Chapter Introduction: The Effectiveness of Green Organizations INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making. (UN CSD website, 2001; in King, 2004) Emerging from the 1992 Earth Summit, the Agenda 21 document made specific mention of its recognition of the importance of civil society, as both distinct from the government, and as a vital player and partner in working towards sustainable development. The UN recognized that without the voice of various NGOs representing the different aspects of civil society, sustainable development could not take place. The Earth Charter was the first benchmark draft presented at Rio + 5, after consultation and reviews of previous charter initiatives with both government and civil society (Mottershead & La Grange, 2000). It represented the link between civil society and government in working towards sustainable development. The environmental NGOs involved in these negotiations, had contributed to putting environmental concerns on the radar and illustrating how these issues affect peopleʼs daily lives, and what could be done to alleviate these problems. However, upon closer inspection, it appears that many of these environmental groups had emerged from countries with strong democracies and participatory traditions. Asia, which has had a significantly weaker tradition of democracy, tends to display more feeble public voices and fewer NGOs (Hopkinson et al., 1997). To better understand how environmental groups can make a difference under these conditions, this thesis will therefore focus on comparing between the environmental movements in Asian global cities, Singapore and Hong Kong. More developed countries with better networks and media have tended towards more complex and 
 1
 successful interaction with government and society at large, thereby allowing for stronger presence of NGOs. Many studies of social movements have attempted to highlight this importance of democratic civil society participation and community mobilization in helping to enable a change towards greater sustainable development. However, although the USA has one of the strongest environmental movements and vibrant medias, it remains one of the most unsustainable nations and economies. What then can be attributed to the success of environmental movements? What makes one movement, or environmental group more successful than another? This thesis will be looking at, and comparing green organizations in Singapore and Hong Kong such as to provide explanations to understanding this puzzle. Being global cities, both have well-developed economies, well-educated citizenries and have the advantage of excellent networks. However, as we shall discuss later, both citiesʼ environmental movements, and individual environmental groups have achieved varying levels of success. What accounts for these differences? Through analyzing the activities and programs of four green organizations, and the lifestyles of their leaders – the Green Volunteers Network and Kampung Senang in Singapore, and Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong) and Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Gardens in Hong Kong – this thesis will draw upon comparisons between these organizations to explain the conditions that give rise to their varying ecological efficacies. Adopting a Bourdieusian approach, it will so through the introduction, and use of the concept of an ecological habitus and understanding of the field conditions within which these groups/movements are positioned. Situating itself in the larger discussion on-going in social movements theory, this thesis aims also to contribute to the debate between resource mobilization theory (RMT) and new social movements theory (NSMT) by introducing Bourdieuʼs concepts of social and cultural capital to this theoretical discussion, and making use of these concepts to further 
 2
 develop towards a synthesis of both traditions. THEORIZING THE GREEN MOVEMENT Environmental movements are conceived as broad networks of people and organizations engaged in collective action in the pursuit of environmental benefits (Rootes, 1997; Diani, 1992). They are understood to be very diverse and complex: ranging in organizational forms from highly organized and formally institutionalized to radically informal, and in spatial scope from local to global, and nature of concerns from single issues to a full panoply of environmental issues (Rootes, 1999: 2). Whereas green parties and green organizations are fairly easy to delimit, the green movement is one that has been left deliberately vague and open to interpretation. There exists a wide range of sub-movements within the larger movement. Table I features a compiled (but non-exhaustive) list of the different sub-movements such as to better illustrate the diversity and complexity. There have been two main traditions in social movements theory: resource mobilization theory (RMT) and new social movements theory (NSMT). Whilst RMT is largely based on the principle that social phenomena are the results of individual decisions and choices that have been developed from the fundamental premise of rational choice, NSMT is premised on the post-modern “cultural turn”. Whereas industrial society was organized around manufacturing production, post-industrial society emphasizes knowledge, information and discourse management as the key resources (Nash, 2000: 110). For Touraine (1971), this leads to new forms of conflict, which are more cultural, than economic. Class conflict, therefore, becomes replaced by conflict over control of knowledge, through which new society is managed. It is therefore highly dependent on the mass media through which appeals are made and 
 3
 protests are staged. It is also more oriented towards civil society than against the state – that is, championing directly for socio-economic rights that are more concerned with aspects of culture and lifestyles, and participation in symbolic protests. Their suspicion of centralized bureaucratic structures has also had the effect of orienting their activities and missions towards changing public views – with more concern towards aspects of culture, lifestyles and participation in symbolic protests – rather than towards changing elite institutions and claiming socioeconomic rights (Scott, 1990: Chap. 1; Crook et al., 1992: 148). On top of this, these NSMs are also organized in non-hierarchical ways. “Some aspects of the organization of NSMs clearly distinguish them from formal political organizations, to the extent that ʻnetworkʼ is often a better description than ʻorganizationʼ: they are often locally based or centred on small groups rather than nationally oriented, organized around specific issues rather than offering general solutions, experience vacillations of high and low activity rather than enjoying a relatively stable membership, and are run by fluid hierarchies and loose authority structures” (Nash, 2000: 104). However, these organizations are best viewed as a continuum of environmental action as there have been instances where political parties have been formed such as to enact political action. Greenpeace, for example, is one such NSM – in contrast, Friends of the Earth is run on the basis of local involvement of their members in their own localities. Some theorists have explained NSMs through socio-economic reasons. For Offe (1987), although there has been evidence of departure from direct class-based political action, he argues that a class dimension still exists – in that there is an obvious new middle-class concentration in the composition of these NSMs. These movements, however, no longer make demands “on the behalf of a class” (1987: 77), but for injustices they perceive to be inherent in the current class structures and 
 4
 contemporary capitalist systems. Another popular socio-economic explanation for NSMs, which links it to the development in advanced capitalist societies, is offered by Habermas. He sees NSMs as having emerged from the extension of commodification of a consumer economy and increasing encroachment of bureaucratic welfare states into what was once considered “private life”. For him, NSMs have emerged to protect and defend what he terms a “lifeworld”. This “lifeworld” encompasses within it the space in which the values of a community and family thrive. His solution therefore, is through “communicative rationality” (1988) sought by these progressive NSMs, to replace the older, non-rational system; and in turn, promote a more rationally ordered and participatory society. Another explanation that has been put forth for the rise of NSMs is socio-cultural accounts based on generational factors. Pakulskiʼs (1995) research, for example, shows that the social profile of members involved in the ecological movements of Europe, USA and Australia actually show great similarities with the general social profile of the under-40 age-group, in the population as a whole. His research is thus in line with Inglehartʼs (1990) popular explanation of NSMs as a generational turn towards adopting more “postmaterial values”, due to this generation having enjoyed relative economic stability and security. This generational group, is therefore described as privileging quality of life issues – more concern with promoting less formal, and more intimate relationships with others, the growth of personal self-esteem, and intellectual and aesthetic satisfaction – over those who have experienced socio-economic deprivation. These accounts and explanations of NSMT largely build on evidence of, and try to point to class decomposition (Crook et al., 1992: 241-3). RMT, on the other hand, takes on a more functionalist approach – they believe individuals are purposefully involved in collective action as a result of rational consideration of their own interests. They, therefore, mobilize their available 
 5
 resources in a manner that makes their participation rational for their own selfinterests. RMT has been subject to broad-ranging criticisms due to the awakening of interest in less rational aspects of individual motivation. Oberschall (1973) has therefore responded by widely defining these resources to include material resources such as jobs and money, and non-material resources such as authority, commitment, friendship and skills. Developing from traditional RMT, he argues that social movements might incur great risks and costs from individuals, but that the perceptions of these trade-offs are influenced greatly by the socio-cultural contexts that people are situated in. This is particularly so when members of particular social groups find “normal” opportunities in wider society closed to them. The benefits should they succeed, then appear very high and the costs relatively lower than rationally expected. Unlike Olson (1968) who attempted to understand participation in terms of individuated motivations and risks, Oberschall proposes that people often live in communities in which collective action benefits the majority, thereby placing pressure on individuals to participate in working towards common goals. The professionalization of social movement organizations has also led to the development of career opportunities for individuals involved. Zald and McCarthy (1987) have linked this to the increased wealth of the new middle classes who have largely spearheaded SMOs. They, however, define resources more narrowly than Oberschall, and set it within the research agenda of RMT to develop understandings of how traditional resources of legitimacy, money, labour and facilities can and have been mobilized. The work of Zald and McCarthy (1987; 1988) had also made headway into situating SMOs in relation to wider political processes. It is recognized that as resources largely lie in the hands of established institutions, that it would be difficult to mobilize resources for causes that are deemed threatening to the current social order. It was Tilly (1978) in From Mobilization to 
 6
 Revolution who developed this further, and brought in the role of the state. This is of particular importance to this study as Asian societies have long exhibited dominant state influence in all matters of their social life. Tilly argued that as the most powerful actor in modern industrial societies, the state selectively represses or facilitates social movements and/or their activities according to the perceived interests of state elites. Some SMOs are tolerated and even encouraged to the extent where they become part of the polis, and gain access to the government. Being fairly nonthreatening in nature, environmental movements in Singapore and Hong Kong have managed to gain this routine access to government. As we shall discuss in later chapters, this brings with it, its own complications. Tillyʼs work fits within RMT in so far as he is concerned with how resources are mobilized to deal with collective grievances, within a Marxist view. As a result, his theory of political opportunity structures directs the focus fundamentally on grassroots resistance and movements. Like Oberschall, this helps to situate individuals in socio-cultural contexts and communities which help individuals to develop and construct their own systems of meaning and value – that is, as RMT assumes that individuals get involved in SMOs based on the perceived value of their actions, that what is considered “valuable” or not, is in itself a cultural construction. The socio-cultural contexts and relationships within which everyone is situated is therefore an important contributing factor to consider. As a response to criticisms of RMT as being too atomistic and overrationalist, RMT has attempted to develop along with the cultural turn, to provide better accounts of cultural subjectivity. Adapting Goffmanʼs “framing theory”, scholars have tried to explain how actors simplify the world through selective encoding of events and experiences such as to negotiate meanings and commit themselves to SMOs and selected causes (Snow & Benford, 1992; Tarrow, 1992). However, in line with the fundamental belief in RMT, culture is still deemed by these theorists to be 
 7
 simply a resource to be manipulated by actors, which is to be used rationally as a means to reach an end (McAdam et al., 1996). Framing is thus seen as “the conscious strategic efforts by groups of people to fashion shared understandings of the world and of themselves that legitimate and motivate collective actions” (1996: 6), which is effectively applied such as to mobilize support and resources. Efforts have also been made in social movements theory, to synthesize and reconcile both the RMT and NSM traditions. Diani (1992) for example, argues that both traditions are now so close that it is possible to synthesize them without doing injustice to either. This thesis situates itself in the RMT tradition, whilst proposing the importance of social relations/networks within existing grassroots communities as an important resource. However, it also recognizes the importance of the cultural turn that has inspired NSM theory, and the importance of culture as a resource. This thesis will be employing Bourdieuʼs (1979) concepts of social and cultural capital as components of a proposed “ecological habitus” which motivates and results in green social movements/behaviour. This thesis proposes that “social capital”, and/or the social contexts and networks within which these social movements are able to draw support from, form vital resources that RMT should consider. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK This thesis will marry the theoretical contributions of Pierre Bourdieuʼs habitus and social/cultural capital, with Murray Bookchinʼs social ecology in a bid to understand how the creation of specific dispositions within a group of people can lead to more effective mobilization of environmental sensibilities; and put in place more impetus for individual agents within these societies to engage in green 
 8
 behavior. Bourdieuʼs (1979) concept of habitus helps us understand how structures are internalized and embodied on an everyday level. On the other hand, Bookchinʼs social ecological framework shows how the larger social organizational aspects of any given society affect environmental dispositions and behavior. This research will attempt to marry Bourdieu and Bookchin, by introducing the concept of the ecological habitus – which, can be understood as a set of durable but mutable dispositions towards the relationship between human and nature, and between humans within nature; that results in corresponding behavior. It aims to understand how an ecological habitus is formed and experienced by people, and how the cultivation of cultural- and social capital can effectively alter or maintain the ecological habitus. Bookchinʼs (1993) proposition to help improve levels of social ecological balance as a means to promote environmental sustainability is for society to be reorganized into eco-friendly communes, which will be managed as municipalities. Citizens themselves would deal with property in such communes - instead of elite social groups or individuals, so as to avoid bureaucracy and hierarchy. This would lead to the inseparability of collective/personal, public/private and political/social interests 1, and a re-awakening of our natural spirituality. The development of eco-citizenship represents a new strategy for adaptation in an environmentally threatened world. However, this shift would require more than just mere political and top-down changes. Such change would require a cultural shift in society (Inglehart, 1990: 3). Bourdieuʼs proposed “forms of capital” (1986) is useful here, as the development of eco-citizenship would require, firstly, a well established level of social capital and networking amongst members. This would lead to recognition of the importance of other agentsʼ function in, and contribution to the cultural and social fabric, instead of 























































