a posteriori (spaces that have become charged with meaning, provide backbone to the community and its identity, and do not require powerful for-mal structures) (Pol, 1997b).
From a psychosocial perspective, the definition ofcommunityrefers to the feeling of being part of a network of relations of mutual support in which one can trust and which prevents feelings of solitude or anxiety (Sarason, 1974). The community actively generates its own shared symbols, which adopt a physical form and a qualification of the place that allow the emergence of the sense of community, strengthening social cohesion and empowerment, achieving greater involvement, participation, and assumption of responsibil-ity by part of its members (Garcia, Giuliani, & Wiesenfeld, 1994, p. 78).
(without a well-established social fabric and a social identity, sustainability cannot be achieved), we will have to focus on theories that seek to associate characteristics of the physical space with place identity, the self, and social identity.
IDENTITY: THE GROUP AND THE SPACE
Social identitycan be taken to mean “that part of an individual’s self-concept that is derived from the knowledge of belonging to a social group, or groups, together with the evaluative and emotional meaning associated with that belonging” (Tajfel, 1981). From an environmental perspective, theories of social identity have been criticized for ignoring the influence of the physi-cal surroundings. However, there are some theories within the field of envi-ronmental psychology that take into consideration the influence of physical aspects on the individual identity (such as “place identity” by Proshansky et al., 1983) and on the social identity (such as “urban identity” by Lalli, 1988, 1992; “symbolic community” by Hunter, 1987; and “urban social iden-tity” by Valera, 1993, and Valera & Pol, 1994).
From the perspective of the space appropriation theories (Feldman, 1990; Korosec-Serfaty, 1976), the construction and maintenance over time of social identity—of a person or of a group—and place attachment are the result of a dialectic process. This process involves what we call elsewhere (a) the action-transformation of the space as an inevitable functional and adaptive territorial behavior and (b) the symbolic identification as the integration in one’s own identity of the value created and attributed to the space, which in turn acts as an element of stability and continuity of the identity over time (Pol, 1996).
Social identity: Cohesion or identification?One of the theoretical discus-sions in social psychology relevant to environmental intervention and man-agement was explained by Turner (1987), who compared two models of the process of social identity construction. Against what he names the “social cohesion” model—the model assumed to be behind the explanation of the traditional theories—Turner proposed the “categorical identification” model.
actions, of the need to belong, and to the processes of attribution of responsi-bility, of cognitive coherence, and of what is currently termed social influence.
These trends may explain a possible tendency toward sustainability in the behavior of individuals, even more so if, as we see in the previous paragraph, the empowerment of a community involves processes aimed at strengthening its cohesion and its social identity. Returning to our starting assumption, when social identity depends on cohesion (or when identity is built through-out the cohesion model), intervention and environmental management ori-ented toward sustainability should prioritize—or at least not ignore—the promotion of elements that add cohesion to the group in which it is acting (see Figure 2).
Identity as identification.The notion of social identity as identification and bonding within the group is found in Mead (1934), but its cognitive inter-pretation reaches fuller development in the theories of Tajfel and Turner (Tajfel, 1978, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In this theoretical model, the basis of social identity lies in the identification that a person makes with the group to which he or she wants to belong. Group members identify with the elements that most characterize the group, attributing to themselves these characteristics. This identification strengthens self-esteem and permits group cohesion through depersonalization, the fusion of the person with the group (Turner, 1987). For Tajfel and Turner (1986), the categorical mechanism of the metacontrast accentuates in-group similarities and the out-group differences.
IDENTIFICATION (ξ1)
γ11
COHESION (ξ2) IDENTITY (η3) SUSTAINABILITY (η2)
γ12 β21
γ13
SATISFACTION (ξ3)
Evaluation in accordance with the values or prestige of the group permits differentiation vis-à-vis others and increases self-esteem (Hoggs & Abrams, 1988), allowing the establishment of what Tajfel (1978) calls a positive dis-tinctiveness. A crucial concept in Tajfel’s model, as well as in Turner’s (1987), is that of salience of identity. Both models assume that people will always choose from several identities. Only a salient identity in a specific moment will be operative. Identity will not be enough to trigger the expected sustainable habits and behaviors. Other identities will be competing with place identity, weakening, inhibiting, or even reversing its intended effect. Environmental management should create conditions to make sustainable values prototypical elements of the salient identity.
