Sustainable Development as a Challenge for Psychology

  • Peter Schmuck
  • P. Wesley Schultz

Summary

There is growing evidence that current ecological economic, and social trends are not sustainable. They cannot be continued indefinitely. Sustainability refers to uses of natural resources in such a way that the earth can continue to meet the needs of all people, all life, andfuture generations. To achieve sustainability, large scale changes are needed aimed at intergenerational equity, intragenerational equity, and interspecies equity. Psychology, as the science of human behavior, can play an important role in understanding and promoting sustainable development. This introductory chapter will shed some light on the current global situation, discuss the concept of sustainability, outline the potentials of our science in fostering sustainable development and, finally, introduce the chapters included in this book.

Keywords

Burning Europe Transportation Ozone Income 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramovitz, J. N. (2001). Averting unnatural disasters. In L. Starke (Ed.), State of the World 2001 — A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (pp. 123–142). New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G.W., Bruner, J.S., & Jandorf, E.M. (1949). Personality under social catastrophe. Ninety life-histories of the Nazi revolution. In C. Kluckhohn & H.A. Murray (Eds.), Personality in nature, society and culture (pp. 347–366). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L. & Flavin, C. (1999). Neues Wirtschaftssystem. [New economic system]. In Worldwatch Institute Report. Zur Lage der Welt 1999. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
  4. Bundesumweltministerium (Ed.), (1992). Agenda 21. Dokumente der Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen für Umwelt und Entwicklung im Juni 1992 in Rio de Janeiro [Documents of the United Nation’s conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro, June 1992]. Bonn: Bundesumweltministerium.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, M. E. (1995). Changes in Euro-American values needed for sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Csikszentmihaly, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist, 54, 821–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dobson, A. (2000). Drei Konzepte ökologischer Nachhaltigkeit [Three concepts of ecological sustainability]. Natur und Kultur — Transdisziplinäre Zeitschriftfür ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, 7, 62–85.Google Scholar
  8. Dunn, S. (2001). Decarbonizing the energy economy. In L. Starke (Ed.), State of the World 2001 — A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (pp. 83–102). New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  9. Durning, A. (1992). Asking how much is enough. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. Eigner, S. (2001). The relationship between “protecting the environment” as a dominant life goal and subjective well-being. In Schmuck, Peter & Sheldon, Kenneth (Eds.), Life goals and well-being. Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 175–195). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Eigner, S. & Schmuck, P. (1998). Biographische Interviews mit Umwelt-und Naturschützern [Biographical interviews with environmentalists]. Umweltpsychologie, 2, 42–53.Google Scholar
  12. Flavin, C. (2001). Rich planet, poor planet. In. L. Starke (Ed.), State of the World 2001 — A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (pp. 3–20). New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, G. (2001). Accelerating the shift to sustainability. In L. Starke (Ed.), State of the World 2001 — A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (pp. 189–206). New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  14. Gardner, G., Sampat, P. (1999) Materialwirtschaft. [Economy of ressources]. In Worldwatch Institute Report. Zur Lage der Welt 1999. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
  15. Gerdes, J. (2000). Wie viele Arten brauchen wir? [How many species do we need?]. Natur und Kultur — Transdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, 1, 89–108.Google Scholar
  16. Gorke, M. (2000). Was spricht für eine holistische Umweltethik? [Why holistic environmental ethics?]. Natur und Kultur — Transdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, 1, 86–105.Google Scholar
  17. Held, M. (2000). Geschichte der Nachhaltigkeit. [History of sustainability]. Natur und Kultur — Transdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, 1, 17–31.Google Scholar
  18. Howard, G. (2000). Adapting human lifestyles for the 21st century. American Psychologist, 55, 509–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  20. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
  21. Munasinghe, M. & McNeely, J. (1995). Key concepts and terminology of sustainable development. In Munasinghe, Shearer, UNU. In M. Munasinghe & W. Shearer (Eds.), Defining and measuring sustainability: The biogeophysical foundations (pp. 19–56). New York: United Nations University and The World Bank.Google Scholar
  22. Olson, R. L. (1995). Sustainability as a social vision. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity. How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55, 496–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preuss, S. (1991). Umweltkatastrophe Mensch: Über unsere Grenzen und Möglichkeiten, ökologisch bewußt zu handeln. [The environmental catastrophe caused by humans. Our barriers and possibilities to behave environmental-friendly]. Heidelberg: Asanger.Google Scholar
  25. Ray, P. H., & Anderson, S. R. (2000). The cultural creatives: How 50 million people are changing the world. New York: Harmony Books.Google Scholar
  26. Roodman, D. M. (2001). Ending the debt crisis. In L. Starke (Ed.), State of the World 2001. A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society (pp. 143–165). New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  27. Schindler, J. und Zittel, W. (2000). Der Paradigmawechsel vom Öl zur sonne. [Change of paradigm from oil to sun]. Natur und Kultur — Transdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, 1, 48–69.Google Scholar
  28. Schmuck, P. (2000). Werte in der Psychologie und Psychotherapie [Values in psychology and psychotherapy]. Verhaltenstherapie und Verhaltensmedizin, 21, 279–295.Google Scholar
  29. Schmuck, (2001). Planet der Nachhaltigkeit [Planet of sustainability]. Natur und Kultur — Transdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, 2, 111–115.Google Scholar
  30. Schmuck, P. & Sheldon, K.M. (2001). Life goals and well-being: To the frontiers of life goal research. In Schmuck, P. & Sheldon, K. (Eds.), Life goals and well-being. Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 1–17). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Schultz, P. W. (in press). Knowledge, education, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T. Dietz & P. Stern (Eds.), Education, information, and voluntary measures in environmental protection. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  32. Schumacher, E. (1985). Die Rückkehr zum menschlichen Maß. [Coming back to human proportions]. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  33. Schweitzer, A. (1899; reprint 1991). Menschlichkeit und Friede. Kleine philosophisch-ethische Texte. [Humanity and peace. Philosophicalethical essays]. Berlin: Verlags-Anstalt Union.Google Scholar
  34. Sheldon, K.M., Schmuck, P., & Kasser, T. (2000). Is value-free science possible? American Psychologist, 55, 1152–1153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihaly, M. (2000). Positive Psychology. An Introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Starke, L. (Ed.), (2001). State of the world 2001. New York: W.W. Norton Company.Google Scholar
  37. Verbeek, B. (2000). Kultur: Die Fortsetzung der Evolution mit anderen Mitteln. [Culture: Continuing evolution by new means]. Natur und Kultur — Transdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für ökologische Nachhaltigkeit, 1, 3–16.Google Scholar
  38. Vlek, C. (2000). Essential psychology for environmental policy making. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. The Brundtland report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Schmuck
  • P. Wesley Schultz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations