Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter February 29, 2020

Klimawandel und psychische Gesundheit – Handeln, nicht hadern!

Climate change and psychosocial consequences – acting, not waiting!
Gerhard Reese and Claudia Menzel
From the journal Public Health Forum

Zusammenfassung

Der Klimawandel stellt die Menschheit vor noch nicht da gewesene Herausforderungen. Wegen des schieren Ausmaßes der bevorstehenden Konsequenzen des Klimawandels ist es gerade jetzt notwendig zu handeln statt zu hadern. Der Beitrag zeigt auf, unter welchen Bedingungen kollektives Handeln gelingen kann. Hier werden sowohl aktuelle soziale Bewegungen aber auch gesundheitsrelevante Aspekte betrachtet, die mit dem Schutz von Natur und Umwelt einhergehen.

Abstract

Climatic change represents a challenge to humanity of unprecedented scale. Because of the scope of consequences climate change will bring, it is time to act, rather than to sit and wait. This contribution addresses the psychological conditions under which climate action can become successful, and it suggests that we need to focus on collective action. In this line, we discuss current social movements and health-related aspects of climate change.


*Korrespondenz: Prof. Dr. Gerhard Reese, Universität Koblenz-Landau, AG Umweltpsychologie, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau i. d. Pfalz

  1. Autorenerklärung

  2. Autorenbeteiligung: Alle Autoren tragen Verantwortung für den gesamten Inhalt dieses Artikels und haben der Einreichung des Manuskripts zugestimmt. Finanzierung: Die Autoren erklären, dass sie keine finanzielle Förderung erhalten haben. Interessenkonflikt: Die Autoren erklären, dass kein wirtschaftlicher oder persönlicher Interessenkonflikt vorliegt. Ethisches Statement: Für diese Forschungsarbeit wurden weder von Menschen noch von Tieren Primärdaten erhoben.

  3. Author Declaration

  4. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission. Funding: Authors state no funding involved. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest. Ethical statement: Primary data for human nor for animals were not collected for this research work.

Literatur

1. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, et al. editors. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

2. Mortreux C, Barnett J. Climate change, migration and adaptation in Funafuti, Tuvalu. Glob Environ Change 2009;19:105–12. Search in Google Scholar

3. Reuveny R. Climate change-induced migration and violent conflict. Political Geogr 2007;26:656–73. Search in Google Scholar

4. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) und Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), Hrsg. Naturbewusstsein 2017 – Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt. Berlin – Bonn, 2018. https://www.bfn.de/themen/gesellschaft/naturbewusstsein/studie-2017.html. Zuletzt abgerufen am 17.12.19. Search in Google Scholar

5. Umweltbundesamt. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2018 – Eine representative Bevölkerungsumfrage. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

6. Heidbreder LM, Bablok I, Drews S, Menzel C. Tackling the plastic problem: a review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci Total Environ 2019;668:1077–93. Search in Google Scholar

7. Bamberg S, Möser G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 2007;27:14–25. Search in Google Scholar

8. Eker S, Reese G, Obersteiner M. Modelling the drivers of a widespread shift to sustainable diets. Nat Sustain 2019;2:725–35. Search in Google Scholar

9. Jugert P, Greenaway KH, Barth M, Büchner R, Eisentraut S, Fritsche I. Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. J Environ Psychol 2016;48:12–23. Search in Google Scholar

10. Matthies E. Wie können PsychologInnen ihr Wissen besser an die PraktikerIn bringen? Vorschlag eines neuen, integrativen Einflussschemas umweltgerechten Alltagshandelns. Umweltpsychologie 2005;9:62–81. Search in Google Scholar

11. Klöckner CA, Blöbaum A. A comprehensive action determination model: toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. J Environ Psychol 2010;30:574–86. Search in Google Scholar

12. Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1979:33–47. Search in Google Scholar

13. Fritsche I, Barth M, Jugert P, Masson T, Reese G. A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychol Rev 2018;125:245–69. Search in Google Scholar

14. Reese G, Junge E. Keep on rockin’ in a (plastic-) free world: collective efficacy and pro-environmental intentions as a function of task difficulty. Sustainability 2017;9:200. Search in Google Scholar

15. Hamann K, Holz J, Reese, G. Coaching for sustainability: empowering sustainability student initiatives through action competence, group identification, and efficacy beliefs. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

16. Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. J Educ Psychol 2007;99:611–25. Search in Google Scholar

17. Haslam C, Jetten J, Alexander SH. The social cure: identity, health and well-being. New York, USA: Psychology Press, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

18. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010;10:456. Search in Google Scholar

19. Mygind L, Kjeldsted E, Hartmeyer R, Mygind E, Stevenson MP, Quintana DS, et al. Effects of public green space on acute psychophysiological stress response: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental and quasi-experimental evidence. Environ Behav 2019;001391651987337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519873376. Search in Google Scholar

20. Beyer KM, Kaltenbach A, Szabo A, Bogar S, Nieto FJ, Malecki KM. Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11:3453–72. Search in Google Scholar

21. Cox DT, Shanahan DF, Hudson HL, Plummer KE, Siriwardena GM, Fuller RA, et al. Doses of neighborhood nature: the benefits for mental health of living with nature. BioScience 2017;67:147–55. Search in Google Scholar

22. James P, Banay RF, Hart JE, Laden F. A review of the health benefits of greenness. Curr Epidemiol Rep 2015;2:131–42. Search in Google Scholar

23. Poon K-T, Teng F, Wong W-Y, Chen Z. When nature heals: nature exposure moderates the relationship between ostracism and aggression. J Environ Psychol 2016;48:159–68. Search in Google Scholar

24. Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Aggression and violence in the inner city: effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environ Behavior 2001;33:543–71. Search in Google Scholar

25. Hsiang SM, Burke M, Miguel E. Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science 2013;341:1235367. Search in Google Scholar

26. Soga M, Gaston KJ. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front Ecol Environ 2016;14:94–101. Search in Google Scholar

27. Mackay CM, Schmitt MT. Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 2019;101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323. Search in Google Scholar

Online erschienen: 2020-02-29
Erschienen im Druck: 2020-03-26

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston