See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326560556

Environmental Stewardship

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_37-1

CITATIONS READS

0 2,091

3 authors, including:

Sonya Sachdeva
US Forest Service
36 PUBLICATIONS   982 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Religiosity and Environmental Cognition View project

School Greenness and Academic Performance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sonya Sachdeva on 23 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Stewardship
Pathways to Community Cohesion and Cultivating
Meaningful Engagement

Sachi Arakawa, Sonya Sachdeva, and Vivek Shandas

Contents
Social Constructions of Environmental Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Defining Environmental Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
What Motivates Stewards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Overcoming Barriers to Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Not all Outreach Needs to be “Environmental” or Science-Based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
New Paths to Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Abstract
What pathways do people take on the journey to stewardship and what rewards do
they reap? Numerous studies emphasize the underlying values, whether moral,
spiritual, or religious, which provide the foundation for engaging in environmen-
tal behavior. Yet, many cases of stewardship are founded not on lofty environ-
mental ideals but on pragmatic, localized ambitions. As cities work to rectify
historical inequities in access to environmental assets like trees and green spaces
in low-income communities of color across the United States, it is important to
understand the cultural and socioeconomic dimensions of environmental stew-
ardship and the distinct pathways to stewardship. Understanding these can lead to
policy and programmatic changes, helping city foresters and environmental
advocacy groups better engage and serve marginalized communities. In this

S. Arakawa (*) · V. Shandas

Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
S. Sachdeva
Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Evanston, IL, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018 1

S. Dhiman, J. Marques (eds.), Handbook of Engaged Sustainability,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_37-1
2 S. Arakawa et al.

review, we use several cases from our work and others’ to illustrate the possible
barriers to engaging low-income communities and communities of color in
environmental stewardship, how notions of identity, power, and agency impact
the ways in which underserved communities respond to environmental issues,
and finally, what paths stewards take in finding meaning in their work.

Keywords
Stewardship · Environmental values · Environmental justice · Motivation ·
Community resilience

Large-scale environmental problems, like the depletion and overconsumption of

natural resources, continue to impact humanity on a global scale, yet state resources
for interventions, from the neighborhood to the national level, continue to shrink.
There is a growing recognition that sustainability outcomes, particularly in cities,
cannot be achieved by top-down management alone but instead must be integrated
with human systems, with people leading local, grass-roots stewardship efforts
(Romolini et al. 2012). Social and cultural issues are an essential piece of environ-
mentally sustainable solutions and development, and yet they remain the most
nebulous and perhaps least understood dimensions (Chiesura and de Groot
2003). These issues can range from large and abstract (e.g., how are our relationships
with nature formed?) to highly granular (e.g., what parks are most frequently used in
a neighborhood and by whom?). Fundamentally, researchers have tried to under-
stand the socio-cultural factors that influence attitudes toward sustainability, and
ultimately, understand what brings people “to the table” of environmental conserva-
tion, i.e. the pathways to stewardship. We hope this chapter can be meaningful for
policymakers, volunteer, and stewardship organizations in designing effective and
engaging environmental programs by describing a) our current understanding of
environmental stewardship, and b) the socio-political structures and processes that
mediate broad participation in stewardship activities.
Environmental stewardship, as an area of research, has gained prominence
relatively recently, emerging only in the past four decades. It is now recognized as
a notable confluence of sociocultural norms and ecological sustainability which is
crystallized into practice and conservation strategy (Worrell and Appleby 2000). The
practice of stewardship not only creates more environmentally responsible citizens,
but also expands the capacity of management organizations by redistributing the
responsibility of environmental monitoring and maintenance to the average citizen
(Berry 2006; Buell 2009). Citizen-based environmental stewardship programs are
increasingly relied upon by government agencies to expand capacity for restoration
efforts, greening initiatives, and other improvements to urban ecosystems (Romolini
et al. 2012; Baker 2014). The term “stewardship” tends to get applied broadly and
can be difficult to pinpoint for analysis.
Stewardship has also been lauded as a way to build community resilience, to
increase civic engagement, and to create partnerships between government and
community (Baker 2014; Romolini et al. 2012; Fisher et al. 2011). Citizen
Environmental Stewardship 3

stewardship initiatives are increasingly relied upon by governments that do not have
the resources to improve social or environmental conditions (Romolini et al. 2012;
Baker 2014), and citizen participation in environmental conservation has come to be
considered a fundamental part of democracy (Shandas and Messer 2008). Programs
are intended to connect individuals to their environment through learning and
meaningful action, but some critics argue that current approaches tend to oversim-
plify complex sociocultural context and overlook some moral and ethical dimen-
sions of stewardship behaviors (Baker 2014). Other studies suggest precisely the
opposite – that stewardship is not only shaped by personal motivations but involves
both organizational goals and outcomes (i.e., measurable environmental improve-
ments) and also process-related goals such as engaging community members, doing
outreach, and collaborating with like-minded others (Romolini et al. 2012).

Social Constructions of Environmental Problems

The existing literature suggests that how we define stewardship varies depending on
the context, from meanings derived from modern environmentalist theory to defini-
tions created by agency organizations. Approaches that provide a contextual basis
for stewardship are needed, recognizing that engagement in such efforts are tied to
social and political histories that enable the capacity to participate. This chapter
draws from social constructionist theory where “environmental problems” are seen
as social problems in that they are, as Taylor suggests, “socially constructed claims
defined through collective processes” (Taylor 2000, p. 509). From this perspective,
knowledge and folk theories of environmental issues are created by the interactions
of individuals within society, as groups perceive, identify, and define environmental
problems collectively through shared meanings and interpretations (Taylor 2000).
This means that the framing of environmental issues is particularly relevant to how
they are perceived, how people will mobilize around them, and who engages in
stewardship efforts (Carmichael 2017).
Therefore, our understanding of environmental stewardship begins with the
acknowledgment that individual perceptions, institutional dynamics, and historical
injustices recursively create the places we inhabit. Such biophysical and social
interactions have complex interpretations at multiple scales (e.g., individual and
collective, past, present, future, and across space). Importantly, Clarke and Agyeman
(2011) point out that environmental conditions are not equal in all communities. In
places where the environment is heavily degraded, or environmental resources are
lacking, adjacent communities often receive societal blame for not doing more to
conserve their environment. Such claims miss an essential aspect that not everyone
has inherited a democratized or shared sense of environmental responsibility in this
way. In fact, racial and economic inequalities impact the way that historically
marginalized communities experience and frame environmental issues, and whether
or not they chose to participate in traditional environmental stewardship activities.
As a result, different approaches to stewardship activities in communities of color,
for example, may stem from perceiving a lack of agency, and loss of trust in
4 S. Arakawa et al.

government and government processes (Carmichael 2017; Clarke and Agyeman

2011). Examining the multiple spaces of identity, power, and agency in which
minority and low-income communities respond to environmental issues can help
us to understand and break down the barriers to environmental stewardship. The
“environmental sustainability” framework has in the past prioritized environmental
conservation over social inclusion or equity, and only more recently embraced the
concept of “green justice” or “just sustainability,” with an eye toward social justice
concerns (Clarke and Agyeman 2011; Agyeman and Evans 2003). Increasingly clear
is a need to examine dimensions of fairness, equality, and justice when attempting to
get buy-in for efforts in environmental conservation (Agyeman and Evans 2003).
Yet, we are still understanding effective approaches to engage communities with
these complex topics, especially when engaging with those who distrust and may
bear animosity toward government actions and/or formal organizations.
To address these topics, we use a case-based approach to examine real-life
examples of environmental stewardship efforts, discuss their impact, and reflect on
how policy and governance can be changed toward a more inclusive stewardship
model. While a fundamental goal of the present chapter is to illustrate alternative
engagement models that address fairness, equality, and justice, we also build on
previous theoretical work that helps to frame the practical guidance that underscores
our approach. We start with definitions of stewardship, discuss why the concept can
be problematic and describe the various pathways and barriers to contemporary
stewardship efforts. We close by offering cases where organizations are finding
novel successes in expanding and deepening participation in environmental conser-
vation by focusing on community cohesion and helping people find meaning in the
work they do.

Defining Environmental Stewardship

As use of the term has proliferated, so have the many definitions of environmental
stewardship. In particular, we try to define how the concept of stewardship might be
distinct from conservation behaviors or land management more generally. For some,
the terminology can be traced back to the Old Testament (Worrell and Appleby
2000). These origins can be viewed as somewhat problematic as they bootstrap onto
more traditional, anthropocentric Christian notions of stewardship which might not
place an intrinsic value on nature or nonhuman life (Devall and Sessions 1985;
Palmer 2006; Routley 1973; Van Dyke 1996). For instance, the seminal work by
Lynne White (1967) claims that far from connecting humans to their environment,
traditional Christian religious ecologies served to reify the boundaries between
humans and the natural world. In recent years, however, this perspective has been
challenged by many who have pointed out that a) the religious interpretation of
stewardship is not limited to the Christian faith, and can be found in indigenous
communities and most major religious traditions around the world and b) the
Christian interpretation of stewardship need not be anthropocentric (Worrell and
Appleby 2000). For instance, a growing “green” movement within the Evangelical
Environmental Stewardship 5

Christian community suggests that engaging in climate change adaptation, mitiga-

tion, and more environmentally sustainable behavior overall (Roberts 2011) can be
aligned with a Christian stewardship ethic.
A more secular interpretation of environmental stewardship is also often invoked
within the literature. To some, stewardship bears a moral core, providing a path for
people to characterize their relationship toward nature as one of right or wrong
actions or an ethic of care (Welchman 1999). The idea of values and ethics as
motivating behavior has also been empirically validated. In a study with environ-
mental stewards in the Seattle, Washington area, Romolini and colleagues (2012)
used a cognitive mapping approach to arrive at a functionalist definition for stew-
ardship. Their analyses revealed that volunteers defined stewardship as rooted in a
core set of values and ethics, including environmental values such as reducing the
human impact on the environment, and a sense of moral obligation. Interestingly,
however, stewardship, in the volunteers’ minds, was not only defined by personal
motivations but involved both organizational goals and outcomes (i.e., measurable
environmental improvements) and process-related goals such as engaging commu-
nity members, doing outreach and collaborating with like-minded others (Fig. 1).
There is also a strong idea of grassroots action within most definitions of
stewardship, where a local group of people take initiative to conserve or protect
some environmental good. In moving beyond the biblical sense of stewardship, the
environmental good need not have instrumental or utilitarian value (e.g., timber is
useful for building houses), but rather the management of natural resources can be

Fig. 1 Romolini et al.’s (2012) framework for environmental stewardship based on cognitive maps
of Seattle area environmental stewards
6 S. Arakawa et al.

based in spiritual, religious, cultural, or aesthetic value (e.g., the majesty of our
forests). Since the early 1990s, grass-roots stewardship organizations have prolifer-
ated at all geographic scales (local, regional, national) to promote conservation of
wilderness areas, rivers or particular species of plants or animals (Carr 2002).
Government stewardship programmes have also followed suit such as the Urban
and Community Forestry program managed by the US Forest Service. This program
supports local tree planting and care initiatives, among other projects.
As these efforts proliferate, it is becoming more widely acknowledged that
stewardship is not solely a human-driven effort, where humans are the only agents
of change in the environment. Rather, the significance of coupled human-nature
systems in shaping human perception and bounding stewardship efforts is now well-
established within the literature (Carr 2002). That is, we note that the structure and
shape of the natural environment or landscape has an impact on human behavior and
is also an agent of change in impacting local stewardship. Furthermore, while the
abundance or scarcity of a particular resource or the local socio-ecological con-
text will necessarily shape human behavior so too will the overall access to or level
of engagement with natural landscapes.
And in fact the emphasis on the local environment is another true hallmark of
stewardship, which relative to advocacy or other forms of environmental conserva-
tion efforts, is less about engaging in lobbying efforts and more likely to have an
action- or protection-oriented role within a clearly defined geographic region (Carr
2002; Leopold 1949). Indeed, environmental stewardship appears to contain a strong
sense of place, and many stewards draw on their connection to their hometowns and
other personally meaningful sites to motivate their work. For instance, tree-planting
rituals and trees themselves became symbols of socio-ecological resilience in post-
Katrina New Orleans where a desire to restore their neighborhood motivated stew-
ards’ tree planting, which in turn helped to sustain their sense of place (Tidball
2014). These efforts in New Orleans, and other like them across the country, make
the connection between place attachment and management explicit, indicating a
stewardship ethic based on an implicit sense of ownership and agency (Svendsen
and Campbell 2008). These implicit feelings of ownership can have many positive
stewardship outcomes – for instance, a sense of ownership in a rented plot in a
community garden may increase commitment toward managing that plot over time
and foster long-term engagement (Kaplan 1985; Stone 2009; Teig et al. 2009).
As these examples illustrate, stewards’ sense of place or ownership intermingles
with concepts such as belongingness and identity, and is not restricted by geograph-
ical constraints nor confined by temporal bounds. That is, long-term residents of a
given neighborhood or city may not necessarily become engaged environmental
stewards, while recent immigrants to a place with a strong sense of community
resilience may. For example, Johnson (1998) discusses the long history of enslave-
ment and oppression faced by African American communities in the South and how
that might lead to a decreased attachment to local wildland areas. On the other hand,
Krasny and Tidball (2017) note that local immigrant populations are among the most
avid community gardeners, bringing their agricultural backgrounds to their new
hometowns while concurrently building stronger social community networks.
Environmental Stewardship 7

Historic Socioeconomic Inequities

The influence of place identity and belongingness on stewardship efforts suggests
that a discussion of perceptions of environmental stewardship must be situated
within larger sociocultural contexts, including the historical context of race. For
instance, the American environmental movement before the 1960s was often
populated by the middle and upper middle class and emphasized outdoor recrea-
tion, an activity that limited its participants to those who had access to transpor-
tation, gear, leisure time, and public spaces. This was often alienating to African
Americans and other racial or ethnic minorities who could not participate in these
activities (Taylor 1998). African American post-slavery were not often welcomed
on public lands such as parks and natural areas, and in fact were threatened with
violence at times, as in the case of a young African American in Chicago who was
stoned to death while swimming in Lake Michigan in 1919 (Taylor 1998). And
while time and social progress have perhaps healed some wounds, there can still be
a troubled relationship between some African American communities and envi-
ronmentalism (Finney 2014; Parker and McDonough 1999). Studies suggest that
African Americans perceive the environmental movement and perhaps environ-
mental activities in general as “a white thing” (Elmendorf et al. 2005; Taylor
1998).
These culturally-bound and defined frames (i.e., perceiving environmental
activities as a “white thing”) are therefore a critical factor in understanding
pathways and barriers to environmental stewardship (Taylor 1998; Carmichael
2017). Framing is characterized by Taylor as “a scheme of interpretations that
guides the way in which ideological meanings and beliefs are packaged by
movement advocates and presented to would-be supporters” (Taylor 2000, p.
511). The early American environmental movement, inspired by the Romantics/
Transcendentalist ideology of the purity of nature, framed itself as advancing an
agenda of land conservation and protection of public lands, issues that did not
resonate with many communities of color including African Americans, who were
largely denied access to these amenities (Taylor 2000). The civil rights move-
ment’s framing was much more relevant, timely, and empowering to African
Americans (Taylor 1998). Consequently, the environmental movement had little
overlap with the civil rights movement or other social justice movements of the
1960s and 1970s and failed to engage the majority of African Americans (or any
cultural minority group for that matter).
Framing continues to be an issue with environmental organizations looking to
reach a broader audience (Carmichael 2017). Thus, understanding the frames that
motivate certain types of actions is an important and not well understood issue for
most environmental organizations looking to inspire and engage stewards. As the
next section will highlight, there are many different aspects of stewardship which
appeal in different ways to people. Frames have the power to highlight these varied
angles and appeal to distinct motivations of environmental stewards. In short, there
are many pathways to stewardship and here we highlight the different motivations
which might lead people down these paths.
8 S. Arakawa et al.

What Motivates Stewards?

It is first worth noting that motivations to engage in environmental stewardship share

much in common with motives for civic engagement in other forms. For instance, all
of these behaviors have been shown to have a strong values-based component,
which could be either intrinsic or extrinsic, and many theories have been proposed
about what types of values can motivate prosocial action, and under which contexts.
In one descriptive framework, Batson (1994) highlights four distinct motivations:
self-interest or egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principled motivation.
Often seen as a special case of prosocial action, environmental stewardship has been
found to be motivated by a similar set of values and beliefs (Turaga et al. 2010).
Stern’s (2000) value-belief-norm theory has been especially influential in under-
standing environmental activism and behavior. In this model, values (i.e., egoism
and altruism), similar in form to Batson’s four motivation model, predict environ-
mental beliefs, leading to a set of personal norms which translate into distinct types
of action. However, environmental stewardship is also distinct in some notable ways
from other forms of prosocial action. For instance, many environmental stewards
share a belief that nature and all life are worthy of protection and that human beings
should aim to reduce our impacts on them (Romolini et al. 2012). This has led
researchers to propose the existence of an ecocentric or biospheric value orientation
(Schultz and Zelezny 1998; Schultz 2001; Stern and Dietz 1994) in which the
decision to engage in environmental behavior or stewardship is predicated on the
perceived consequences to the environment, rather than to the self (egoism) or
society (altruism) (de Groot and Steg 2008). Biospheric values are predictive of a
variety of pro-environmental behaviors and attitudes, from green consumer choices
(Sachdeva et al. 2015) to perceived connectedness between nature and the self
(Martin and Czellar 2016), whereas ecocentric values have been shown to be
negative predictors of environmental behavior (Kollmuss and Aygeman 2002). In
self-reports, helping the environment, a proxy for biospheric concern, is a common
response when environmental stewards are asked why they engage in long-term
volunteerism (Bramston et al. 2011; Liarakou et al. 2011).
The academic attention given to the link between environmental values and
behavior belies other types of motivations that stewardship may entail. That is not
to say that values related to the self, community, and earth are not meaningful but
rather that there may be alternative pathways to stewardship which have not been
studied as extensively. As a point of intervention for volunteer groups or environ-
mental organizations, a focus on motivators separate from ideological values might
be beneficial in engaging the broader public. Although values can form the basis of
environmental concern, they are often more immutable, subject to broader cultural or
macrosocial factors and may even run to counter to sustainability goals (Markowitz
and Shariff 2012). Here, we describe two other motivations that may foster stew-
ardship – engaging in conservation efforts for fairly pragmatic reasons such as
building life skills and on the opposite end of the spectrum, stewardship that is
based on finding spiritual meaning. We also find that a sense of fostering community
Environmental Stewardship 9

ties and building cohesion is a common thread through both of these distinct
motivations.

Stewardship for Pragmatism

Engagement in environmental stewardship requires long-term commitment like
many other social causes but can also be much more concrete and visceral than
other forms of volunteerism. It often requires volunteers to engage in difficult
manual labor, learning new skills and techniques at a particular action site. However,
despite these challenges, environmental stewardship may be especially rewarding
because stewards may see a visible or tangible product of their labors, and therefore
more direct evidence of their efforts (Grese et al. 2000). For many of these stewards,
the rapidly changing climate or extreme weather disturbances may be strong con-
cerns, yet the abstract, distant quality of concepts such as global warming may make
action difficult and worry paramount (Fritze et al. 2008). Localized, community-
based environmental stewardship programs can be a way to cope with these anxieties
and help people regain a sense of personal agency (Westphal 1999).
The Community Watershed Stewardship Program in Portland is a case in point.
Watershed management and planning is not the most prototypical domain of com-
munity-based environmental stewardship; rather watershed management is usually
viewed as a regulatory matter. However, as Shandas and Messer (2008) point out,
community involvement in the management of local watersheds in the Portland area
not only yielded important insights for complex urban resource management efforts,
but it also increased civic engagement, local knowledge, and feelings of ownership
of shared water resources citywide. This program was able to bring together multiple
stakeholders, including universities, government agencies, and community groups
from the design to implementation phases of the project. Ownership of the project
was fostered by involving both community members and technical experts (e.g.,
hydrologists, ecologists, and botanists) from the onset, and continued participation in
the project led to an increased awareness among community members of how their
actions affect local water quality and availability.
Along with providing a concrete, localized means to address larger global
environmental concerns, participating in environmental stewardship may be benefi-
cial in other ways as well. Several studies have shown that intrinsic desires to learn
about the environment and gain knowledge about ecological processes are important
motivations in nurturing and maintaining environmental volunteerism (Ryan et al.
2001; Grese et al. 2000; Bramston et al. 2011). Volunteers who feel as though they
are gaining expertise, fostering personal growth, and learning skills that could be
transferable to other facets of their life experience more satisfaction and are perhaps,
consequently, more likely to remain involved in such projects. These educational
interests can be fulfilled by integrating programs such as species identification walks
(i.e., plants, birds, etc.) during primary stewardship activities. Or, as in the case of the
nonprofit organization Keep Indianapolis Beautiful (KIB) in Indianapolis, Indiana,
youth education and workforce development can be used to encourage conservation
and stewardship behavior in young people.
10 S. Arakawa et al.

This model also affords the opportunity to increase diversity in the field of
environmental management. KIB employs approximately 70 high school-aged
students and 20 adults in a summer program, watering about 5,000 trees a week,
as well as mulching, staking, and pruning. The program includes weekly enrich-
ment activities ranging from outdoor recreation to vocational skills for “green-
collar” jobs and networking opportunities. Partnerships with research institutions
also present opportunities to nurture an early interest in environmental manage-
ment. KIB and the Bloomington Urban Forestry Research Group (BUFRG) at
Indiana University developed such a partnership which resulted in members of the
Youth Tree Team being trained in data collection methods by BFURG
researchers (Faris 2017). The data contributed to a study of planted-tree survival
and growth in urban neighborhoods. Mari Aviles is an alumnus of KIB’s Youth
Tree Team who now works for the organization as a community arborist. For Mari,
the Youth Tree Team was a direct connection to a real job in the environmental
field. She says that she believes that changing the perceptions of who environmen-
talism is for will go a long way toward getting buy-in from marginalized commu-
nities (Aviles 2017). Currently, the members and volunteers of environmental
organizations are predominantly white (Taylor 2014). Having more minorities
working in green-collar jobs especially in positions of power gives people of
color recognition and representation where historically they had neither. Note,
however, that members of KIB are paid for their work and so motivations for these
stewards may be slightly different for those who engage in stewardship on a
volunteer basis.
Recruitment for new staff in environmental work often occurs informally
through word of mouth, creating an insular network that makes it difficult for
communities of color, the working class, or anyone outside of traditional environ-
mental networks to access these jobs (Taylor 2014). Workforce development in
environmental conservation and management is one direct way to bring a broader
spectrum of people into the environmental field. For The Greening of Detroit
(TGD), a not-for-profit organization in Detroit, Michigan, training a workforce in
green jobs like forestry, landscaping, and conservation is seen as one step toward a
more sustainable economy for the struggling city. Currently, the unemployment
rate in many Detroit neighborhoods is still well above the national average (Hay
2017). Detroiters are in desperate need of jobs, and not just in the same industries
that have been declining in the city for decades (auto, manufacturing). TGD’s
apprenticeship program has trained more than 350 people through their adult
workforce training cohort since its inception in 2012. This program is designed
to train recently-paroled people in landscape maintenance and arboriculture. Par-
ticipants attend an 8-week training session that takes place in the classroom and in
the field, and are paid a small stipend to help them make ends meet during the
session. Training can take place in the nursery, city parks (especially in under-
served areas where parks have fallen into disrepair), and in tree plantings on public
rights-of-way. After they get their certificate, program participants are placed in a
job. TGD reports the program as having a 100% placement rate. TGD hires some
as crew leaders; others land jobs in local landscaping, or construction and
Environmental Stewardship 11

maintenance companies. Most make $12–13/hour to start, which is considered a

living wage in Detroit (Hay 2017).

Stewardship for Meaning

In addition to increasing personal efficacy and ecological knowledge, spiritual
fulfillment may also be an important motivator for environmental stewardship. In
recent years, psychologists have focused on the feeling of awe, as a special case of a
spiritual connection to nature (Vining and Merrick 2012). Awe, defined as an
overwhelming feeling of wonder, of something bigger than the horizons of one’s
everyday life, has been linked to spirituality, certainly, but has also been found to
foster prosocial behavior and connection to other people (Rudd et al. 2012). Fur-
thermore, many people report feeling a sense of awe or wonder as they realize the
vastness of nature, and their relatively small role within it (Piff et al. 2015). Perhaps
it is these sensations which help foster a spiritual bond between humans and nature –
whether in the case of indigenous traditions all over the world highlighting the
interconnectedness of humans and nature (Berkes 1999, 2017) or the reverence of
natural resources within most major religious groups (Gottlieb 2006; Sachdeva
2016).
Humans’ spiritual connection to nature can result in positive environmental action
as well. Take, for example, Sadhana, a progressive Hindu organization active in the
New York area. Through a stewardship project called Project Prithvi, Sadhana
organizes monthly cleanups at Jamaica Bay on Long Island. Jamaica Bay is part
of the Gateway National Recreation Area administered by the National Park Service
and is used by many local residents for a variety of purposes, including recreation.
However, it is also used by some members of the local Hindu, Indo-Caribbean
community as a sacred site where the sandy shores of the bay are used to conduct
religious rituals and, as is customary in many Hindu rituals, the flowing water is used
to make offerings. We have found, in our ongoing collaboration with Sadhana, that
the bay is often used as a stand-in for the Ganges River in India, a site of utmost
religious importance within Hindu practice.
In addressing the concerns of local fishers, ecological groups, and the National
Park Service that these practices might introduce contaminants into Jamaica Bay’s
delicate ecosystem, Sadhana is employing the Hindu concept of ahimsa, or non-
violence, in raising ecological awareness among the Indo-Caribbean community.
As co-founder Aminta Kilawan puts it, “the goal is not to tell ‘the worshippers’ to
not pray there, but to do so respectfully [of local ecological needs].” Moreover,
Sadhana is also committed to bridging understanding between the local worshipping
community and the National Park Service and others for whom these practices may
seem foreign and unnecessary. By building an open dialogue between all parties,
Project Prithvi aims to promote a spiritually based sense of environmental steward-
ship while ensuring that religious practices continue to be sustained at a site of such
profound sociocultural meaning.
It is precisely this sense of meaning, whether place-based or not, that might be
important in promoting other environmental stewardship initiatives as well. In the
case of volunteer oyster gardeners in New York City, Krasny, Crestol, and colleagues
12 S. Arakawa et al.

(2014) find that volunteers’ memories and meanings attached to oysters as a key-
stone species for New York and their socio-ecological associations or memories with
local places are strong motivating factors. They go on to explicitly state that this
form of meaning attachment is distinct from an altruistic or biospheric value
orientation because it is personal and linked to volunteers’ self-identity. Finding
meaning from working with particular species or in particular regions is not specific
to oyster gardening. Sometimes, a connection to megafauna can be emphasized to
engage stewards, as in the case of sea turtles as described in Campbell and Smith’s
(2005, 2006) work. People have also been shown to form these special connections
with plants and trees. In the Chicago area, for example, Westphal (1993) notes that
oak trees are a particularly iconic species with volunteers reporting vivid childhood
memories about particular oak trees in and around their neighborhoods.
The generation of meaningful landscapes can take many forms. In another
Portland example, the use of trees in urban neighborhoods is helping to shed light
on forgotten histories. Canopy Story, a project that provides a platform to uncover
personal histories using neighborhood trees, is integrating complex spatial analytical
technologies with the craft of localized, place-based storytelling. Using remote
sensing-generated maps to pinpoint the location of every tree in Portland, partici-
pants can use an online link to identify and share stories about an individual tree.
Although several projects have shown that people do form meaningful attachments
to trees in their neighborhood (LaFrance 2015; Westphal 1993), Canopy Story
allows us to systematically analyze the types of meaning people attach to trees.
Through this project, we can assess whether people are more likely to tell stories
about their childhood, spiritual awakening, or falling in love with nature and then
link those stories to places and neighborhoods. Although this project is still in its
nascent stages, Canopy Story may become a tool for managers and volunteer groups
to gain valuable information about the most meaningful trees in a given area. As a
management tool, Canopy Story will not only have implications for management
outcomes, i.e., keystone trees may need to be cared for differently, but also that these
trees can become symbols for stewardship efforts, and help engage people in taking
care of trees in their neighborhoods.
The path to becoming an engaged steward is varied and an intricate mix of personal
and ideological motivations. One aspect that appears to be a common thread among
all of the examples and types of motivations described in this section is the desire to
improve social cohesion. The KIB example from Indiana and the Community
Watershed Program in Portland demonstrate that people develop ownership and
pride in their communities through stewardship efforts. Similarly, one of Sadhana’s
explicit goals for Project Prithvi is to make communication between the Indo-
Caribbean community, the National Park Service, and other local residents, as
fluid as possible. As these examples illustrate, people value the idea of connecting
with one another and building interpersonal networks as part of their journey to
becoming environmental stewards. Much like caring for the environment, social
fulfillment and the opportunity to be connected to committed others are powerful, if
not specifically environmental, drivers of stewardship. To reiterate our stance from
earlier in this section, we do not claim that values or concerns for the environment
Environmental Stewardship 13

are not important precursors to engaging in environmental stewardship. They most

certainly are, and many volunteers do get involved in stewardship activities as a
means of restoring their connection to nature, or because they believe it is the right
thing to do. However, personal, environmental values are not the sole, nor even the
most predictive, factors in leading to sustained environmental stewardship. Others,
such as community building, social resilience, personal efficacy, spirituality, and a
sense of purpose, also play important roles.

Overcoming Barriers to Stewardship

Citizen stewardship initiatives are increasingly relied upon by governments who do

not have the resources to improve social or environmental conditions (Romolini et
al. 2012; Baker 2014). In recent years we have seen a proliferation of programs and
events like the New York’s MillionTreesNYC and Portland’s Tree Inventory Project
promoting environmental stewardship as a means to increase the capacity of gov-
ernment managers (Fischer et al. 2011). Despite the popularity of this model,
evidence shows that citizen stewardship efforts have often been unsuccessful at
engaging marginalized and underrepresented groups, stemming partly from lack of
local resident buy-in to these types of stewardship activities (Clarke and Agyeman
2011).
Case studies further suggest a current trend toward distrust of politicians and
public processes, reflecting a growing discontent with political processes and their
outcomes in marginalized communities. In a survey conducted in the Puget Sound
region of Seattle (Shandas 2007), respondents were asked about organizations from
which they trust information. The results revealed that when participating in envi-
ronmental projects, respondents most trusted friends, family, and neighbors (23%),
professional associations (17%) (e.g., Adopt-a-Stream Foundation, Washington
Trout, etc.), and university scientists (20%). Least trusted were government agen-
cies, at the county, city, state, and federal levels. Although the focus on friends,
family, and neighbors is consistent throughout the world, the lack of trust suggests a
major challenge for those agencies in engaging with communities, though excep-
tions are also likely. Perhaps unsurprisingly, government agencies are increasingly
contracting with nonprofit organizations to coordinate stewardship efforts (Shandas
and Messer 2008; Chaskin et al. 2001; Romolini et al. 2012).
In Detroit, Michigan, The Greening of Detroit (TGD) experienced community
backlash in some areas where they had planted trees, including vandalism and illegal
removal of trees. TGD received “no-tree requests” (NTR) from 24% of residents in
neighborhoods where they planned to plant between 2011 and 2014 (Carmichael
2017). Outreach by TGD revealed that despite understanding the benefits of trees,
many people did not want them planted in their neighborhoods. People voiced
concerns about maintenance issues once the trees were planted, and they felt like
the community had been left out of the planning process. Situated in the context of
the history of urban forestry in Detroit, these concerns are easily understood.
Detroit’s tree canopy has suffered from sustained tree loss and damage for over
14 S. Arakawa et al.

50 years, thanks to pests, lack of funding, and neglect. Longtime residents remember
the devastation of Dutch elm disease in the mid-twentieth century and more recently
emerald ash borer, both of which wiped out millions of trees, and the latter from
which the city has still not recovered. Residents were left with dead trees lining their
streets, and a city government that lacked the resources to remove them, let alone
maintain the living trees. As a result of these historical issues, trees may symbolize
hardship, neglect, and failure of government agencies to properly manage environ-
mental assets to many people (Carmichael 2017).

Not all Outreach Needs to be “Environmental” or Science-Based

In recent decades, perhaps due to increasingly scarce financial resources for envi-
ronmental initiatives, managers have tended to make decisions about resource
management based on quantifiable characteristics (putting a dollar value on envi-
ronmental assets like trees), sometimes at the expense of important sociocultural
values associated with nature like spiritual significance, beauty, and cultural identity
and heritage (Chan et al. 2012; Schroeder 2011). This might mean the prioritization
of ecosystem services, such as the carbon sequestration or air purification impacts of
a tree planting program, with less emphasis on cultural values and long-term social
impacts of environmental changes. Cultural environmental services were first
defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as “the nonmaterial benefits
people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive develop-
ment, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience including, e.g., knowledge
systems, social relations, and aesthetic values” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005). The value of cultural, environmental services may be difficult to capture in a
monetary valuation, but their value regarding stewardship and community invest-
ment in conservation efforts should not be underestimated. By better understanding
and representing these values and including them in environmental decision-making
processes, we will have a more robust representation of the value of environmental
assets (Chan et al. 2012). Bringing things like storytelling (Sanderock 2000),
placemaking, and environmental heritage and identity into planning may yield
higher rates of stewardship and stronger and longer citizen engagement in
stewardship.
Incorporating strong, already existing social structures into stewardship efforts
may be one way of promoting and sustaining public engagement. For instance, a
church is often the center of social life and networks, especially in communities of
color (Taylor 1998). Migration and Me is a not-for-profit program in Chicago that
describes itself as “focused on conservation and stewardship that engages people of
faith in sharing their personal migration stories, connecting their stories to the
migration of other species” (Migration and Me 2017). Migration and Me asks people
to share their personal stories of migration and relate those experiences to animal
migration, in this case, the migration of monarch butterflies. They work with dozens
of places of worship, and across faiths. The goal of the organization is not only to
help people understand their narratives of identity and place but also to have them
Environmental Stewardship 15

connect their own religious lives with the natural world. The hope, ultimately, is that
reinforcing the connection between community members’ religious perspectives and
nature will help them become stewards in their communities. In essence, Migration
and Me builds on existing strong community institutions to weave new environ-
mental understandings into the social network of the community.
Reframing environmental issues with a social justice lens is another way to reach
disenfranchised communities.
For example, in Portland, Oregon, the city’s Bureau of Environmental Ser-
vices (BES) is partnering with the social justice organization, Asian Pacific Network
of Oregon (APANO), and the environmental justice group OPAL to help the city get
information about new tree planting efforts to residents in the Jade District, an area
surrounding 82nd and Division in SE Portland which is about 40% communities of
color and is a landing zone for many new immigrants to Portland. The Jade District is
an area that has been identified as having low tree canopy relative to other parts of
the city (City of Portland 2016b), and BES has committed to planting 100 new trees
in the neighborhood. This is an area where the traditional outreach and educational
efforts to engage the public, based on ecocentric appeals highlighting the environ-
mental benefits of tree planting and stewardship, have not been as effective as city
managers expected (Karps 2017). By partnering with APANO, which has strong ties
with the Asian community in east Portland, city officials hope they will be better able
to reach the community. Brining to light environmental inequities (such as the lack
of tree canopy in neighborhoods with high percentages of low income communities
of color) has been pointed to as a way to mobilize communities of color toward
stewardship (Taylor 1998), yet policy and practice often favors environmental out-
comes and “eco-lifestyle” projects rather than environmental justice concerns
(Lubitow and Miller 2013). This new approach by the City of Portland to partner
with a coalition of social justice organizations to reach environmental goals shows
that city governments are beginning to understand the importance of framing when
doing environmental work. According to Jennifer Carps, Tree Program Coordinator
with the Bureau of Environmental Services, “a big part of my work is to win hearts
and minds” (Karps 2017). Reframing is one way of reaching the hearts and minds of
those who may not respond to more ecocentric messaging around environmental
issues.
When designing environmental interventions or thinking about environmental
activities, institutional agents (whether governmental or private) and individuals
may often diverge, partly because of from issues of scale. Typically, an individual
makes decisions based on household level needs, whereas government agencies or
environmental organizations will necessarily think about environmental issues on a
much larger-scale, whether that is a neighborhood, city, or forest. Differences in
scope and scale of this sort may cause a disconnect between the priorities and goals
of individual versus institutional actors.
For the Greening of Detroit (TGD), this disconnect was identified in interviews
with both TGD staff and residents who lived in neighborhoods where TGD was
doing tree plantings. TGD staff thought of tree plantings primarily regarding city-
scale ecosystem services like carbon sequestration and stormwater runoff mitigation,
16 S. Arakawa et al.

while residents thought of tree planting in terms of the individual trees planted
adjacent to their property which they would have to see and care for as long as
they occupied their home. One of the primary complaints of residents was that they
were not given a choice about what species of tree to plant. TGD felt that it was not
problematic for them to choose the type of tree that was planted because they would
select the trees that would maximize diversity and other city/neighborhood-level eco-
system services (Carmichael 2017). However, 22% of residents said that they might
not accept a tree if they did not have a choice of the tree type that was planted. So,
even though TGD’s tree choices might maximize environmental benefits, their
success would be minimized if they did not work with residents to find a mutually
agreeable solution (Carmichael 2017).
The degree of community power in decision-making processes can also influence
an individual’s perceptions of environmental issues. Meaningful participation for
residents can help to develop and reproduce shared narratives within the community.
A community-based approach can improve dialogue between residents and envi-
ronmental managers, and increase participation in conservation activities because
individuals feel that they have agency (Shandas and Messer 2008). This is illustrated
by an example from TGD’s Neighborhood Nurseries program. The idea behind
Neighborhood Nurseries was for The Greening of Detroit to plant sapling trees in
empty lots in several neighborhoods around Detroit, then train neighborhood resi-
dents to care for trees as they grow, and finally help people to replant the trees in the
neighborhood once they were mature. While this program had success in several
neighborhoods where the community was onboard with the program, it failed in
others where the community was not adequately informed or empowered.
For example, one of the nurseries that was a great success story was in the
neighborhood of Grandmont-Rosedale on the northwest side of Detroit. The city
of Detroit has made a substantial investment in this community, and its residents earn
a higher income than the citywide average. All of the trees in the Grandmont-
Rosedale nursery were cared for and eventually planted. However, trees in nurseries
in two other neighborhoods were vandalized. A possible explanation is that people in
the community did not accept or acknowledge ownership of these trees; rather they
believed that the city was simply planting trees without permission. Another issue
was the choice of lot for the nursery. People were using the lot as a soccer field and
social space, and they understandably viewed the tree plantings as an attempt by the
city to take over their space. TGD had done community outreach before undertaking
this project, but in this case, their efforts fell short. The engagement and buy-in were
not occurring with the right people, and TGD was not on the same page with the
residents they were trying to serve. This was a case where their message and mission
did not get out to the community effectively, with the result that the planted trees
were not properly cared for (Hay 2017). Environmental, ecocentric outreach is not
always an effective way to achieve good environmental outcomes, In this case, rather
than ecocentric outreach, what was needed was social outreach, to understand the
needs and desires of the community using the space where the trees were being
planted.
Environmental Stewardship 17

In Chicago’s Pilsen neighborhood, a lower west side community that is made up

primarily of working class, immigrant communities, the Pilsen Alliance works to
build grassroots movements that advance an environmental justice agenda. The
nonprofit organization spent more than a decade fighting to shut down coal-based
power plants after pollution, and air quality issues became major issues for public
health. Pilsen Alliance leader Byron Sigcho says that though Pilsen residents do
want environmental improvements, and have an interest in stewardship and volun-
teerism, the priority of most organizations working in the neighborhood is affordable
housing and keeping working-class residents in their homes as the neighborhood
improves (and gets more expensive). As in the case of the Jade District in Portland,
Oregon, the Pilsen neighborhood is fearful of displacement as gentrification comes
to their neighborhood. A major concern is environmental gentrification, where
environmental improvements in a neighborhood lead to displacement of working-
class residents. Leadership at the Pilsen Alliance believe that special interest groups,
planners, and developers want to seize the opportunity to move into the improving
neighborhood and take the benefits for themselves, without giving back to the
existing community. These beliefs within the community may cause a resistance to
engage in city-sponsored environmental improvement events (Sigcho 2017).
The examples cited above suggest that environmental managers may some-
times assume that trees are a universal salve to fix a wide range of problems in a
neighborhood, with insufficient attention paid to the means through which tree
planting programs are implemented on the ground. Programs that are implemented
without the input of residents can lead to wasted time and resources for the city,
broken trust with the community, and fears of resident displacement due to gentri-
fication. Another problematic assumption is that people who do not want to partic-
ipate in environmental stewardship simply have not been educated (Carmichael
2017; Sigcho 2017). Framing the problem in this way leads to a top-down model
where environmental managers attempt to convince someone to participate in
stewardship by explaining the benefits of trees to them, but not expanding the
decision-making power of residents in the planning process (Carmichael 2017).
A top-down approach to urban environmental issues undervalues the perspec-
tives, opinions, and wisdom of the community. Experiential and expert knowledge
come from two distinct ways of knowing (Carmichael 2017), which are each
valuable in environmental planning processes. If community trust is gained, basic
needs of residents are met, and their voices are heard, then stewardship can be a
powerful and long-lasting model to increase participation in environmental activi-
ties, and increase the capacity of government agencies with a fleet of educated
volunteers.

New Paths to Stewardship

The examples presented in our case studies shed light on how we can better engage a
diverse audience in stewardship efforts. Perhaps the most important thing to take
away from this discussion is the fact that when discussing the environment, we are
18 S. Arakawa et al.

not just talking about the environment. Using a social constructionist framework, we
understand that individual interpretations of environmental issues are mediated
through a set of institutional and collective perceptions (normative notions) that
form attitudes about stewardship. To understand an individual’s pathway to stew-
ardship, we must understand the social dynamics at play that frame their perceptions
about environmental issues. Foundational to this process is acknowledging the
history of marginalization of certain populations and the effect that racial oppression
has on attitudes toward stewardship. Social justice and environmentalism have only
recently become aligned, and there will be growing pains. However, reframing
environmental issues through a social justice lens can bring new voices to the
environmental field, and engage a broader audience in environmental stewardship
work. Though the current chapter does not touch upon pathways or barriers to
stewardship in developing countries, or the challenges faced by communities outside
of the United States, it seems likely that similar concerns about justice are going to be
salient within those contexts as well (Adger 2001; Mertz et al. 2009; Thomas and
Twyman 2005).
We also see from our case studies that not all environmental outreach needs to be
technical or science based. Examples like Migration and Me, Sadhana, and Canopy
Stories show us that stewards are often made through storytelling or by making a
personal or even religious connection to nature. Conversely, in the case of The
Greening of Detroit, we see that presenting people with numbers and facts about the
technical benefits of trees was not effective at changing residents’ minds about
whether or not they wanted to plant them. The personal connection to nature,
often tied to a sense of awe or spirituality in nature’s presence, is a crucial driver
of stewardship.
Inevitably, there are some problems that are so systemic and deep-rooted that
stewardship alone may not be able to effectively address them. In these cases, the
top-down strategy may become more costly because the trees fail due to lack of care,
or as in the case of the case study with The Greening of Detroit discussed in this
chapter, because of direct vandalism. Such issues include gentrification and dis-
placement concerns around environmental improvements. In places like Chicago’s
Pilsen neighborhood, local government may need to rebuild trust with the commu-
nity and take care of essential issues like housing stability before buy-in for stew-
ardship efforts can be expected from the community into stewardship efforts. While
environmental issues are certainly critical, it is important to acknowledge and
understand that in some communities basic needs are also not being met. To lift up
the people in a community may lay the groundwork for future stewards of the land.

Conclusion

With mounting environmental pressures comes the need to engage local and global
communities in conservation efforts. Environmental stewardship efforts are increas-
ingly being recognized as a valuable means of engaging communities across geo-
graphic scales in conservation efforts. As this chapter has demonstrated, however,
Environmental Stewardship 19

substantial barriers remain in inspiring people to join these efforts, particularly

within historically marginalized communities where people may have different
relationships with their local parks, forests, and the environment, more generally.
A primary aim of this chapter is to highlight some of these barriers so that managers,
policymakers, and volunteer organizations can recognize hurdles and ultimately
prevail in building stewardship efforts. Identifying alternative pathways that can
engage people in conservation efforts may be key to success. Some of these
pathways can be found by reconceptualizing stewardship from a value-based effort
to one that builds community resilience, provides people with valuable life
and workplace skills, and may help them feel pride and ownership in their neighbor-
hoods. These alternative pathways to stewardship may help create more effective
environmental stewardship programs – effective both in terms of promoting sustain-
able outcomes and fostering long-term engagement on the part of local stewards.

Cross-References

▶ A Qualitative Case Study

▶ Empathy Driving Engaged Sustainability in Enterprises
▶ Planting the Seed of Sustainability in Young Minds Community Engagement in
Energy Transition
▶ Rooting Human Actions in Systems Thinking Education in Human Values

References
Adger, W. N. (2001) Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation
of climate change. Journal of International Development 13(7), 921–931
Agyeman, J., & Evans, T. (2003). Toward just sustainability in urban communities: Building equity
rights with sustainable solutions. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 590, 35–53. Rethinking Sustainable Development.
Aviles, M. (2017). Interview with Mari Aviles of the Greening of Detroit. Interview by
Sachi Arakawa.
Baker, D. (2014). Environmental stewardship in New York City Parks and Natural Areas: Assessing
barriers, creating opportunities, and proposing a new way forward. Ph.D. dissertation,
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Batson, C. D. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205016.
Berkes, F. (2017). Sacred ecology. New York: Routledge.
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management.
Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia.
Berry, R. J. (2006). Environmental stewardship: critical perspectives, past and present. T&T Clark,
London.
Bramston, P., Pretty, G., & Zammit, C. (2011). Assessing environmental stewardship motivation.
Environment and Behavior, 43(6), 776–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510382875.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
20 S. Arakawa et al.

Buell, L. (2009). The future of environmental criticism: environmental crisis and literary imagina-
tion. Blackwell, London.
Campbell, L. M., & Smith, C. (2005). Volunteering for sea turtles? Characteristics and motives of
volunteers working with the Caribbean Conservation Corporation in Tortuguero (pp. 169–194).
Costa Rica: MAST.
Campbell, L. M., & Smith, C. (2006). What makes them pay? Values of volunteer tourists working
for sea turtle conservation. Environmental Management, 38(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-005-0188-0.
Carmichael, C. (2017). The trouble with trees? Social and political dynamics of greening efforts in
Detroit, Michigan. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.
Carr, A. (2002). Grass roots and green tape: Principles and practices of environmental steward-
ship. Annandale: Federation Press.
Chan, K., et al. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for
constructive engagement. Bioscience, 62, 744–756.
Chaskin, R., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Building community capacity. Edison,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Chiesura, A., & de Groot, R. (2003). Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective. Ecolog-
ical Economics, 44(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00275-6.
City of Portland. (2016a). Parks and Recreation. Portland’s Tree Canopy Present and Future.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/509398
City of Portland. (2016b). Bureau of planning and sustainability. In Portland Comprehensive Plan
2035. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/57352.
Clarke, L., & Agyeman, J. (2011). Shifting the balance in environmental governance: Ethnicity,
environmental citizenship and discourses of responsibility. Antipode, 43(5), 1773–1800.
de Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental
significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations.
Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831.
Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1985). Deep ecology. In L. P. Pojman, P. Pojman, & K. McShane (Eds.),
Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application. Cengage Learning. Salt Lake City,
UT: Gibbs Smith
Elmendorf, W. F., Willits, F. K., & Sasidharan, V. (2005). Urban park and forest participation and
landscape preference: A review of the relevant literature. Journal of Arboriculture, 31(6), 311.
Faris, N. (2017). Interview with Nate Faris of Keep Indianapolis Beautiful. Interview by Sachi
Arakawa.
Finney, C. (2014). Black faces, white spaces: Reimagining the relationship of African Americans to
the great outdoors. Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books.
Fischer, D., Connolly, J., Erika, S., Campbell, L. (2011). Who volunteers to steward the urban forest
in New York City? An analysis of participants in MillionTreesNYC planting events. Environ-
mental stewardship project white paper #1. National Science Foundation.
Fritze, J. G., Blashki, G. A., Burke, S., & Wiseman, J. (2008). Hope, despair and transformation:
Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing. International Journal of
Mental Health Systems, 2, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-2-13.
Gottlieb, R. S. (2006). A greener faith: Religious environmentalism and our planet’s future. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Grese, R. E., Kaplan, R., Ryan, R. L., & Buxton, J. (2000). Psychological benefits of volunteering in
stewardship programs. In R. B. Hull (Ed.), Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social
sciences and humanities (pp. 265–280). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hay, D. (2017). Interview with Dean Hay of the Greening of Detroit. Interview by Sachi Arakawa.
Johnson, C. Y. (1998). A consideration of collective memory in African American attachment to
wildland recreation places. Human Ecology Review, 5(1), 5–15.
Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2(2), 115–127.
Environmental Stewardship 21

Karps, J. (2017). Interview with Jennifer Karps of the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services.
Interview by Sachi Arakawa.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3),
239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401.
Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2017). Community gardens as contexts for science, stewardship,
and civic action learning. In J. Blum (Ed.), Urban horticulture: Ecology, landscape, and
agriculture. New York: Apple Academic Press.
Krasny, M. E., Crestol, S. R., Tidball, K. G., & Stedman, R. C. (2014). New York City’s oyster
gardeners: Memories and meanings as motivations for volunteer environmental stewardship.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2014.08.003.
LaFrance, A. (2015, July 10). When you give a tree an email address. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/when-you-give-a-tree-an-email-
address/398210/.
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County almanac: With other essays on conservation from Round River.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Liarakou, G., Kostelou, E., & Gavrilakis, C. (2011). Environmental volunteers: Factors influencing
their involvement in environmental action. Environmental Education Research, 17(5), 651–673.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.572159.
Lubitow, A., & Miller, T. (2013). Contesting sustainability: Bikes, race, and politics in Portlandia.
Environmental Justice, 6(4), 121–126.
Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate
Change, 2(4), 243. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1378.
Martin, C., & Czellar, S. (2016). The extended inclusion of nature in self scale. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 47, 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.006.
Mertz, O., Halsnæs, K., Olesen, J. E. Rasmussen, K. (2009). Adaptation to Climate Change in
Developing Countries. Environmental Management 43 (5):743-752
Migration and Me. (2017). Faith in place. www.faithinplace.org/our-programs/migration-me.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island
Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html.
Palmer, C. (2006). Stewardship: A case study in environmental ethics. In R. J. Berry (Ed.),
Environmental stewardship. London, New York: A&C Black.
Parker, J. D., & McDonough, M. H. (1999). Environmentalism of African Americans: An analysis
of the subculture and barriers theories. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 155–177.
Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and
prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–899. https://doi.
org/10.1037/pspi0000018.
Roberts, M. (2011). Evangelicals and climate change. In D. Gerten & S. Bergmann (Eds.),
Religion in environmental and climate change: Suffering, values, lifestyles. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Romolini, M., Brinkley, W., & Wolf, K. (2012). What is urban environmental stewardship?
Constructing practitioner-derived framework. Portland: United States Department of
Agriculture, US Forest Service: Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Routley, R. (1973, April 1). Is there a need for a new, an environmental ethic. https://doi.org/
10.5840/wcp151973136.
Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe Expands People’s Perception of Time, Alters
Decision Making, and Enhances Well-Being. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1130–1136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612438731.
Ryan, R. L., Kaplan, R., & Grese, R. E. (2001). Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental
stewardship programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(5),
629–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560120079948.
22 S. Arakawa et al.

Sachdeva, S. (2016). Religious identity, beliefs, and views about climate change. https://doi.org/
10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.335.
Sachdeva, S., Jordan, J., & Mazar, N. (2015). Green consumerism: Moral motivations to a
sustainable future. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
copsyc.2015.03.029.
Sanderock, L. (2000). When strangers become neighbours: Managing cities of difference. Planning
Theory and Practice, 1(1), 13–30.
Schroeder, H. W. (2011). Does beauty still matter? Experiential and utilitarian values of urban trees.
In: Trees, people and the built environment. Proceedings of the Urban Trees Research Confer-
ence; 2011 April 13–14. Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. Institute of Chartered Foresters:
159–165.
Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and
the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jevp.2001.0227.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country
survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022198294003.
Shandas, V. (2007). An empirical study of streamside landowners’ interest in riparian conservation.
Journal of the American Planning Association 73(2).
Shandas, V., & Messer, W. B. (2008). Fostering green communities through civic engagement:
Community-based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 74(4), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802291265.
Sigcho, B. (2017). Pilsen Alliance Interview. Interview by Sachi Arakawa.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally
significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-
4537.00175.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues,
50(3), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x.
Stone, E. (2009). The benefits of community-managed open space: Community gardening in New
York City. In L. Campbell & A. Wiesen (Eds.), Restorative commons: Creating health and well-
being through urban landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-39. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. p. 278.
Svendsen, E., & Campbell, L. (2008). Urban ecological stewardship: Understanding the structure,
function and network of community-based urban land management. Cities and the Environment
(CATE), 1(1). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol1/iss1/4.
Taylor, D. (1998). Blacks and the environment: Toward an explanation of the concern and action
gap between blacks and whites. Environment and Behavior, 21(2), 175–205.
Taylor, D. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm. American Behavioral Scientist,
43(4), 508–580.
Taylor, D. (2014). The state of diversity in environmental organizations. Ann Arbor. Green 2.0.
http://vaipl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ExecutiveSummary-Diverse-Green.pdf.
Teig, E., Amulya, J., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A., & Litt, J. S. (2009). Collective
efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community
gardens. Health & Place, 15(4), 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.003.
Thomas, D. S. G., & Twyman, C. (2005). Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst
natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 115–124
Tidball, K. G. (2014). Trees and rebirth: Social-ecological symbols and rituals in the resilience of
Post-Katrina New Orleans. In Greening in the red zone (pp. 257–296). Dordrecht: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9947-1_20.
Turaga, R. M. R., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-
6632.2009.05163.x.
 Environmental Stewardship 23

Van Dyke, F. (1996). Redeeming creation: The Biblical basis for environmental stewardship.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Vining, J., & Merrick, M. S. (2012). Environmental Epiphanies: Theoretical Foundations and
Practical Applications. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0026.
Welchman, J. (1999). The virtues of stewardship. Environmental Ethics. https://doi.org/10.5840/
enviroethics19992146.
Westphal, L. M. (1993). Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations. In Managing
urban and high-use recreation settings (pp. 19–23). St. Paul: USDA North Central Forest
Experiment Station.
Westphal, L. M. (1999). Growing power? Social benefits from urban greening projects. Chicago,
IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.
White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207.
Worrell, R., & Appleby, M. C. (2000). Stewardship of Natural Resources: Definition, Ethical and
Practical Aspects. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(3), 263–277. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1009534214698.

View publication stats