Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1381–1393 | Cite as

Positive psychology perspectives on social values and their application to intentionally delivered sustainability interventions

  • Ivan J. RaymondEmail author
  • Christopher M. Raymond
Special Feature: Original Article Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability

Abstract

Despite the increasing interest in the intersections among values, well-being and environmental outcomes in sustainability science, few studies have considered these relationships by drawing on well-established theories and methods from positive psychology. The aim of this paper is to review three approaches conceptually related to positive psychology (self-determination theory, SDT; character strengths and virtues, CSV; acceptancy and commitment therapy, ACT) and compare these to sustainability approaches to well-being and values. First, we critically compare how values are understood, constructed and operationalised within the positive psychology and environmental values literatures. We offer a summary table to detail key concepts (and articles) which sustainability scientists may draw upon in their work against the dimensions of (1) elicitation process, (2) value provider (3) value concept and (4) value indicators. Second, we critically compare how the positive psychology and environmental values literature have considered the intersections between values and well-being. We identify the positive psychology pathways of ‘value activation’ and ‘healthy-values’ as alternative methods for sustainability scientists to consider. Third, we offer future options for the integration of positive psychology and environmental values literatures to deliver interventions which may lead to well-being and sustainability outcomes. We suggest that mindfulness could be applied as a method to clarify and activate values within a nature exposure context, which harnesses the qualities of both disciplines. To demonstrate integrative possibilities, a case example is offered which brings focus to well-being and sustainability outcomes, the intersection of value pathways, and intervention components drawn from both disciplines.

Keywords

Well-being Positive psychology Ecosystem services Ecosystem management Conservation strategies 