 These municipalities would then go on to form networked confederations that will be able to form powerful oppositions to the nation-state and their capitalistic interests. 
 9
 focusing on the competition the other poses. Secondly, an “aesthetic” appreciation of the environment would also require for a form of cultural capital to be cultivated. This “culture” is one founded on appreciation for a shared life-world, and a commitment to the reproduction of the cultural fabric necessary for the perpetuation of it. It is important here, for us to define more carefully, the concept of social and cultural capital as they are used in this thesis. The concept of social capital has been well established in the social sciences, however, it has undergone many permutations of meaning (Coleman, 1987; Putnam, 2000; Lin, 2001). In keeping with the proposed Bourdieusian approach, when referring to social capital, this thesis means for it to be understood as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (Bourdieu, 1986: 296). This study has operationalized social capital by borrowing concepts from social network analysis. In order to measure the level of social capital each GO possesses, focus is concentrated on (1) the nodes in each organization, and (2) the quality of links/ties they have both in and out of the organization. The structure and composition of ties between the vital nodal points, both within and outside of the organization, and the level of centralization/decentralization and structural cohesion of ties will be able to measure the level of social capital being built. These ties commonly take the form of, firstly, inter-organizational links/networks, such as collaborations or close partnerships with other organizations (international, regional 
 10
 























































 Bourdieu, Pierre, 1979 [1992], Distinction, trans. Richard Nice, London: Routledge. - 1986, “The Forms of Capital”, in Richardson, J.G. (ed.), Handbook for the Theory & Research in the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press. Brand, Karl-Werner, 1997, “Environmental Consciousness and behavior: the greening of lifestyles”, in Redclift, M. & Woodgate, G. (eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar: 204-217. Briffett, C., 1990, “Master plan for the conservation of Nature in Singapore”, Singapore: Malayan Nature Society. Castells, Manuel, 1997a, The Rise of Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. I, Cambridge: Blackwell. - 1997b, The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. II, Cambridge: Blackwell. Chan, Cecilia, 1993, “Grassroots Mobilization for Environmental Protection: Tactics and Dilemmas”, in Chan, C. & Hills, P. (eds.), Limited Gains:Grassroots Mobilization and the Environment in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press. 
 
 
 117
 























































 Cheong-Chua, K.H., 1995, “Urban Land-Use Planning in Singapore: Towards a Tropical City of Excellence”, in Ooi, Giok Ling (ed.), Environment and the City: Sharing Singaporeʼs Experience and Future Challenges, Singapore: Times Academic Press: 109-128. Cheung, Paul P.L., 1995, “Planning Within Limits: Population Polic and Sustainable Population Growth”, in Ooi, Giok Ling (ed.), Environment and the City: Sharing Singaporeʼs Experience and Future Challenges, Singapore: Times Academic Press: 100-108. Civic Exchange, 2004a, Merging Hong Kongʼs Railways: The Public Interest Perspective, Hong Kong: Civic Exchange. - 2004b, Direct External Benefits: Island Line/South Island Line, Hong Kong: Civic Exchange. - 2007a, Still Holding Our Breaths: A Review of Air Quality Policy in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Civic Exchange. - 2007b, Reflections of Leadership: Tung Chee Hwa & Donald Tsang, Hong Kong; Civic Exchange. Coleman, James. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology Supplement 94: S95-S120. Council for Development of Sustainable Strategy, 1997, SusDev 21, Hong Kong. 
 118
 























































