Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Göttingen Approach of Sustainability Science: Creating Renewable
Energy Communities in Germany and Testing a Psychological Hypothesis
Peter Schmuck, Prof. Dr. rer. nat., Dipl.-Psych., Interdisciplinary Centre of Sustainable
Development, University Göttingen, Germany
email: [email protected]
In press
Umweltpsychologie / Environmental Psychology 2012
Abstract
This paper presents one specific approach that successfully applies principles of sustainability
science from 14 years of research at the University of Göttingen. It starts by defining the
underlying core sustainability principles. Then, sustainability science is characterized as a
challenge to combine traditional elements of science with new elements, allowing us to cope
with the serious global situation in the beginning of the 21st century. The endangering
trajectories of global economic, social, and ecological developmental trends require a
bundling of all societal forces including science to support sustainable development. The
“Göttingen approach” of sustainability science consists of six steps of action research
activities which take place consecutively, in parallel to traditional scientific analyses: (1)
problem selection, (2) formulation of alternatives, (3) search for support, (4) search for
practice partners, (5) performing one pilot project, (6) transfer to the regional, national and
global level. In parallel, (7) scientific analyses are performed. The main part of the text
illustrates how these theoretical steps were practically applied between 2000 and 2011. After
(1) meeting one critical challenge of the sustainability transformation by replacing fossil and
nuclear energy resources with renewable energy resources, (2) creating the idea of a
“bioenergy village”, (3) ensuring financial support, (4) inviting a suitable village to perform
the transformation (5) the pilot project was enacted: between 2000 and 2005 the electricity
and heat supply of an entire German village was changed from fossil and nuclear to biomass
energy sources. Afterward, between 2005 and 2011, (6) the transfer process was initiated.
Finally, (7) some essential research results regarding pre-post comparisons are presented. A
psychological hypothesis predicting gains in well-being for people who engage in sustainable
development is supported by interview data from a core group of highly engaged persons, but
is not supported by a questionnaire study conducted with the broader population in the
village. The “Göttingen approach” is recommended as a potential methodological tool for the
transformation of other sectors of development (transport, food) toward sustainable
alternatives.
Keywords: sustainability science, bioenergy, renewable energy, well-being
1 Sustainability principles
Our guiding vision (Schmuck and Schulz, 2002; IZNE, 2011) is based on six principles,
which, in our mind, are required to reach intragenerational, intergenerational and interspecies
justice as milestones of sustainable development:
(1) The “respect principle” assigns all forms of life the same right to live (Schweitzer, 1991,
Gorke, 1999). (2) The “precautionary principle” is aimed at avoiding irreversible, human-
caused changes in our biospheric balance (Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006, p.5). (3) The
“justice” or “sufficiency principle” argues that if the available resources are distributed fairly,
humankind needs new life patterns based on a substantially lower consumption of resources
than the consumption level in today´s industrial countries. (4) The “principle of participation”
ensures the broad public population to take part in searching for, evaluating, and
implementing sustainable ways of life. Many chapters in the Agenda 21 (UNO, 1992)
emphasize this principle, i.e. chapter 14.22, 31.1, 35.6 and 36.9. (5) The “efficiency principle”
is directed at avoiding the wasting of limited resources. (6) The “consistency principle” is
directed at replacing the use of finite resources (as actual main base of our economy) with
renewable resources without any waste products in line with naturally occurring biospheric
cycles.
2 Sustainability science
This new type of science (1) acts explicitly to support sustainable development, (2) takes an
interdisciplinary approach, (3) is transdisciplinary and works in synthetic and parallel ways by
combining research and application in action-oriented research, during which scientists
initiate sustainability changes in a society and simultaneously perform research (Kates et al.,
2001). In a nutshell, the advocates of sustainability science call for a double role of science
and scientists within society; instead of restricting one’s role of producing scientific
knowledge, scientists are invited additionally to take part in applying that knowledge in
transdisciplinary teams to solve some of the urgent global problems. That does not mean that
the traditional strength of science in its objective methodology is abandoned; the new scientist
is not a person in the either one or the other role, but he is able to apply, to combine, and to
balance both roles (for the methodological background see Sheldon, Schmuck & Kasser
2000).
3 The Göttingen approach of sustainability science
How were the defining characteristics of sustainable development and sustainability science
integrated into our approach? Seven elements comprise the specific tasks that scientists must
fulfill during the whole research cycle. The approach requires that a group of scientists are
willing to cooperate and share an intrinsic sustainability motivation. Six tasks outline different
practical problem solving activities (application of scientific knowledge in inter- and
transdisciplinary teams), which take place consecutively. In parallel to these activities, the
scientists perform – in their traditional scientists´ role – research producing scientific
knowledge.
---insert fig. 1 here---
(1) The problem solving activities start with the selection of a problem. Looking in this early
phase at the global level ensures that the most impactful problems get priority. By looking at
the urgency of some global problems like climate change and rising sea level, one may
conclude that the world’s scientists should focus their energy on the most pressing problems
in order to prevent further real and predictable catastrophes like the oil disaster in the gulf of
Mexico in 2010, the nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011, or the ongoing melting of the
arctic ice.
(2) The regional level seems to be appropriate for formulating possible solutions to global
problems, because scientists usually have neither the power nor the mission to directly change
world politics at the global level. Therefore, the creative process may be started in the area
where an active group of scientists live and work.
(3) The great majority of scientists are specialists in several subjects of science, but have
neither the explicit assignment nor the financial means to perform inter- and transdisciplinary
sustainability science. Therefore it is necessary to get political and financial support for
sustainability projects. To get this support, it is helpful to refer to international and, where
applicable, national political agreements regarding the promotion of sustainable development.
There are two ways for scientists to become active in sustainability science. One is to wait
until governments or funding agencies create funding programs for sustainability research.
However, it is also possible for scientists to make the first step by offering their own
sustainability research ideas to political authorities. This second alternative was the case for
our project, which is described in detail in the next section.
(4) The next step entails motivating practice partners outside the research community to
collaborate in the sustainability project.
(5) In this phase, scientists are focused on providing scientifically based advice to the
practitioners during the implementation of the project. “The transcendent challenge is to help
promote the relatively `local' (place- or enterprise-based) dialogues from which meaningful
priorities can emerge, and to put in place the local support systems that will allow those
priorities to be implemented”, as expressed that idea by Clark and Dickson (2003, p. 8059).
(6) After the successful accomplishment of the pilot project, one further task may be to
actively support the transfer of the model to other regions and other countries where
applicable.
(7) Thus far, the results of traditional research are, the base of all problem-solving activities.
For instance, those selecting critical problems should consider which global problems are
most harmful (of course, the competence fields of the scientists group form restrictions here)
to avoid tackling less relevant problems. To enable corresponding evaluations, actual
scientific knowledge should be checked regarding the potentially problematic fields of water,
energy, health, agriculture, and biodiversity (“WEHAB” priority targets defined by the
Johannesburg Summit; Clark and Dickson 2003, p. 8060). Later on during the problem
solving process, scientific and technological knowledge should guide all single steps. Before
the first alternative demonstration models are realized, hypotheses regarding consequences,
for instance within longitudinal designs, should be designed and may be tested. That means
new scientific knowledge is produced based on the alternative demonstration models.
4 Application of the Göttingen approach to the bioenergy field
4.1 Select a critical global problem: The side effects and finite nature of fossil and nuclear
energy resources.
During the spring of 1997, scientists from seven disciplines at the University of Goettingen
(psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists, agroeconomists, biologists and
geologists) who share the intention to contribute actively to sustainable development came
together for two days to perform a “future workshop.” The goal of this workshop was to
initiate a model project in the field of sustainable development that would demonstrate the
lifestyle changes needed to ensure that future generations have a good life. The method of a
“future workshop” was developed by Robert Jungk in the 1970s (Jungk and Müllert, 1983) to
enforce the democratic potential and the creativity in modern societies to solve their
problems. It is often used in communal processes in Europe, but has not been widely used in
university settings, probably because the systematic inclusion of emotions and intuitions is
still undervalued by many members of the scientific community. Such a workshop has mainly
three phases. During the phase of criticism, actual problems and challenges are outlined and
one problem field in which the interests and competencies of the present group of persons
overlap is selected. After determining the urgency of various global problems, we decided to
deal with energy production and distribution issues. We agreed that the unsolved problems of
the main roads of actual energy production based on fossil and nuclear resources (mainly their
finite nature and side effects of waste products) are causally interconnected with many other
adverse effects (i.e., climate change, melting arctic ice and rising sea level, reduction of
biodiversity, socially unjust distribution patterns, and security problems as demonstrated by
the nuclear disasters in Tschernobyl in 1987 or in Fukushima in 2011). We felt that our
competencies might suffice here to search for alternatives on that field (for further details see
Schmuck, Eigner-Thiel & Lackschewitz, 2003).
4.2 Formulate an alternative solution at a regional level
The second phase of the future workshop is a brainstorming process involving creative
activities like playing games, listening to music, dreaming or drawing pictures with fantasy
visions for the future. The goal of these activities is to foster creative processes directed at
alternative solutions to the specified problems. During our brainstorming session, participants
were invited to look out the windows of the Germerode Abbey near Goettingen, where the
workshop took place. There are splendid views over the hilly landscapes of southern Lower
Saxony from the abbey windows. The participants were invited to walk slowly and silently
along these windows while listening to quiet music, and were asked to imagine how this
landscape could look when our children and grandchildren are adults, and when fossil and
nuclear fuels are no longer used. Then the participants were invited to draw paintings showing
their visions that emerged from this exercise. The whole process of “silent vision forming”
lasted one hour (and only one of the participants resisted to join in because of the
“unscientific nature” of these activities). The method turned out to be successful, and after
two days, the idea of the “bioenergetical village” was born: To motivate the people of an
entire village to take part in a collective effort to convert the energy supply in their village
into locally available biomass for electricity and for heat; and to plan and implement the
necessary processes with the people.
In the final phase of the workshop – the so-called realization phase – the goal is to formulate
concrete steps necessary for implementing the idea into practice. At this time we agreed that
the foremost important step would be to get political and financial support from authorities
outside the university.
4.3 Search for political and financial support
In 1998, after many further discussions about the details of the very complex problem and
their interconnectedness, a research project was formulated. Given that no funding program
fitting to our idea was available, we sent the project proposal to approximately ten seemingly
responsible funding agencies and German ministries. All of them dismissed the proposal as
not realistic: the chance to find people of a village ready for such a transformation was
appraised as too low. However, not giving up, we succeeded in contacting leading responsible
persons in the German Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV)
and convinced them that there might be a realistic chance for the project.
Finally, in 2000, that ministry appreciated the potencies of the project for assuring and
creating working places in the countryside. The expectation was that creating a model village
and demonstrating that the idea works both economically and socially could be followed by a
diffusion of the idea to further villages, and thus possibly could contribute to revitalize the
role of agriculture within Germany’s labor market. For background, it may be worth knowing
that the industrialization of agriculture during the last decades has been accompanied in
Germany by a dramatic decrease of employment in rural areas. Thus, the BMELV agreed to
support the project financially. In October 2000, the project started.
4.4 Search for practice partners: Village competition
From 2000 to 2002, the first project phase was scheduled to identify a suitable village in the
Goettingen area where people might be motivated to take part in the project. In parallel, a
psychological study has been analyzing social success factors in other pioneer projects in
order to apply them to this project (for details see Eigner & Schmuck, 2002). A kick-off-
meeting with local politicians and some press work publicizing the idea resulted in a
(unexpected) broad interest from the side of several villages to take part in the project. The
project team presented the idea in 17 interested villages. Four villages were selected for closer
consideration according to suitability criteria such as the existence of a broad agricultural base
or social coherence in the village. These four villages were invited to formally apply as
partner villages for the model project. This resulted in an unintentional competition between
the four villages, indicating a high motivation of the villagers to begin the transformation
toward renewable energy sources with our support. An engineering company developed
concepts for the technical implementation in the four villages. Based on these technical
concepts and the suitability criteria developed in the scientists´ group, the village Juehnde,
which is 12 km southwest of Goettingen and has 780 inhabitants, was selected as the
candidate with the best presuppositions for the transformation toward a bioenergetical village.
4.5 Perform pilot project on local level: The transformation process in the bioenergy village
Juehnde
Between 2002 and 2004, the preparation for the technical installation in the bioenergy village
Juehnde in Lower Saxony took place. The role of the scientists in this phase was mainly to de-
velop and offer technical, economic, and social advice. The intended participatory procedure
in the project requires that the villagers not only install the technical equipment in the village,
but also that they plan the details of the conversion project themselves, too. That means that
our participation concept includes not only transparent information regarding plans of experts
who usually come from outside the village, but also activities of the villagers themselves in
order to elaborate the general plan and perform the whole project (for different forms of parti-
cipation, compare Kasemir, Jäger, Jeager & Gardner, 2003). This is in line with empirical data
from an interview study in Great Britain in which “local residents suggested that more direct
and substantial involvement of local people in a project also contributes to greater project ac-
ceptance and support“ (Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008, p. 499). Therefore, from the very be-
ginning the residents of the village were involved in the process of planning and working on
site. After initial general meetings of the villages´ population, the villagers founded eight
working groups. In these working groups, proposed and initially moderated by the scientists
of the university team, the several relevant aspects of the project were discussed: “agricultural
resources”, “electricity production”, “heat production”, “heat distribution”, “form of the com-
pany to be founded”, “housing technique“, “public relations“, and “energy crop cultivation”.
A typical working group session started with an overview of the actual general project status
and new challenges. Then single members would present their work since the last meeting re-
garding the details of the very complex transformation task, decision proposals were prepared
for the next meeting on a higher planning level (central planning group, see below), and tasks
for the next meeting of the working group were distributed.
The results of the group’s work had to be integrated and communicated within the village.
The university group proposed to establish a central planning group, consisting of the heads
of the specific planning groups and local authorities, e.g., the mayor, members of the district
council, chairmen of village clubs, etc. Such a group was formed and then legitimated by the
village’s inhabitants by an acclamation during a public meeting. The central planning group
made important decisions during the planning process, e.g., the location and the power
capacity of the energy plants, the prices to pay for biomass, and the prices for heat energy.
That combination of planning processes at different levels within (1) the specific planning
groups, (2) the central planning group, and (3) the regular inhabitants meetings enabled a
transparent and very powerful participatory process. Using a planning procedure based on
intensive participation of the people in the village, it was intended that the villagers would see
the project as their own (despite the fact that the idea came from scientists). This intention
was successful; the people in the village took over the responsibility for the project and
required less and less support from the university team as time progressed.
Between 2004 and 2005 the technical equipment was installed: In Juehnde the technical
concept consists of three main components: (1) Electricity and space heat is produced by
burning biogas in a combined heat and power generator (CHP) with an electric capacity of
680 kW. The capacity of the CHP is adapted to the necessary electricity and heat output to run
the plant economically. Biogas is generated from biodegradable organic matter in an
anaerobic digestion plant. The plant contains two fermentation units with a capacity of 8.000
m3. In our pilot project, liquid manure (about 10.000 m3/year) and crops, cultivated on around
220 hectares of arable land in Juehnde’s surroundings, are digested enzymatically by micro-
organisms under anaerobic conditions. The CHP converts the energy content of biogas into
roughly 35% electricity and 50% usable heat energy. The electricity is fed to the national
electricity grid. A feeding-in price of about 17 EuroCent per kWh is guaranteed by German
law (Renewable Energy Act, revised in August 2004), particularly in promoting energy
production from biomass. The heat output of the CHP is partly used for the digestion process.
