Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Konfligierende Auslegungen am Beispiel der Offshore-Windenergie. Eine sozialpsychologische Perspektive zur Beschreibung und Erklärung eines Leitbildes
|00010546.doc||2.91 MB||Microsoft Word||View/Open|
|00010546.pdf||2.04 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|Other Titles:||Sustainable Development: Diverging Interpretations of Offshore Wind Energy. A Social Psychological Perspective.||Authors:||Ladineo, Marcus||Supervisor:||Henning, Hans-Jörg||1. Expert:||Henning, Hans-Jörg||2. Expert:||Kemmnitz, Wolfgang||Abstract:||
The report 'Our Common Future' (1987) defines Sustainable Development as 'development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' (WCED). But regarding diverging backgrounds of value orientations, interests, ego involvements, and the inherent fuzziness of the notion of Sustainable Development it is to be expected that stakeholders have their own ideas of Sustainability or at least weight the aspects of sustainability differently. This empirical study provides a social psychological model of this 'subjective theories' about Sustainable Development. One important conceptual distinction had been implemented in the design of the study: Sustainability as an abstract concept, more reflecting a general world view on the one hand side, and Sustainability as a more concrete evaluation of a given situation (i. e. new technology or policy) in an environmental context on the other. 99 members of environmental groups, natur conversation groups, and members of wind energy associations were asked with a self rating questionnaire about their attitudes towards sustainability, value orientations and general political beliefs. As an example for the concrete aspect of Sustainability subjects were asked to what extent they regard the technology of offshore wind energy as sustainable (i.e. concerning its potential harm for species) and about the perceived risks and chances accompanied with this new form of energy supply. Three most important results can be stated: 1. Five dimensions of general Sustainability were identified using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: belief in technological progress, democratic paticipation, ecocentrism, individual lifestyle/consumption, and attitudes towards the western, growth oriented economic system. 2. Measured by correlational and path analytical methods almost no evidence was found for any relation between the abstract view of Sustainability and the perceived sustainability of offshore wind energy. The abstract 'theory' about Sustainability could be explained by the abstract value orientation of the subjects whilst the estimated Sustainability of this form of environmental technology was related to its perceived risks and chances.3. Analysis of variance yielded that also the group memership had an impact for the estimated Sustainability of offshore wind energy, its risks and chances. As hypothesized subjects belonging to wind energy associations estimated the risks for species lowest and the chances for a positive effect for CO2 reduction (and therefore for the protection of the climate) highest. The nature conservation groups estimated risks and chances conversely. The judgement of the environmental conversation groups was found between those poles. However almost no difference could be found in the abstract notion of Sustainable Development, general value orientation, and political beliefs between the subgroups of the sample. The empirical findings of the study were summarized by proposing a social psychological model of subjective perception of Sustainability. The theoretical impact of the results and the limitations of the study were discussed at the end.
|Keywords:||social psychology, environmental psychology, political psychology, sustainable development, sustainability, subjective Theories, path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, attitude constraint, Converse, value orientation, new environmental paradigm, self transcendence, environmental concern, risk evaluation||Issue Date:||4-Sep-2006||URN:||urn:nbn:de:gbv:46-diss000105465||Institution:||Universität Bremen||Faculty:||FB11 Human- und Gesundheitswissenschaften|
|Appears in Collections:||Dissertationen|
checked on Sep 28, 2020
checked on Sep 28, 2020
Items in Media are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.