 Council for Sustainable Development, 2005, First Sustainable Development Plan for Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Council for Sustainable Development, 2008, Environment Hong Kong 2008, Hong Kong. Crook, S., Pakulski, J. & Waters, M., 1992, Postmodernization: Change in Advanced Society, London: Sage. Davis, S.G., 1965, Land Use Problems in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Diani, M., 1992, “The Concept of Social Movement”, Sociological Review, 40(1). Goh, Daniel P.S., 2001, “The Politics of the Environment in Singapore? Lessons from a Strange Case”, Asian Journal of Social Science, 29(1): 9-34. - 
 2007, “Protecting Check Jawa: The Politics of Conservation and memory at the Edge of a Nation”, in N. Sodhi, G. Acciaioli, E. Maribeth & A. Tan (Eds.) Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in 119
 























































 Protected Areas: Case Studies from the Malay Archipelago, Cambridge University Press: 311-29. Habermas, J., 1988, The Legitimation Crisis, trans. T. McCarthy, Cambridge: Polity Press. Ho, H.C., 1997, “A Value Orientation for Nature Preservation in Singapore”, in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (44): 91-102. Hobson, Kersty, 2005, “Considering Green Practices: NGOs and Singaporeʼs Emergent Environmental-Political Landscape”, Sojourn 20(2): 155-78. Home, R., 1997, Of Planting and Planning: The Making of British Colonial Cities, London: E & FN Spon. Hong Kong 2030, 2007, Hong Kong 2030: Planning, Vision & Strategy, Planning Department, Hong Kong. Hong Kong Housing Authority, 2008, Housing Authority Statistics, Hong Kong. 
 120
 























































 - 2001, Housing in Figures, Hong Kong. Hong Kong Planning Department, 2008, Hong Kong Land Planning 2008, (http://www.pland.gov.hk/press/publication/ar_08/english/about.htm), Hong Kong. Hopkins, K., 1971, Hong Kong, the Industrial Colony: A Political, Social and Economic Survey, London & Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Hopkinson, Lisa, 1998, “Sustainable Transportation”, in Mottershead, T. (ed.), Sustainable Development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Hui, Joseph, 1995, “Environmental Policy and Green Planning”, in Ooi, Giok Ling (ed.), Environment and the City: Sharing Singaporeʼs Experience and Future Challenges, Singapore: Times Academic Press. Hung, Wing Tat, 1993, “The Politicization of the Environment”, in Chan, C. & Hills, P. (eds.), Limited Gains:Grassroots Mobilization and the Environment in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press. Inglehart, Ronald, 1977, The Silent Revolution, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
 121
 























































 - 1990, Culture Shift: In Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kampung Senang, 2007/8, Special Eco-Harmony Issue (Nov. 2007 – Feb. 2008), Singapore. Khondker, Habibul, 2001, “Environment and the Global Civil Society”, Asian Journal of Social Science, 29(1): 53-72. King, Sophie B., 2004, “Sustainable Development and Civil Society”, in T. Mottershead (ed.), Sustainable Development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Koh, Aaron, 2007, “Living with Globalization Tactically: The Metapragmatics of Globalization in Singapore”, SOJOURN (2): 179-201. Koh, G and Ooi, G. L., 2000, “Achieving State-Society Synergies”, in Gillian Koh and Ooi Giok Ling (eds.) State-Society Relations in Singapore, Singapore: Oxford University Press. 
 122
 























