However, most of the heat can be applied for space heating and for the hot water demand of
the village households. In summer, surplus heat is used for drying wood chips and cereals.
About 75% of the heat demand of the households can be covered by the heat energy of the
CHP. In this way, renewable fuels can replace fossil fuels like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear
power as energy sources. (2) In winter, the additional heat energy necessary in middle
European climatic conditions is delivered by a central heating plant with a thermal capacity of
550 kW, fired by locally produced wood chips. The capacity of the wood chips plant covers
the peak heat demand in the winter. (3) The heat energy from the plants is fed into a 5.5 km
long hot water grid, which delivers the heat energy to the connected households in the village.
The heat transfer occurs by heat exchangers (with included heat meter), which replace the
individual heating systems. Further, to provide security in a case of breakdown of the biomass
plants and for the periodic maintenance, a peak load boiler with a capacity of 1600 kW, fired
by natural oil, has been installed. Less than 5% of the heat demand is covered by oil. This
ensures that the whole system is highly reliable (for more details see Schmuck et al., 2006).
4.6 Transfer toward the regional, national and global level
The experiences in the successful model project, finished in 2005, were communicated via
public relations activities (mass media, scientific publications, practical guides formulating
generalized principles for the conversion process, see Ruppert et al., 2011) and reached many
interested people in Germany´s rural population, especially farmers and local politicians like
majors or district administrators. As a consequence, the successful implementation of the first
bioenergy village in Germany inspired several further activities:
(1) From 2006 until 2009 in the district of Goettingen, four further villages (Reiffenhausen,
Wollbrandshausen, Krebeck and Barlissen), again supported by the university team, followed
the model of Juehnde and installed communally organized bioenergy installations.
(2) The German government started a grant program in 2008 that supported bioenergy regions
as follow up to the success in villages, and 210 regions in Germany applied for support. From
2009 to 2012, networking activities in 25 bioenergy regions in Germany were financially
supported. The author is active in one of these regions, in the bioenergy region Ludwigsfelde.
(3) In the federal state of Lower Saxony where Göttingen is located, a research project funded
by the ministry of science and culture of that state in 2009 was directed at analyzing the
conformity of different bioenergy production and consumption patterns with sustainability
criteria. In this project, again, action research activities are included and directed at supporting
three districts in Lower Saxony (Wolfenbüttel, Goslar and Hannover) in developing
sustainable bioenergy solutions. Two specific features are widening the focus in comparison
to the first pilot project: Now more complex solutions for whole regions are considered,
including additional renewable energy sources (like wind or solar energy) designed to
transform complete regions toward zero emission areas. Given that we are now active in
different projects in parallel, we now can more systematically evaluate the efficiency of our
different methods aimed at participation of different stakeholder groups (visiting model
projects, specific workshop tools, etc.). For these ongoing projects in the Goslar, Wolfenbüttel
and Hannover regions, see Schmuck, Wüste and Karpenstein-Machan (in press) for first
results.
(4) In 2011, the biosphere sanctuary region Schorfheide in the federal state Brandenburg has
started the process of initiating bioenergy villages. Five villages in that region have reported
interest for the conversion.
(5) The governments of the German federal states Baden-Württemberg, Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern and Brandenburg decided to financially support the development of several
hundreds bioenergy villages.
(6) In a federal competition in 2010, 35 single villages applied for a prize offered by the
German government for the “best bioenergy village” in Germany, which indicates that there
are several dozens of German villages following in the footsteps of the model project. This
competition will be repeated in 2012. Meanwhile, there are 79 bioenergy villages documented
at the official website of the BMELV.
---fig. 2 here---
(7) Last but not least, the team members have reported about these projects in many countries
in Asia and America. Among the results is the decision for a funding program of 1000
bioenergy villages by the government of Indonesia.
5 Selected research results
Some essential data regarding the consequences of the changes in the bioenergy village
Juehnde: The greenhouse gas emissions in the village were reduced by approximately 4.500
tons per year. That means that the per capita emissions in the pilot village are now less than
50% of the German average. Further, after the transformation the farmers reduced the amount
of insecticides, fungicides and growth regulators as well as pesticides on the areas where
energy plants are growing (details in Karpenstein-Machan & Schmuck, 2007, 2010).
Economic analyses have shown that the heat customers in the village, the farmers, the
operating company, and the region have experienced financial advantages in comparison to
their situation before the changes (for details see Schmuck et al., in press). A recent study is
showing that, on average, the price the customers in 20 bioenergy villages pay to heat their
houses is 50% of the price of a heating system based on fossil oil (Schmuck, Karpenstein-
Machan & Wüste, 2011).
