The number of people immigrating to Australia has been rising over the last twenty years. In 2001, 23% of the estimated population was born overseas. Within Australia people with vastly different backgrounds are consuming and preserving the environment. At the local level, many live in very similar environments with the same amount of resources, amenities and behavioral opportunities. But how do their behaviors differ?Ecological behavior has been subject to extensive enquiry and researchers have investigated differences in ecological behavior between cultural groups (i.e. Kaiser & Biel, 2000, Lévy-Leboyer, Bonnes, Chase, Ferreira-Marques & Pawlik, 1996). Based on the understanding that “culture consists of shared elements that provide standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, communicating and acting among those who share a language, historic period and/or geographic location” (Eisler, Eisler & Yoshida, 2003), this work has endeavored to identify if cultural standards influence people’s ecological behavior.The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) suggests that situational influences beyond people’s control, such as the built environment, are a significant factor in influencing ecological behavior. Kaiser and Keller (2001) found that differences in the physical environments and amenities in different residential environments had an impact on the ecological behavior of people. The Theory of Planned Behavior also assumes that factual knowledge, social and moral values, and subjective norms influence behavior.In this current study the ecological behavior of people with different cultural backgrounds living in the same local environment, a university village, is investigated. Previous research has looked at the effect of culture on ecological behavior (Leung & Rice, 2002), but research participants did not live in the same local environment. As Kaiser and Keller (2001) identified, local situational constraints can also influence behavior. 66 students, 33 Australians with a European-Australian Background and 33 students from eight different East-Asian countries, all living in the university village, participated in the study. Ecological Behavior was assessed with an adapted version of the General Ecological Behavior Scale (Kaiser, 1998). The original intention was to evaluate the data with a Rasch-Scale. This method allows estimating the probability that an ecological behavior is going to be carried out considering both the behavior tendency of a person and the task difficulty. The data did not fit the Rasch-Model due to sparse data, therefore, a univariate analysis of variance was carried out with the raw scores. The difference between the environmental behavior of the two groups was not significant (p=0.078; M=12.91; SD=4.6, East Asian; M=15.18, SD=5.65, European Australian). The GEB scores where not significantly affected by nationality ( F(1,64)=3.198, p= .078); gender (F(1,64)=1.938, p=.169) or time students had lived in Australia (F(1,64)=1.872, p=.162). The scale showed reasonable reliability (Cronbach's a = .765).The non-significant results may be due to very small samples and the rather heterogeneous East Asian sample with students from eight different countries. Other explanations stem from the nature of the sample. Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier (2002) point out that students are often higher in socioeconomic status than non-students. They suggested that because higher socioeconomic status is connected with higher scores on Individualism it is possible that regional differences between non-students could be underestimated. This assumption could also be true for other dimensions. Implications of this topic include whether ecological policy development at such university villages should focus on education of specific cultural groups, or making changes to the physical environment and amenities. With a rising number of people from different cultural backgrounds sharing a common environments, as in most major cities today, knowing what influences ecological behavior provides important information for preserving the environment. Further research with bigger samples is needed.