 Kong, Lily, 1994, “Environment as a Social Concern: Democratizing Public Arenas in Singapore”, Sojourn 9(2): 277-287. - 2000, "Cultural policy in Singapore: negotiating economic and socio-cultural agendas", Geoforum 31, 409-24. Kong, Lily, and Yeoh, B.S.A., 1996, “Social Constructions of Nature in Urban Singapore”, in Southeast Asian Studies (34): 402-423. La Grange, A. & Yip, N.M., 2001, “Social Belonging, Social Capital and the Promotion of Home Ownership: A Case Study of Hong Kong”, Housing Studies, 16(3): 291-310. Lai, O.K., 2000, “Greening of Hong Kong? – Forms of Manifestation of Environmental Movements”, in Tai, L.K. & Wing, Stephen (Eds.) The Dynaamics of Social Movements in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lea, J.P., 1999, “Foreword”, in Lai, L. (ed.), Town Planning in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Leeds, P.F., 1998, “Evolution of Urban Transport”, in Dimitriou, H. & Cook, L.S.A. (eds.), Land Use / Transport in Hong Kong: The End of an Era, Brookfield: Ashgate. 
 123
 























































 Lin, Nan, 2001, Social Capital, Cambridge University Press. Lui, H.K., 1997, Income Inequality and Economic Development, Hong Kong: City University Press. Lye, L.H., 1999, “Legal Protection of the Natural Environment”, in C. Briffett and H.C. Ho (eds.), State of the Natural Environment in Singapore, Singapore: Nature Society Singapore. Master Plan, 2003, Master Plan 2003, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. - 2008, Master Plan 2008, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. & Zald, M., 1996, “Accessing Public, Media, Electoral and Governmental Agendas”, in McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. & Zald, M. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures and Cultural Framings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mekani, K. & Stengel, H. G., 1995, “The Role of NGOs and Near NGOs”, in Ooi, Giok Ling (ed.), Environment and the City: Sharing Singaporeʼs Experience and Future Challenges, Singapore: Times Academic Press. 
 124
 























































 Mottershead, Terri & La Grange, Adrienne, 2000, “Developing a Strategic Framework for Sustainable Development in Hong Kong: Is an Earth Charter the Answer?”, Public Administration and Policy 9(2). Nash, K., 2000, Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics and Power, Oxford & Massachusetts: Blackwell. Neo, H., 1997, “Challenging the Developmental State: Nature Conversation in Singapore”, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 48(2): 186-199. Neo, H. and Savage, V.R., 2002, “Shades of Green, Fields of Gold: Discourse, representations and the politics of golf in Singapore”, Landscape Research 27(4): 397-411. Ng, M.K., 1992, The Politics of Planning and Regional Development: A Case Study of the Container Port and Airport Development in Hong Kong, California & Massachusetts: University of California Press. Oberschall, A., 1973, Social Conflict and Social Movements, New Jersey: PrenticeHall. 
 125
 























































 Offe, C., 1987, “Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics: Social Movements Since the 1960s”, in Maier, C.S. (ed.), Changing Boundaries of the Political, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olson, M., 1968, The Logic of Collective Action, New York: Schocken Books. On, K.L., Magno, F.A., So, Alvin, Y.S., Lee, S.H., Hsiao, Michael & Liu, H.J., 1999, “The Impact of Democratization on Environmental Movements”, in Lee, Y.F. & So, Alvin F. (eds.) Asiaʼs Environmental Movements, London: M.E. Sharpe. Ooi, Giok Long, 1995, Environment and the City: Sharing Singaporeʼs Experience and Future Challenges, Singapore: Times Academic Press. Pakulski, J., 1995, “Social Movements and Class: The Decline of the Marxist Paradigm”, in Maheu, L. (ed.), Social Movements and Social Classes: The Future of Collective Action, London: Sage. Putnam, Robert, 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon and Schuster. 
 126
 























































 Rodan, Garry, 1993, “Preserving the One-Party State in Contemporary Singapore”, in K. Hewison, R. Robison, and G. Rodan (eds.) Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Capitalism, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin. Rootes, Christopher, 1997, “Shaping Collective Action: Structure, Contingency and Knowledge”, in Edmonson, R. (ed.), The Political Context of Collective Action, London & New York: Routeledge. - 1999, “The Transformation of Environmental Activism: activists, organizations and policy-making”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2): 155-173. Sassen, S., 2001, “Spatialities and Temporalities of the Global: Elements for a Theorization”, in Appadurai, A. (ed.), Globalization, Durham: Duke University Press. Savage, V.R. and Kong, L., 1993, "Urban constraints, political imperatives: environmental 'design' in Singapore", Landscape and Urban Planning (25): 37-52. 
 Savage, V.R. and S. Lau, 1993, “Green Issues: Official Policies and Student Awareness”, in Briffett, C. and Sim, L.L. (eds.), Environmental Issues in Development and Conservation, Singapore: SNP Publishers. 
 127
 























































 Scott, A., 1990, Ideology and the New Social Movements, London: Unwin Hyman. Singapore Concept Plan, 1971, Concept Plan 1971, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. - 1991, Concept Plan 1991, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. - 2001, Concept Plan 2001, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. Singapore Green Plan 2012, 2002, SGP 2012 (2002), Ministry of Water and Resources, Singapore. - 2006, SGP 2012 (2006), Ministry of Water and Resources, Singapore. Singstats, 2005, Household Indicators, Singapore Statistics Board: Singapore. Skyline, 2008, Skyline (A Bi-Monthly Redevelopment Authority, Singapore. 
 Newsletter, May/June 2008), Urban 128
 























































 Snow, D. & Benford, R., 1992, “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest”, in Morris, A. & Mueller, C. (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Tai, K.L. & Wing, Stephen K.C., 2000, “Introduction – Changing Political Opportunities and the Shaping of Collective Action: Social movements in Hong Kong”, in Tai & Wing (Eds.) The Dynamics of Social Movements in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Tan, November, 2007, “Going Beyond Green”, Elements 3: 3-5. Tan, W.K., Lee, S.K., Wee, Y.C., & Foong, T.W., 1995, “Urbanization and Nature Conversation”, in Ooi, Giok Ling (ed.), Environment and the City: Sharing Singaporeʼs Experience and Future Challenges, Singapore: Times Academic Press. Tarrow, S., 1989, “Struggle, Politics & Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements and Cycles of Protest”, Western Societies: 21, New York: Cornell University Press. The Nature Society (Conservation Committee), 2002, Feedback on the Singapore Green Plan 2012, Singapore: The Nature Society. 
 129
 























































 Tilly, C., 1978, From Mobilization to Revolution, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Time Magazine, 2000, 15 December. Touraine, A., 1971, The Post-Industrial Society: Tomorrowʼs Social History. Classes, Conflicts and Culture, trans. Mayhew, L.F.X., London: Wildwood House. - 1981, The Voice and The Eye: an Analysis of Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wee, Y.C., 1992, Proposed Golf Course at Lower Peirce Resevoir: An Environmental Impact Assessment, Singapore: Nature Society. 
 Wheeler, S.M., 2004, Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities, London: Routledge. White Paper on Pollution, 1989, Hong Kong Environmental Department, Hong Kong. 
 130
 























































 Wing, Stephen K.C., Hung, H.F. and On, K.L., 1999, “Environmental Movements in Hong Kong”, in Lee, Y.F. & So, Alvin F. (eds.) Asiaʼs Environmental Movments, London: M.E. Sharpe. Wong, T.C. & Goldblum, C., 2008, “Sustainability Planning and Its Theory and Practise: An Introduction”, in Wong, T.C., Yuen, B. & Goldblum. C. (eds.), Spatial Planning for a Sustainable Singapore, Singapore: Springer. Wong, T. & Wan, S., 2008, “Environmental Awareness and Behavior in Hong Kong: A Decade of Development”, Taiwan Association for Schools of Public Administration and Affairs, Taiwan. Wong, T.C. & Yap, Adriel L.H., 2004, Four Decades of Transformation: Land Use in Singapore 1960-2000, Singapore: Eastern University Press. Yuen, B., 1998, Planning Singapore: From Plan to Implementation, Singapore: Singapore Institute of Planners. Zald, M. & McCarthy, J., 1987, Social Movements in an Organizational Society, New Brunswick: Transaction Books. - 
 1988, The Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Control & Tactics, Boston & London: University Press of America. 131
 























































 Appendix 1. List of Green Organizations: 
 - Singapore: - Green Volunteers Network - Kampung Senang - Pulau Hantu Blog (Toddycats) - Pulau Ubin Blog (Toddycats) - ECO Youth Group - Green Future Solutions - Nature Society Singapore - Hong Kong: - Kadoorie Botanic Garden & Farm - Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong) - Conservancy Association - Civic Exchange - Green Lantau Association - Birdwatching Society - Sustainable Development Unit 132
 [...]... leading to increased social capital; whilst, increased social capital would enhance cultural understanding and enable the more effective use of cultural capital The following is a graphical representation of the relationship between social and cultural capital, and the effect it has on the ecological habitus 
 12
 Figure A Graphical representation of relationship between social- and cultural capital;... that span from these nodes, we will accord half a point for each increase and decrease in the levels of social capital of each GO; based firstly on the point at which they had started out, and the variations over time This way we are able to measure in a quantifiable and systematic way, the variables that contribute to the varying levels of social capital Cultural capital is here, defined as the ability... is largely responsible for the care and maintenance of nature areas and parks As it stands, Singapore boasts 1,924 hectares of parkland, 70 kilometres of park connectors and 5 areas gazetted as Nature Reserves (SGP 2012, 2006: 48) The Masterplan 2008 hopes to increase this 
 32
 total conservation area These parks and nature reserves also double up and are used as leisure areas such that parkland is... capital; and its contribution to the ecological habitus Social Capital Cultural Capital A – Sufficient amount of both social and cultural capital to complement and reinforce positive ecological dispositions, so as to lead to a green ecological habitus B – Cultural capital without sufficient social capital leads to a lack of networks/avenues for successful mobilization of capital C – Social capital without... Singapore and Hong Kong, basic issues of how to ensure adequate housing and transportation for a heavy population, and balancing the needs of this human capital against that of the need for commercial and industrial space makes planning imperative For economies and cities to be sustainable, it is necessary to ensure social sustainability whilst 
 26
 maintaining optimum efficiency “Participatory planning”... cornerstone of Singapore s physical landscape change is its planning Modern Singapore is a planned city, the result of what McGee (1972) calls ʻdeliberate urbanizationʼ where urban growth has been deliberately managed and made as productive as possible according to its governmentʼs conceptions of economic, political and social well-being of its inhabitants Its leaders learnt at a very early stage that urban... organizations based on the twin concepts of social- and cultural-capital The categories of SMOs have been charted onto the map according to the varying levels of social- or cultural-capital these particular types of organizations are seen to possess Although this framework has narrowed the number of variables that affect the ecological habitus down to a simple few, it is understood that other factors such as the... reflective of their cultural capital, and ability to cultivate their social capital and networks 
 15
 Table I Typological Table of Various Ecological Habitus & their Principles 
 
 16
 Figure B Map of the Social Space of GOs 
 17
 METHODOLOGY This thesis reports on data that was collected using various in-depth, qualitative research tools A qualitative approach has been adopted based on this researchʼs... / social ecological approach to social mobilization is more effective than systems-based sustainable developmental 
 22
 approaches Kadoorie and Senang have managed to achieve greater success at mobilizing social support and harnessing their social and cultural capital as they are able to plug into existing social networks through planting themselves into existing grassroots communities FOE (HK) and... and are prone to changing their trajectories over time The infusion of a new spiritual entrepreneur into a movement/organization for example, would greatly increase the level of cultural, and overall amount of capital, or vice versa Also, groups/sub-movements, which are able to build and harness a good social network over time, would also increase their amount of social, and overall capital As the social . increase and decrease in the levels of social capital of each GO; based firstly on the point at which they had started out, and the variations over time. This way we are able to measure in a quantifiable. quantifiable and systematic way, the variables that contribute to the varying levels of social capital. Cultural capital is here, defined as the ability of organizations to construct, organize and. leading to increased social capital; whilst, increased social capital would enhance cultural understanding and enable the more effective use of cultural capital. The following is a graphical