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: peterschmuck@gmx.de

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/