The identification model is doubly relevant to the objectives of our pro-ject: (a) If values of sustainability become prototypical of the group’s salient identity, members will adopt them in their daily lives; (b) the provision of ele-ments that structure the space and allow for positive levels of identification for the inhabitants, strengthening social identity and, indirectly, social cohe-sion. By itself it does not guarantee the acceleration of consolidation pro-cesses of a social fabric; however, it may well facilitate it. If this is the case, environmental management can use these strategies to progress toward sustainability. These methods are indirect but are likely to be more effective than strategies based only on providing information (see Figure 3).
In conclusion, the cohesion and the identification models allow us to for-mulate the general theoretical model of the CIS relationship, as shown in Fig-ure 1. We conclude that any environmental intervention will affect not only
IDENTIFICATION
COHESION
SUSTAINABILITY
SATISFACTION
the physical structure or the available resources but also direct and indirect interventions will alter the relationships of interdependence between people and groups, social cohesion, identity, identification, and the ways in which people and groups perceive the place to be their own or alien to them. And last but not least, environmental intervention may alter environmental attitudes, it is to be hoped leading to more ecologically responsible behavior and to the achievement of sustainable development.
GENERAL OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE CIS PROJECT
The main objective of the CIS project was to analyze whether well-established communities with a well-defined social identity and rooted in their surroundings are more likely to share social values that allow the anchoring of more sustainable habits and behaviors than communities that do not have a well-established social fabric and lack a sense of attachment to their surroundings.
Within this main objective we identified four specific objectives: (a) as-certaining whether places with strong identities have more consolidated social networks; (b) assessing in which cases social identity is constructed following the traditional model of cohesion or the model of identification; (c) analyzing the role of the quality of urban structure in the rise of identities (social and place); and (d) evaluating the subjective perception and value of resources in the urban unit and the degree of citizens’ responsibility toward them as a way to evaluate propensity to sustainability.
METHOD
The structure of the project and the technique aspects of its implementa-tion (such as the methodology, choosing of the samples, instruments, and data analysis) was discussed via the Internet. The research was based on questionnaire techniques; complementary qualitative research was carried out in some cases as an optional research technique.
Choosing the Settings
• Unit A: Consolidated setting with a well-established social and place identity recognized by the rest of the community.
• Unit B: New settlements that had been created recently or settlements that were old but still under development. They were characterized by low social development; either planned or unplanned, these types of settlements included a general standard and low execution with noncharacteristic urban planning.
• Unit C: New settlements that had either been created recently or were still under development. A high level of planning and a high general standard of execution with characteristic urban planning characterized them.
The sample.Each local research project consisted of an exploratory study. Thus, representative samples were not required. In the quantitative research, samples were intentional; each sample had at least 100 valid questionnaires per setting, resulting in a global valid sample ofN= 1,421.
Instruments: The standard questionnaire and the guidelines for the quali-tative study.The proposed and discussed instruments of data collection were (a) a common and standard questionnaire and (b) guidelines for qualitative research. After a pilot stage, each research team was asked to adjust the ques-tionnaire to each specific context. Each local research nucleus decided whether to carry out qualitative complementary studies. Either way, they decided how many discussion groups were needed to collect sufficiently rep-resentative information and the characteristics of these groups. A quasi-ethnographical study compiled the history and the specific characteristics of each setting, following a series of suggested guidelines.
The questionnaire and the guidelines for the qualitative study followed the five conceptual points outlined above in the general CIS model. They were designed to measure the dimensions based on the salient elements in the out-lined theoretical construction.
The standard questionnaire comprised 26 thematic items, plus socio-demographic items, that each research nucleus completed with specific ques-tions for its own community. This meant that the same item may have had a different identification number in the local questionnaires. For this reason, we do not mention the numbering of each item and merely state the theme of the item. Some items had an open format, in which case categorization according to common typologies was performed (seven items); others had precoded questions (nine items), or Likert-type scales of 1 to 6 to avoid the central tendency (seven items) or differential semantic type (three items).
history (“In your view, what events have been important for the history of your neighborhood?”), the detection of symbolic spaces (“What places do you consider most representative of your neighborhood?”), the self-image of the community and its comparison and contrast with other communities (“What is it that makes your neighborhood different from other neighbor-hoods?” “How do you think your neighborhood is regarded by people who live elsewhere?”), and the places most visited and the feeling of belonging (scale).
The construction of social identity through cohesion (according to the tra-ditional model) was evaluated based on participation in civil associations and in actions to promote social and urban improvement (precoded items), per-ceived social homogeneity of the in-group (scale), the elements that structure social relations (family, work, church, etc., as nuclei of social vertebration; precoded), and leisure time spent in the neighborhood on weekdays and weekends (scale).
Satisfaction was evaluated on the basis of the reasons for living in this par-ticular place, the desire to stay (“If I could, I would move from the neighbor-hood because . . .”), positive and negative aspects of the social and urban context, and perceived social problems and expectations for the future of the neighborhood (“What do you think your neighborhood will be like in the future; how would you like it to be?”).
Propensity to sustainability was measured on the basis of a set of indica-tors (previously selected in a specific pretest) among which the most discrim-inatory were the evaluation of water as a resource (exhaustible/inexhaustible, abundant/scarce, an individual/collective asset, recyclable/nonrecyclable), knowledge of the life cycle of waste, ecological considerations in the pur-chase of products (brand name, design, energy consumption, reusable or not, packaging), and the residents’ involvement in caring for the common envi-ronment (“Is the cleaning and upkeep of your neighborhood your responsi-bility or the responsiresponsi-bility of the authorities?” on a 6-point scale).
Identity was considered a second-order factor, generated by identifica-tion, cohesion, and satisfaction with the social reality and its urban structure as it has been explained following each of the proposed models of identity construction.
The variable urban characteristic was controlled through the typology outlined above, which was used as a criterion for selecting the analyzed set-tings. This variable was contrasted in the empirical measurement based on responses to items of satisfaction with the urban environment.
inferential statistical techniques using Statistical Package for the Social Sci-ences (SPSS) for Windows. The adjustment of collected data to a common structural equation model (EQS) to evaluate the covariances between the dif-ferent factors was performed by the Barcelona team, to control potential interpretative biases from the treatment of data. In some local cases (Guild-ford, Barcelona-Viladecans, Barcelona-Olympic Village), the adjustment to the common structural model was also explored.
The model was evaluated using the procedure described by Lee, Poon, and Bentler (1992). As variables were of categorical type, the estimation of parameters of the model was carried out using the polytomic correlation’s matrix. The EQS v3.0 program for Windows (Bentler, 1995) was used to simultaneously test the structure and measurement parts of the models. At the end of this issue, Guàrdia and Pol present the overall results and the detailed procedure followed in the research.
Local results and usefulness of this research.As mentioned previously, the results of the research were discussed at network meetings. The articles in this issue constitute a report of the local investigations carried out in a range of geographical, cultural, and socioeconomic contexts. Each article suggests refinements to the theoretical starting points. Thus, they enrich the theoreti-cal and interpretative framework. The article at the end of the issue focuses on the general evaluation of the results as a whole and the general conclusions of the project. The results are expected to provide empirical support to establish strategies to reach sustainability through social interaction and through plan-ning and management of human settlements.
REFERENCES
Allende Landa, J. (1995). Desarrollo sostenible. De lo global a lo local [Sustainable develop-ment. From global to local].Ciudad y Territorio,3(104), 267-281.
Bechtel, R. B. (1997).Environment and behavior: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bentler, P. M. (1995).EQS Structural Equations Program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.
Bonnes, M. (1998). The ecological shift, environmental sustainability and the “shifting bal-ances.” In J. Teklenburg, J. van Andel, J. Smeets, & A. Seidel (Eds.),Shifting balances. Changing roles in policy, research and design(pp. 165-176). Eindhoven, the Netherlands: University of Eindhoven, EIRASS.
Brandt, W. (1981).Informe de la Comisión Brandt[Brandt Commission Report]. Mexico City: Nueva Imagen.
Castells, M. (1987). Reestructuración económica, revolución tecnológica y nueva organización del territorio [Economic restructuring, technologic revolution and new organization of regions].Documentación social,67, 43-68.
Castells, M. (1996).The information age: Economy, society and culture.The rise of network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona. (1998).The sustainable city. Barcelona, Spain: Author.
Cobb, J. B. (1995). Toward a just sustainable economic order.Journal of Social Issues,51(4), 83-100.
Corraliza, J. A. (1998). Human behavior and ecological crisis: Social and psychological dimen-sions.Bulletin of People-Environment Studies,11, 36-40.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition.Human Relations,2, 129-152. Engels, F. (1974).El problema de la vivienda y las grandes ciudades[The problem of housing
and big cities]. Barcelona, Spain: Gustavo Gili. (Original work published 1848) European Commission. (1993).Towards sustainability.The European Community Program of
policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development (better known as The Fifth EC Environmental Action Program)[Online]. Retrieved May 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/actionpr.htm
Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society.Environment & Behavior,22(2), 183-229.
García, I., Giuliani, F., & Wiesenfeld, E. (1994). El lugar de la teoría en psicología social comunitaria: Comunidad y sentido de comunidad [The place of theory in community social psychology: Community and sense of community]. In M. Montero (Coord.),Psicología social comunitaria(pp. 75-102). Guadalajara, Mexico: Universidad de Guadalajara. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996).Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Hoggs, M., & Abrams, D. (1988).Social identifications.Asocial psychology of intergroup rela-tions and group processes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hunter, A. (1987). The symbolic ecology of suburbia. In I. Altman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighbourhood and community environments, human behaviour and environment(Vol. 9). New York: Plenum.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. (1994).Charter of European cities and towns towards sustainability.The Aalborg Charter[Online]. Available: http://www. iclei.org/europe/echarter.htm
Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1976).The appropriation of space. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: University of Louvain-la-Neuve, CIACO.
Lalli, M. (1988). Urban identity. In D. Canter (Ed.),Environmental social psychology(NATO Advanced Studies Institute Series, Behavioral and Social Sciences) (pp. 303-311). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings.Journal of Environmental Psychology,12(4), 285-303.
Lee, S.Y., Poon, W. Y., & Bentler, P. M. (1992). Structural equation models with continuous and polytomous variables.Psychometrika,57, 89-105.
Lefebvre, H. (1971).De lo rural a lo urbano[From the rural to the urban]. Barcelona, Spain: Península. (Original work published 1970)
Levi, L., & Anderson, L. (1975).Psychosocial stress: Population, environment and quality of life. Holliswood, NY: Spectrum.
Lewin, K. (1965). Group decision and social change. In H. Proshansky & B. Seidenberg (Eds.), Basic studies in social psychology(pp. 423-437). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (Original work published 1947)
Lynch, K. (1960).La imagen de la ciudad[The image of the city]. Barcelona, Spain: Gustavo Gili.
Malthus, T. R. (1966).Primer ensayo sobre población[First essay on population]. Madrid, Spain: Alianza. (Original work published 1798)
Martínez-Alier, J. (1992).De la economía ecológica al ecologismo popular[From ecological economy to popular environmentalism]. Barcelona, Spain: Icaria.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Oskamp, S. (1995). Psychology and sustainability: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues,51(4), 1-14.
Mead, G. H. (1934).Mind, self & society.From the standpoint of social behaviorism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972).The limits to growth. New York: New American Library.
Moreno, E., & Pol, E. (1999). Nociones psicosociales para la intervención y la gestión ambiental [Psychosocial notions for environmental intervention and management] (Monografies Socio/Ambientals, Vol. 14). Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona. Moser, G., Pol, E., Bernard, Y., Bonnes, M., Corraliza, J., & Giuliani, M. V. (Eds.). (2000).
Metropolis 2000: Which perspectives? Cities, social life and sustainable development. (Monografies Socio/Ambientals, Vol. 16) [CD-ROM]. Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona.
Olson, R. (1995). Sustainability as a social vision.Journal of Social Issues,51(4), 15-35. Pol, E. (1996). La apropriación del espacio [Space appropriation]. In L. Íñiguez & E. Pol
(Comps.),Cognición, representación y apropriación del espacio. (Monografies Psico/ Socio/Ambientals, Vol. 9, pp. 45-62). Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona. Pol, E. (1997a). Entre el “idílico pasado” y el “cruento ahora”. La psicología ambiental frente al
cambio global [Between the idyllic past and crude present. Environmental psychology in the global change]. In R. García-Mira, C. Arce, & J. M. Sabucedo (Comps.),Responsabilidad ecológica y gestión de los recursos ambientales(pp. 315-340). A Coruña, Spain: Diputación Provincial de A Coruña.
Pol, E. (1997b). Symbolism a priori—Symbolism a posteriori. In A. Remesar (Ed.),Urban regeneration.A challenge for public art(Monografies Psico/Socio/Ambientales, Vol. 6, pp. 71-76). Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona.
Pol, E. (1999). Sostenibilitat, valors socials i comportament humà. Estratégies i contradiccions [Sustainability, social values and human behavior. Strategies and contradictions]. In R. Folch, T. Franquesa, E. Pol, E. Ferreres, R. Díez Hochleitner, & R. Margalef (Eds.), Desenvolupament sostenible.Els llindars en la construcció de les relaciones humanes i el medi ambient.Pensaments(Vol. 7, pp. 45-66). Lleida, Spain: Universitat de Lleida. Pol, E. (2002). Environmental management. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.),Handbook of
environmental psychology.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world social-ization of the self.Journal of Environmental Psychology,3(1), 57-83.
Rapoport, A. (1974).Aspectos de la calidad del entorno[Features of environment quality]. Bar-celona, Spain: La Gaya/Collegi Oficial de Arquitectes de Catalunya i Balears.
Ricardo, D. (1971).Principles of political economy and taxation. London: Penguin. (Original work published 1821)
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953).Groups in harmony and tension.An integration of studies on intergroup relations. New York: Harper.
Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environment change.Annual Review of Psychology,43, 269-302.
Stern, P. C., & Easterling, W. E. (1999).Human dimensions of climate variability. Washington, DC: National Academic Press & World Scientific Publishing.
Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.),Cognition, social behavior and the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978).Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981).Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),The social psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson.
Turner, J. C. (1987).Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
United Nations. (1992).Rio Declaration on Environment and Development[Online]. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro. Available: http://www.earthcharter.org/resources/riodeclar_en.htm
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. (1999).Agenda 21[Online]. Retrieved May 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21text.htm Valera, S. (1993). El símbolisme en la ciutat. Funcions de l’espai simbólic urbà [Symbolism in
the city. Functions of symbolic urban space]. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barce-lona, Spain.
Valera, S., & Pol, E. (1994). El concepto de identidad social urbana. Una aproximación entre la psicología social y la psicología ambiental [The concept of urban social identity. Approxi-mation between social and environmental psychology].Anuario de Psicología,62(3), 5-24. Winter, D. (1996).Ecological psychology: Healing the split between planet and self. New York:
