SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES:

A CASE STUDY IN MYTILENE, GREECE

Nikoleta Jones*, Constantinos P. Halvadakis and Costas M. Sophoulis
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece
Environmental Politics. Vol. 20, No. 2, March 2011, 264–283

Interconnection of social capital components

Social trust is connected with social networks through the enforcement of participation
(Newton and Norris 2000).
Individuals who tend to trust their fellow citizens present a higher tendency of participating in
activities for the resolution of environmental problems and an increased environmental
awareness (Lubell 2002).
This is also connected to an individual’s perception that certain members of the community
behave in an environmentally responsible manner (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).
Furthermore, trust and compliance with norms are both linked with an individual’s perception
of the behaviour of fellow citizens, as analysed both by Putnam (2000).
Putnam et al. (1993) underlined the importance of norms of reciprocity, which are also
connected with the symmetric relationships of trust identified by Coleman (1990).

1. Lubell, M., 2002. Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and

Behaviour 34, 431–454.
2. Newton, K. and Norris, P., 2000. Confidence in public institutions: faith, culture, or
performance? In: S.J. Pharr and R. Putnam, eds. Disaffected democracies: what’s
troubling the trilateral countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 52–73.
3. Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
4. Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R.Y., 1993. Making democracy work: civic
traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Wondolleck, J.M., and Yaffee, S.L., 2000. Making collaboration work. Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES:
A CASE STUDY IN MYTILENE, GREECE
Nikoleta Jones*, Constantinos P. Halvadakis and Costas M. Sophoulis
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece
Environmental Politics. Vol. 20, No. 2, March 2011, 264–283

Social capital and citizens’ behaviour during environmental policy implementation

The literature review has highlighted significant links between the four components of social
capital and environmental behaviour.

The level of compliance and cooperation of citizens during environmental policy applications
may depend on several factors (Etzioni 1961, Bullock and Rogers 1976, Parsons 2001)
including social capital parameters (Jones et al. 2009). However, the influence of social
capital components may vary depending on the type of policy instrument implemented.

A significant distinction is between obligatory and voluntary policies. The former promote
certain regulations and force citizens to comply with them whereas the latter depend on
voluntary participation and promote collaboration of individuals during policy
implementation (Bruckmeier and Teherani-Kronner 1992, Rittberger and Richardson 2003,
Olsson et al. 2004, Koontz and Thomas 2006, Morton 2008).

The other instruments exist, such as marketbased instruments, providing economic

incentives in order to promote citizens’ cooperation (Driesen 2006) and communicative
instruments (Eckerberg 1997) aiming to diffuse information and increase environmental
awareness. In reality, environmental policies refer to a combination of these instruments in
order to increase their efficiency.

1. Bullock, C.S. III. and Rodgers, H.R. Jr., 1976. Civil rights policies and the matter of
compliance. In: J.E. Anderson et al., eds. Cases in public policy making. New York:
Praeger, 237–257.

2. Driesen, D., 2006. Economic instruments for sustainable development. In: B.J.
Richardsonand and S. Wood, eds. Environmental law for sustainability. Portland, OR:
Hart, 277–308.

3. Eckerberg, K., 1997. Comparing the local use of environmental policy instruments in
Nordic and Baltic countries – the issue of diffuse water pollution. Environmental
Politics, 6, 24–47.

4. Etzioni, A., 1961. A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free
Press.
5. Jones, N., et al., 2009. Social capital and environmental policy instruments.
Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 595–611.

6. Koontz, T.M. and Thomas, C.W., 2006. What do we know and need to know about
the environmental outcomes of collaborative management. Public Administration
Review, 66, 111–121.

7. Morton, L.W., 2008. The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based

watershed management. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 751–766.

8. Parsons, W., 2001. Public policy: an introduction to the theory and practice of policy
analysis. 4th edn. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES:
A CASE STUDY IN MYTILENE, GREECE
Nikoleta Jones*, Constantinos P. Halvadakis and Costas M. Sophoulis
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece
Environmental Politics. Vol. 20, No. 2, March 2011, 264–283

The four components of social capital are expected to influence significantly citizens’
cooperation and compliance with an environmental policy. The most indicative connection
derives from the influence of structural elements.

Social networks are important during the implementation of public policies in order to
diffuse information and minimise non-compliance due to lack of knowledge (Anderson
2006). However, social networks are expected to be of high significance in the case of
‘softer’ policy instruments (voluntary and informative) which do not oblige citizens to
change their behaviour. In order for citizens to cooperate voluntarily and present a shift in
their behaviour, there is a greater need for benefits resulting from social networks. These
mainly refer to an increase in participation, the diffusion of knowledge of the positive
outcomes of the policy and information on means of participation.

Involvement in participatory management projects may also have a positive influence on

other aspects of social capital such as trust (Mandarano 2008).

Furthermore, the tendency of individuals to comply with formal social norms may have a
significant influence in the case of regulatory instruments (Jones et al. 2009).

1. Anderson, J.E. 2006. Public policymaking: an introduction. 6th ed. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

2. Jones, N., et al., 2009. Social capital and environmental policy instruments.
Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 595–611.

3. Mandarano, L.A., 2008. Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and

outcomes: restoring and protecting habitat in the New York–New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 456–468.
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES:
A CASE STUDY IN MYTILENE, GREECE
Nikoleta Jones*, Constantinos P. Halvadakis and Costas M. Sophoulis
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece
Environmental Politics. Vol. 20, No. 2, March 2011, 264–283

Model

A structural equation model (SEM) was used to validate the proposed

conceptual structure. In particular, the observed variables measuring social capital were
connected with the four latent factors of social capital (social and institutional trust,
compliance with social norms and social networks). The latent variables were then
connected with different types of environmental behaviours each constituting a different
model .

Structural model for waste regulation