Notes

References

  1. Bieling C, Plieninger T, Pirker H, Vogl CR (2014) Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecol Econ 105:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S et al (2004) Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 11:230–241.  https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobowik M, Basabe N, Páez D et al (2011) Personal values and well-being among Europeans, Spanish Natives and Immigrants to Spain: does the culture matter? J Happiness Stud 12:401–419.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9202-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brear MR, Mbonane BM (2019) Social values, needs and needs-fulfilment practices utilising water-energy-food nexus resources: a participatory ethnography of a “sustainable” food security intervention in a rural Swazi community. Sustain Sci (in revision)Google Scholar
  5. Brown KW, Kasser T (2005) Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Soc Indic Res 74:349–368.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown DJ, Arnold R, Fletcher D, Standage M (2017) Human thriving. Eur Psychol 22:167–179.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryce R, Irvine KN, Church A et al (2016) Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:258–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bullock C, Joyce C, Colllier M (2018) An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being. Ecosyst Serv 31:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K et al (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1462–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christopher JC (1999) Situating psychological well-being: exploring the cultural roots of its theory and research. J Couns Dev 77:141–152.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02434.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christopher JC, Hickinbottom S (2008) Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory Psychol 18:563–589.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308093396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corral Verdugo V (2012) The positive psychology of sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain 14:651–666.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9346-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corral-Verdugo V, Tapia-Fonllem C, Ortiz-Valdez A (2015) On the relationship between character strengths and sustainable behavior. Environ Behav 47:877–901.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514530718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlsgaard K, Peterson C, Seligman MEP (2005) Shared virtue: the convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Rev Gen Psychol 9:203–213.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2007) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior—how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40:330–354.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 11:227–268.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deci EL, Ryan RM (2008) Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life domains. Can Psychol 49:14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359:270–272.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener E (2000) Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol 55:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener E, Oishi S, Tay L (2018a) Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat Hum Behav 2:253–260.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diener E, Seligman MEP, Choi H, Oishi S (2018b) Happiest people revisited. Perspect Psychol Sci 13:176–184.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617697077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dodge R, Daly AP, Huyton J, Sanders LD (2012) The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing 2:222–235.  https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ericson T, Kjønstad BG, Barstad A (2014) Mindfulness and sustainability. Ecol Econ 104:73–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feeney TK, Hayes SC (2016) Acceptance and commitment therapy. In: Wood AM, Johnson J (eds) The Wiley handbook of positive clinical psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer D, Stanszus L, Geiger S et al (2017) Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: a systematic literature review of research approaches and findings. J Clean Prod 162:544–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gouveia VV, Milfont TL, Fischer R, Schultz PW (2007) A functional theory of human values: testing its adequacy in fourteen Iberoamerican cultures. In: 31st interamerican congress of psychology, Mexico City, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  27. Guerrero AM, Bennett NJ, Wilson KA et al (2018) Achieving the promise of integration in social–ecological research: a review and prospectus. Ecol Soc 23:art38.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10232-230338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayes SC (2016) Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies—republished article. Behav Ther 47:869–885.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayes SC, Strosahl KD, Wilson KG (2003) Acceptance and commitment therapy: an experiential approach to behavior change. Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW et al (2006) Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behav Res Ther 44:1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hurst M, Dittmar H, Bond R, Kasser T (2013) The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 36:257–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huston AC, Bentley AC (2010) Human development in societal context. Annu Rev Psychol 61:411–437.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kabisch N, van den Bosch M, Lafortezza R (2017) The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly—a systematic review. Environ Res 159:362–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVRES.2017.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kasser T (2016) Materialistic values and goals. Annu Rev Psychol 67:489–514.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kasser T, Ryan RM (1993) A dark side of the American dream: correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. J Pers Soc Psychol 65:410–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kasser T, Ryan RM (1996) Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 22:280–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendal D, Raymond CM (2018) Understanding pathways to shifting people’s values over time in the context of social–ecological systems. Sustain Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0648-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N et al (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M et al (2016) Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst Serv 21:358–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kjell ONE (2011) Sustainable well-being: a potential synergy between sustainability and well-being research. Rev Gen Psychol 15:255–266.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kjell ONE, Daukantaitė D, Hefferon K, Sikström S (2016) The harmony in life scale complements the satisfaction with life scale: expanding the conceptualization of the cognitive component of subjective well-being. Soc Indic Res 126:893–919.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0903-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knippenberg L, de Groot WT, van den Born RJ et al (2018) Relational value, partnership, eudaimonia: a review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:39–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.10.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maddux JE (2016) Toward a more positive clinical psychology. In: Wood AM, Johnson J (eds) The Wiley handbook of positive clinical psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Dietsch AM (2016) Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 30:287–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCracken LM, Yang S-Y (2006) The role of values in a contextual cognitive-behavioral approach to chronic pain. Pain 123:137–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Niemiec RM (2014) Mindfulness and character strengths: a practical guide to flourishing. Hogrefe Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  47. Niemiec RM (2017) Character strength interventions: a field guide for practitioners. Hogrefe, TorontoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park N, Peterson C, Seligman MEP (2004) Strengths of character and well-being. J Soc Clin Psychol 23:603–619.  https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parks AC, Schueller SE (2014) The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of positive psychological inventions. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S et al (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:7–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Passmore H-A, Holder MD (2017) Noticing nature: individual and social benefits of a two-week intervention. J Posit Psychol 12:537–546.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pawelski JO (2016) Defining the ‘positive’ in positive psychology: part I. A descriptive analysis. J Posit Psychol 11:339–356.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peterson C, Seligman MEP (2004) Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Raymond IJ (2018a) A programme logic framework designed to strengthen the impact and fidelity of wellbeing and behavioural interventions. In: Slee P, Cefai C (eds) Child and adolescent well-being and violence prevention in schools. Routledge, London, pp 199–208Google Scholar