6 Psychological aspects
6.1 Hypothesis
A specific hypothesis was formulated to test the psychological effects of this project (for
details see Schmuck & Sheldon, 2001; Schmuck & Kruse, 2005). It was assumed that human
beings in general have the potential to engage in sustainable development. Persons who
support social justice and the ecological thriving of our co-beings by engaging in the
sustainability discussion for inter- and intragenerational justice are in line with the evolution’s
main trajectory of unfolding growing complexity and variability. Therefore, it is expected that
these persons will be rewarded with the highest gratification evolution has to offer: well-
being. In detail, this hypothesis may be summed up in two main arguments: First, a growing
social cohesion may be expected within the group of persons who are engaged in the common
goal. Such a close social network supports well-being because being embedded in a social
network results in a variety of positive experiences for the individual in his or her functioning
as a social being (Schwarzer & Leppin, 1994). Furthermore, social support may be seen as a
buffer against stress. A second argument for our general hypothesis of fostering well-being is
focused on the “self-efficacy” concept (Bandura, 1997). Buer & Sqarra (1998) found evidence
that self-efficacy convictions may develop during ontogenesis when a person has
opportunities to cope successfully with challenging requirements. In our village project the
people have been confronted with a big challenge – to restructure the energy supply of the
whole village. Given that they solved that problem successfully, their collective self-efficacy
conviction may be expected to rise during the process. Such empowerment effects
(Rappaport, 1985, Antonovsky, 1993) are shown to contribute to well-being (Perkins, Brown
& Taylor, 1996, Zimmermann & Zahniser, 1991).
6.2. Method
The hypothesis was tested with a questionnaire and an interview approach. We selected two
different methods because we were interested in the effects on the broad population in the
village who participated in the project by agreeing to change their own heating, but who did
not have an active role in the transformation process on the village level. In contrast, there
existed a smaller group of approximately 20 persons who were extraordinarily engaged in
forcing the transformation by preparing and leading working group meetings and thus
contributing actively to the progress of the village project. For the bigger sample (in total,
Juehnde has 780 inhabitants and 237 households), an efficient questionnaire approach had to
be chosen because our restricted working capacity did not allow for hundreds of interviews.
For the small subsample, however, an interview study promised to give more detailed
insights, for instance, specific qualitative aspects within the well-being construct. Therefore,
(1) a longitudinal questionnaire study was conducted before (2001) and after (2007) the
changes in the village with a sample of 58 citizens (average age in 2001 was 52 years). These
citizens completed the questionnaire twice and participated in the project but were not
members of the planning teams. As a control group, 60 citizens of another village of the same
region without any conversion process (50 km distance from Juehnde, average age in 2001
was 52 years) were analysed in both critical years as well. The questionnaire consisted of
several subscales including items regarding social support, collective self-efficacy conviction,
and well-being (for details see , Eigner-Thiel & Schmuck, 2010, items on pages 119-120). (2)
Additionally, interviews were conducted with 11 of the most engaged villagers (one woman
and ten men) in 2001 and in 2007. The guiding questions focused again on the critical
psychological constructs of social support, self-efficacy conviction, and well-being (detailed
descriptions in Eigner-Thiel, Schmuck & Lackschéwitz, 2004 and Eigner-Thiel & Schmuck,
2010, p. 110).
6.3 Results
The questionnaire study representing the broad sample of the villagers did not contribute
empirical support in favour of the hypothesis. For these persons, the expected raise of well-
being scores was not observed. In detail, based on a good internal consistency of the
subscales (Cronbach´s alpha: in 2001 between .77 and .90, in 2007 between .79 and .92), an
analysis of variance was performed for each of the scales with two factors (VILLAGE: village
Juehnde vs. control village, TIME: 2001 vs. 2007). For the scale “collective self-efficacy
conviction” the factor VILLAGE is significant (F=15.49, p<.001). In both 2001 and 2007,
the people in Juehnde report a higher self-efficacy conviction than the people in the control
village. For all other scales, the F values for both factors and their interaction do not reach the
significance level.
However, in the interview study with 11 of the most engaged activists, clear support for the
hypothesis could be found: During the first interview in 2001, after these activists had been
involved in the process for a few months, the majority of the interview partners already
reported a strong social cohesion within their working groups, an increased number of
personal contacts within the village, and a strong conviction that he or she would contribute to
change. A couple of statements indicated individual gains in well-being as a result of the new
activities in the following ways: growing general satisfaction with life, joy during planning
and developing the process, and joy in gaining new knowledge and experiences. Additionally,
some of the interviewees reported that the project contributes to experience sense in life, pride
in their village, to improved social abilities and to feeling encouraged to plan new projects
and changes in their own life. Six years later, in 2007, the majority of the activists (10 out of
11) similarly reported that their social networks had increased and improved substantially as a
consequence of the project work. Eight interviewees expressed the conviction that groups of
persons are able to change the world. Five of the interviewees, who are active as guides for
guest groups visiting the pilot village, reported that they could immediately feel their
influence when the guests later started their own similar projects. Regarding well-being, 10 of
the interviewees clearly indicated that they enjoyed their engagement because they could see
their ideas were becoming reality, they were inspiring other people, they experienced joy in
the working groups, or simply because they were proud to live in a village with worldwide
popularity. Of course, they also mentioned that the huge investment of time and personal
energy temporarily impaired other leisure activities. However, considering the positive
consequences and experiences with the project, these detrimental effects were considered
subordinated. In sum, the group feeling, the feeling of self-efficacy and general well-being
increased within this group of active persons in the bioenergy village (for more details see
Eigner-Thiel, Schmuck & Lackschewitz, 2004; Eigner-Thiel & Schmuck, 2010).
6.4 Discussion
The results of the questionnaire study do not support the hypothesis regarding gains in well-
being as a consequence of engaging in sustainable development. A plausible reason for this
may be that the engagement of these persons was too restricted (in amount and time) to unfold
the expected consequence. For example, most people in the village took part in the project
only as heat customers. That means they informed themselves about the advantages of the
new heat supply (which required visits to some villagers´ meetings and/or reading
corresponding information). They then decided to change the heating system of their own
house. Finally, while the construction activities in their house had to be supported, they did
not match the processes at the village level. This amount of engagement as a heat customer is
rather limited and is motivated more by individual advantages and less by sustainability
motivations. Therefore, this amount of engagement may be too small to influence well-being.
An alternative explanation for the lack of support of the hypothesis of this study may be a
methodological one. The instrument, i.e., the well-being scale, might not have been
elaborated and detailed enough to detect psychological changes. The well-being scale
consisted of 11 items regarding the general physical and psychological constitution – but does
not include well-being aspects that may arise from a “good conscience” or a life full of
purpose. A third possible explanation could be a ceiling effect for the people living in Jühnde.
If they had already high scores in the first measure on the critical variables (there is a
significant effect of self-efficacy compared to the control sample) then a further increase is
not possible. Last but not least, the statistical power of the test could be too small with two
samples of approximately 60 subjects. We could not solve this problem, because the initially
promising sample size (in 2001 50% of all households answered) was reduced in 2007 due to
participant drop out (a well-known characteristic of longitudinal studies). Among the different
explanations for the missing effect we prefer the first interpretation but cannot finally decide
between them.
However, the data from the interview study support the hypothesis. A critical look at the
validity of the data seems appropriate here. What about social desirability? Might the
interview data be biased by suppositions of the interviewees regarding expectations of the
psychologists? As in every psychological study relying on verbal data, we cannot exclude this
possibility. However, we see a couple of arguments for the validity of the answers of the
interview partners. These include validity criteria such as the authenticity of our partners, the
interview structure without power differences between the partners, and triangulation with
other, objective data sources (like the number of visitors in the village, which is officially
documented), and could all be evaluated as sufficient (for validity criteria in qualitative
research, see Flick, von Kardoff & Steinke, 2004, p.184). Based on these arguments, the
disparate results of the questionnaire and the interview study are a challenge for
interpretation. Our preferred interpretation for the missing effect in the interview study – the
low level of engagement of the persons analysed in that sample – is that the interviewed
persons who report improvements in well-being and related variables were more active in the
sustainability project than the average villagers, which made clear their individual
perspective and motivation. To give only one indicator for that, these persons spent many
thousands of hours for voluntary work, to organize and perform hundreds of working group
sessions and villagers´ meetings. In terms of our theoretical considerations, these activities
were part of the unfolding of the human potential to transform life patterns toward sustainable
development and were accompanied by an increase in well-being.
7 Conclusion
Like all action research projects, ours had to overcome countless challenges and its
contribution to scientific progress is limited. Starting with the challenges, we will give some
illustrations of the project’s long and difficult path to the success. First, the constitution of a
group of “concerned scientists” willing to transcend mainstream thinking in science requires
time and energy. Then the proactive searching for funding (instead of reactive waiting for
fitting funding programs) requires patience and tenacity. In our case, it lasted two years and
included several trips to governmental agencies. Finding a village where people were willing
to start the transformation was not a big problem (we had anticipated the contrary!) – but we
did encounter an unanticipated problem: How to address villages that applied but could not be
supported due to restricted financial means. We informed the people of these villages that the
transformation would soon become economically enticing (due to rising oil prices), and that it
would be possible without external support. We were not comfortable with this promise and
did not know that a few years later it would be true. Between 2003 and 2005 there were long
delays in the transformation process because the funding agency hesitated to pay the promised
amount to the villagers, even though all the preconditions for the project had been fulfilled.
The project almost stopped several times because the villagers were seriously disappointed
and demotivated, and only political activities from our side (e.g., presentations at political
international meetings, personal contacts with government representatives and parliament
members) could save the project. Additionally, there were obstacles within the villages
involving disputes between neighbors concerning issues such as the optimal location of the
heat and power station. Nobody wanted to have the station near his or her house (NIMBY
effect) due to the anticipated smell and noise annoyance. We solved problems of this nature
by making such issues transparent to all, moderating discussions about these issues with
neutral persons, and by considering expert advice. In the case of the anticipated smell
annoyance, an expertise from TÜV (Technical Control Board Germany, an agency enjoying
great public confidence) convinced the doubters that the smell after the transformation would
be lessened, and not greater than before. Similar experiences in Great Britain demonstrate the
importance of trust between the interest groups in community projects (Walker, Hunter,
Devine-Wright, Evans, & High, 2010). Last but not least: The contemporary university career
conventions in Germany do not encourage young scientists to engage in interdisciplinary
projects because tenured positions are mostly provided for experts in one specific field. It is
urgent that this is changed.
Looking at limitations of sustainability science activities under a rigorous scientific
perspective, one has to mention the following aspects. In action research projects like the one
described in this paper, the researcher has limited control over the constellation of the
variables under consideration, because he is not free in selecting the subjects of the study. In
our case, we could not analyze people of a village until we chose the model village, and our
subject pool was restricted to the adult people of the village willing to participate in our
research. That means that representativity requirements scientists value in laboratory research
cannot be met in action research. Another great difference between sustainability science and
traditional science is the “double function” of the scientist within sustainability science. He is
not only the passive analyzer of data in the “outside world,” but he is simultaneously one of
the active co-founders of the ever-changing and transforming world as a conscious and value-
laden part of that world. For this reason, concerns may arise as to whether it is possible to
combine these two roles while meeting the requirement of scientists to maintain enough
distance from their data and to treat them in an objective way. Our position is that this
dilemma is inescapable in each type of science, because every researcher, also the proponent
of classical science, is an individidual with values and motivational preferences. In order to
cope with this dilemma we propose that the scientist make transparent his personal values and
motives as we do in this text with our sustainability values. Then other persons can evaluate
the scientific results by taking into account the motivational background and the general goals
of the researcher. In this study, the proponent of sustainable development was enacted by
supporting concrete actions (and hoping to confirm the hypothesis) – and the strict scientist
had to check the data. We hope that our balance between these roles was successful. Even if
objections remain, we are convinced that our “double-role” approach may open roads for a
constructive and creative advancement within science (Sheldon, Schmuck & Kasser, 2001).
To summarize: Our projects demonstrate how sustainability science principles have been
applied by initiating renewable energy solutions in German communities. They show that it is
possible for scientists to be co-initiators in sustainable development projects.
In these projects scientists are active as initiators, basing their work on the application of their
own scientific research. Parallel to the activities in the projects, they perform research
focusing the changes that occur as a consequence of the transformation processes. This double
role of scientists within sustainability research opens new roads for scientists and seems to be
a fruitful approach to adequately cope with the challenges of the global ecological, social, and
economical crisis.
We encourage researchers from other countries to replicate our positive experiences. The
greatest obstacle in realizing an idea is the search for financial support. Given that the
complete time-table of sustainable development is recorded in the 40 chapters of the Agenda
21 document, and given that political leaders of almost all nations signed that document (as
well as many following more specific documents like the Kyoto protocol), we see good
chances for getting the necessary funds. If a group of researchers in one of these countries
contacts governmental agencies with a good idea regarding sustainable science research, if the
idea fits with the sustainability intentions of their political authorities, and if the right people
in the government are obstinately reminded of their signatures in political documents, then
applications have a substantial chance for funding.
References
Antonovsky, A. (1993). Gesundheitsforschung versus Krankheitsforschung. In A. Franke &
M. Broda (ed.), Psychosomatische Gesundheit (pp. 3- 14). Tübingen: DGVT.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Buer, J. van & Squarra, D. (1998). Kontrollüberzeugungen und Lehrerwahrnehmungen von
Beruf und Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 44, 2, 273-293.
Clark, W. & Dickson, N. (2003). Sustainability Science: the emerging research program.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100, 8059–8061.
Eigner, S. & Schmuck, P. (2002). Motivating collective action: Converting to sustainable
energy sources in a German community. In P. Schmuck & W. Schultz (Eds.),
Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 241-257). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Eigner-Thiel, S. & Schmuck, P. (2010). Gemeinschaftliches Engagement für das
Bioenergiedorf Jühnde - Ergebnisse einer Längsschnittstudie zu psychologischen
Auswirkungen auf die Dorfbevölkerung. Umweltpsychologie, 14, 98-120.
Eigner-Thiel, S., Schmuck, P. & Lackschewitz, H. (2004). Kommunales
Engagement für die energetische Nutzung von Biomasse:
Auswirkungen auf Umweltverhalten, soziale Unterstützung,
Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung und seelische Gesundheit.
Umweltpsychologie, 8, 146-167.
Flick, E., von Kardorf, E. & Steinke, I. (2004). A companion to qualitative
research. London: Sage.
Gorke, M. (1999). Artensterben. Von der ökologischen Theorie zum Eigenwert der Natur.
Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
IZNE (Interdisciplinary Centre of Sustainable Development at University Göttingen) (2011).
Thesen zur Nachhaltigkeit. Retrieved from the internet 31.5.2011, http://www.izne.uni-
goettingen.de/?page_id=744.
Jungk, R. & Müllert, N. (1991). Zukunftswerkstätten. Mit Phantasie gegen Routine und
Resignation.[Future Workshops. How to Create Desirable Futures]. München: Heyne,
1991.
Karpenstein-Machan, M. & Schmuck, P. (2007). The bioenergy village. Ecological and social
aspects in implementation of a sustainability project. Journal of Biobased Materials and
Bioenergy, 1, 1-7.
Karpenstein-Machan, M. & Schmuck, P. (2010). The bioenergy village in Germany: A
lighthouse project for sustainable energy production in rural areas. In M. Osaki, A.
Braimoh & K. Nakagami (eds.), Local perspectives on bioproduction, ecosystems and
humanity (pp. 184-194). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jeager, C & Gardner, M. (2003). Public participation in sustainability
science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell R., Hall J., Jaeger C., Lowe I., McCarthy J., Schellnhuber H.,
Bolin B., Dickson N., Faucheux S., Gallopin G., Grubler A., Huntley B., Jager J., Jodha
N., Kasperson R., Mabogunje A., Matson P., Mooney H., Moore B., O’Riordan T. and
Svedin U. (2001). Environment and development: Sustainability science. Science, 292,
pp. 641–642.
Komiyama, H. and Takeushi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline.
Sustainability Science, 1, 1-6.
Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B. & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The Ecology of Empowerment:
Predicting Participation in Community Organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 1,
85-110.
Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. In J. Rappaport, C.
Swift & R. Hess (Ed.), Studies in empowerment (p. 1-7). New York: Haworth Press.
Ruppert, H., Eigner-Thiel, S., Girschner, W., Karpenstein-Machan, Roland, V., M., Ruwisch,
V., Sauer, Schmuck, P. (2011, second edition). Wege zum Bioenergiedorf. Leitfaden.
Gülzow: Fachagentur für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe.
Schmuck P. & Schultz, W. (2002). Sustainable development as a challenge for psychology. In
P. Schmuck & W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 3-19).
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schmuck, P. & Kruse, A. (2005). Entwicklung von Werthaltungen und Lebenszielen
[Devolopment of values and life goals]. In J. Asendorpf (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der
Psychologie, Band 3: Soziale, emotionale und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung (S. 191-258).
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Schmuck, P. & Sheldon, K. (Eds.), (2001). Life goals and well-being. Towards a positive
psychology of human striving. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Schmuck, P., Eigner-Thiel, S. & Lackschewitz, H. (2003). Das „Bioenergiedorf“ Projekt:
Interdisziplinäre und transdisziplinäre Erfahrungen von UmweltpsychologInnen beim
Initiieren eines Projekts zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien im ländlichen Raum.
Umweltpsychologie, 7, 134-147.
Schmuck, P., Eigner-Thiel, S., Karpenstein-Machan, M., Ruwisch, V., Sauer, B., Girschner,
W., Roland, V., Ruppert, H. & Scheffer, K. (2006). Das Bioenergiedorf Jühnde [The
bioenergy village Jühnde]. In G. Altner, H. Leitschuh-Fecht, G. Michelsen, U. Simonis
& E.U. von Weizsäcker (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch Ökologie 2007 (S. 104-112). München: C.H.
Beck Verlag.
Schmuck, P., Eigner-Thiel, S., Karpenstein-Machan, M., Sauer, B., Roland, F. & Ruppert, H.
(in press). Bioenergy villages in Germany: The history of promoting sustainable
bioenergy projects within the “Göttingen Approach of Sustainability Science”.
Schmuck, P., Karpenstein-Machan, M. & Wüste, A. (2011). Erfolgsfaktoren von 20
Bioenergiedörfern in Deutschland. Unpublished research report, University Göttingen.
Schmuck, P., Wüste, A. & Karpenstein-Machan, M., (in press). Applying sustainability
science principles of the Goettingen approach on initiating renewable energy solutions
in three German regions. In M. Kappas & H. Ruppert (Eds.), Sustainable bioenergy
utilization. Heidelberg: Springer.
Schwarzer, N. & Leppin, A. (1994). Soziale Unterstützung und Wohlbefinden. In A. Abele &
P. Becker (Hrsg.), Wohlbefinden. Theorie – Empirie – Diagnostik (S. 175-189).
Weinheim: Juventa.
Schweitzer, A. (1991). Menschlichkeit und Friede. Kleine philosophisch-ethische Texte.
Berlin: Verlags-Anstalt Union.
Sheldon, K., Schmuck, P. & Kasser, T. (2000). Is value-free science possible? American
Psychologist, 55, 1152-1153.
UNO, United Nations Organization (1992). Agenda 21. The Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development. Retrieved from the internet May 3 2011,
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/.
Walker, G.P and Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: what should it
mean? Energy Policy, 36, 497-500.
Walker, G.P., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B. and High, H. (2010). Trust and
community: exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable
energy. Energy Policy, 38, 2655-2633.
Zimmermann, M. A. & Zahniser, J. H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of
perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community
Psychology, 19, 189-204.
(1-6) CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOLVE GLOBAL PROBLEMS
(1) Select a global (6) Transfer of the solution
critical problem toward the national and
global level
(2) Create an (3) Search for (4) search for (5) perform a local
alternative political and partners in demonstration
solution financial support practice model
(7) RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Figure 1: Two roles of scientists including seven activity types within the Göttingen approach
of sustainability science
Figure 2: Location of 79 bioenergy villages in Germany. Circles mark finished villages (60),
triangles mark villages in the planning or construction process (19). Source:
http://www.wege-zum-bioenergiedorf.de/