  55. Raymond IJ (2018b) Intentional practice: a positive psychology intervention planning and implementation method. Clin Appl Posit Psychol 1:2018Google Scholar
  56. Raymond CM, Kenter JO (2016) Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21: 241–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T et al (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raymond CM, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N et al (2017) A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy 77:15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2017.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raymond I, Iasiello M, Jarden A, Kelly D (2018) Resilient futures: an individual and system-level approach to improve the well-being and resilience of disadvantaged young Australians. Transl Issues Psychol Sci 4(3):228–244.  https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raymond I, Iasiello M, Kelly D, Jarden A (2019) Program logic modelling and complex positive psychology intervention design and implementation: the ‘Resilient Futures’ case example. Int J Appl Posit Psychol 3(1):43–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-019-00014-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryan RM, Chirkov VI, Little TD et al (1999) The American dream in Russia: extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 25:1509–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sagiv L, Schwartz SH (2000) Value priorities and subjective well-being: direct relations and congruity effects. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:177–198.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2%3c177:AID-EJSP982%3e3.0.CO;2-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2014.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schmuck P, Kasser T, Ryan RM (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: their structure and relationship to well-being in German and US college students. Soc Indic Res 50:225–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values—theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65Google Scholar
  67. Schwartz SH (2006) Basic human values: theory, measurement, and applications. Rev française Sociol 47:249–288Google Scholar
  68. Seligman MEP (2012) Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Seligman MEP (2015) Chris Peterson’s unfinished masterwork: the real mental illnesses. J Posit Psychol 10:3–6.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.888582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Seligman M, Csikszentmihalyi M (2000) Positive psychology: an introduction. Am Psychol 55:5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sheldon KM, Ryan RM (2011) Positive psychology and self-determination theory: a natural interface. In: Chirkov VI, Ryan RM, Sheldon KM (eds) Human autonomy in cross-cultural context. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sortheix FM, Lönnqvist J-E (2014) Personal value priorities and life satisfaction in Europe. J Cross Cult Psychol 45:282–299.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113504621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sortheix FM, Schwartz SH (2017) Values that underlie and undermine well-being: variability across countries. Eur J Pers 31:187–201.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K, Perlaviciute G (2014) An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals. J Environ Psychol 38:104–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Steptoe A, Deaton A, Stone AA (2015) Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. Lancet 385:640–648.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stokols D (2017) Social ecology in the digital age: solving complex problems in a globalized world. Elsevier, Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  77. Summers JK, Smith LM, Case JL, Linthurst RA (2012) A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio 41:327–340.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van den Born RJG, Arts B, Admiraal J et al (2018) The missing pillar: eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation. J Environ Plan Manag 61:841–856.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1342612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van den Bosch M, Ode Sang Å (2017) Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health—a systematic review of reviews. Environ Res 158:373–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Riper CJ, Thiel A, Penker M et al (2018) Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological systems framework. Ecol Soc 23:art25.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10047-230325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vansteenkiste M, Lens W, Soenens B, Luyckx K (2006) Autonomy and relatedness among chinese sojourners and applicants: conflictual or independent predictors of well-being and adjustment? Motiv Emot 30:273–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9041-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vansteenkiste M, Niemiec CP, Soenens B (2010) The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. The decade ahead: theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bradford, pp 105–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Verplanken B, Holland RW (2002) Motivated decision making: effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 82:434–447.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wamsler C (2018) Mind the gap: the role of mindfulness in adapting to increasing risk and climate change. Sustain Sci 13:1121–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0524-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wamsler C, Brink E (2018) Mindsets for sustainability: exploring the link between mindfulness and sustainable climate adaptation. Ecol Econ 151:55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2018.04.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wamsler C, Brossmann J, Hendersson H et al (2018) Mindfulness in sustainability science, practice, and teaching. Sustain Sci 13:143–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0428-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Warren C, Coghlan A (2016) Using character strength-based activities to design pro-environmental behaviours into the tourist experience. An Int J Tour Hosp Res 27:480–492.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2016.1217893 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilson KG, Groom J (2002) The valued living questionnaire. Available from the first author at Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, MSGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilson KG, Murrell AR (2004) Values work in acceptance and commitment therapy. In: Hayes SC, Follette VM, Lineham MM (eds) Mindfulness and acceptance: expanding the cognitive-behavioral tradition. Guildford, New York, pp 102–151Google Scholar
  90. Wilson KG, Sandoz EK, Kitchens J, Roberts M (2010) The valued living questionnaire: defining and measuring valued action within a behavioral framework. Psychol Rec 60:249–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Life Buoyancy InstituteAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of Economics and Management, Faculty of Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS)University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations