Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The New Ecological Paradigm, Functional Stupidity and University Sustainability – A Polish Case Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XXXVII

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((TCCI,volume 13750))

Abstract

The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) reflects fragility in nature, limits to growth and the perceived ability of mankind to deal with all kinds of challenges to sustainable development. Functional Stupidity (FS) concerns the willingness to use and apply knowledge, while being able to go beyond short-term, myopic goals. Both concepts bear on the capacity to create a policy for and redefine goals for sustainable development. This study aims to provide a picture of the adherence to the New Ecological Paradigm and the level of Functional Stupidity of a group of business and economics students. By means of a survey and a teaching intervention, data was gathered among Polish business and economics students (N = 428) in April-May 2019. Fuzzy logic was found suitable to analyse the data, as worldviews tend to be general and imprecise. The results show that worldviews of the students are very similar and do not depend on specific characteristic like gender, employment, etc. The only one exception is the direction of the study, which show little influence on the specific view. Interestingly, the teaching intervention does not change specific views. The lack of reflection and justification, as well as the belief in unlimited growth, may lead students to believe that human intervention, when using a system approach, can prevent different types of adverse side effects. Adherence to the New Ecological Paradigm is neutral or positive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alvesson, M., Spicer, A.: A stupidity-based theory or organizations. J. Manage. Stud. 49(7), 1186–1220 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.467-6486.2012.01072.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beck, H.: Mózg się myli (original: Irren ist nützlich). Wydawnictwo JK, Łódź (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bertoncel, T., Erenda, I., Pejić Bach, M., Roblek, V., Meško, M.: A managerial early warning system at a smart factory: an intuitive decision-making perspective. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 35, 406–416 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bih, J.: Paradigm shift - an introduction to fuzzy logic. Potent. IEEE 25, 6–21 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/MP.2006.1635021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanchard, F., Vautrot, P., Akdag, H., Herbin, M.: Data representativeness based on fuzzy set theory. J. Uncert. Syst. 4(3), 216–228 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bonett, D.G.: Approximate confidence interval for standard deviation of nonnormal distributions. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 50, 775–782 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.10.003

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Casti, J.L.: X-Events – Complexity Overload and the Collapse of Everything. Harper Collins Publishers, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cooper, P., Poe, G.L., Bateman, I.J.: The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol. Econ. 50, 69–82 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., Bartholomew, J.A.: Goals, agendas and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In: Costanza, R. (ed.) Ecological Economics – the Science and Management of Sustainability, pp. 1–20. Columbia University Press, New York (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cotgrove, S.: Catastrophe or Cornucopia. Wiley, New York (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory, probability theory and multiple-valued logics: a clarification. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 32, 35–66 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016740830286

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D.: The “new environmental paradigm”: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J. Environ.Educ. 9, 10–19 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunlap, R.E.: The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 40, 3–18 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E.: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56(3), 425–442 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eshragh, F., Mandani, E.H.: A general approach to linguistic approximation. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 11, 501–519 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(79)80040-1

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Etzioni, A.: Law and Society in a Populist Age: Balancing Individual Rights and the Common Good. Bristol University Press, Bristol (2018). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv56fgtg

  17. Evans, G.W., Brauchle, G., Haq, A., Stecker, R., Wong, K., Shapiro, E.: Young children’s environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ. Behav. 39, 645–659 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506294252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedman, M.: The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 32(200), 675–701 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., Krause, T.-S.: Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implementations for management theory and research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(4), 874–907 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2307/258959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Groot, J.I.M., Steg, L.: Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior. Environ. Behav. 40, 330–354 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall, C., Moran, D.: Investigating GM risk perceptions: a survey of anti-GM and environmental campaign group members. J. Rural. Stud. 22, 29–37 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Harari, Y.N.: Sapiens – A Brief History of Humankind. Vintage, London (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hawcroft, L.J., Milfont, T.L.: The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the past 30 years: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 143–158 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kacelnik A., Meaning of rationality. In: Hurley, S., Nudds, M. (eds.) Rational Animals?, pp. 87–106. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528272.001.0001

  25. Kahneman, D.: Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books, London (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kosko, B.: Fuzzy Thinking: the New Science of Fuzzy Logic. Hyperion, New York (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Kotchen, M.J., Reiling, S.D.: Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values. Ecol. Econ. 32, 93–107 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00069-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lambrechts, W., Platje, J., Van Dam, Y.: Guest Editorial - the university as an arena forsustainability transition. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 30(7), 1101–1108 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2019-240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Leal Filho, W.: Sustainability and University Life. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 1(1) (2000). https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe.2000.24901aae.005

  30. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., Auld, G.: Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 45(2), 123–152 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin, C., Chen, Y.: Bid/no-bid decision-making—a fuzzy linguistic approach. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 22, 585–593 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lose, T., Tengeh, R.K.: The sustainability and challenges of business incubators in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. Sustainability 7, 14344–14357 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/su71014334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lozano, R., et al.: A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1–18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W.: Declarations for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10–19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mandelbrot, M., Hudson, R.L.: The (Mis)behaviour of Markets. Profile Books, London (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Manoli, C.C., Johnson, B., Dunlap, R.E.: Assessing children’s environmental worldviews: modifying and validating the new ecological paradigm scale for use with children. J. Environ. Educ. 38(4), 3–13 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.4.3-13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Meadows, D.: Leverage Points – places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Milbrath, L.W.: Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. State University of New York Press, Albany (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  39. North, D.C.: Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678

  40. Ntanos, S., Kyriakopoulos, G., Skordoulis, M., Chaliklas, M. Arabatzis, G.: An application of the new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale in a Greek context. Energies 12(239) (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/en12020239

  41. Olsen, M.E., Lodwick, D.G., Dunlap, R.E.: Viewing the world ecologically. Westview, Boulder (1992). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429267048

  42. Over, D.: Rationality and the normative/descriptive distinction. In: Koehler, D.J., Harvey, N. (eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, pp. 3–18. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752937.ch1

  43. Platje, J.(: The capacity of companies to create an early warning system for unexpected events – an explorative study. In: Nguyen, N.T., Kowalczyk, R., Mercik, J., Motylska-Kuźma, A. (eds.) Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XXXIV. LNCS, vol. 11890, pp. 47–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60555-4_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Platje, J., Will, M., Van Dam, Y.: A fragility approach to sustainability – researching effects of education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 20(7), 1220–1239 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2018-0212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Platje, J., Quintana, D.S.Z.: Business unsustainability and early warning systems. In: Filho, W.L. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, pp. 1–8. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_263-1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Ryden, L.: Tools for Integrated Sustainability Management in Cities and Towns. Baltic University Press, Uppsala (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schmucker, K.J.: Fuzzy Sets, Natural Language Computations, and Risk Analysis. Computer Science Press, USA (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Schultz, P.W., Zelezny, L.C.: Values and proenvironmental behavior: a five-country survey. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29, 540–558 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sen, A.: Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica 61, 495–521 (1993). https://doi.org/10.2307/2951715

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Simon, H.A.: Models of Man; Social and Rational. Wiley, New York (1957)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Slimak, M.W., Dietz, T.: Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal. 26(6), 1689–1705 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sterman, J.D.: Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World. Irwin/McGraw Hill, Boston (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A.: The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environ. Behav. 27, 723–743 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., Guagnano, G.A.: Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1611–1636 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L.: A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81–97 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Taleb, N.N.: The Black Swan - The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Penguin Books, London (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Taleb, N.N.: Antifragile - Things that Gain from Disorder. Penguin Books, London (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Taleb, N.N., Read, R., Douady, R., Norman, J., Bar-Yam, Y.: The precautionary principle: fragility and black swans from policy actions. Extreme Risk Initiative – NYU School of Engineering Working Paper Series (2014). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf

  59. Van Opstal, M., Huge, J.: Knowledge for sustainable development: a worldviews perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 15, 687–709 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9401-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Verhulst, E., Lambrechts, W.: Fostering the incorporation of sustainable development in higher education. Lessons learned from a change management perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 189–204 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. WCED: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Zepeda Quintana, D.S., Esquer, J., Anaya, C.: Teaching and mindsets regarding sustainable development – a Mexican case study. Cent. Eur. Rev. Econ. Manag. 3(4), 91–102 (2019). https://doi.org/10.29015/cerem.860

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WSB University in Wroclaw, Fabryczna 29-31, 53-609, Wrocław, Poland

    Johannes (Joost) Platje & Anna Motylska-Kuzma

  2. Faculty of Management, Open Universiteit (The Netherlands), P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Marjolein Caniels

  3. Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Applied Sciences Zittau/Görlitz, Theodor-Körner-Allee 16, 02763, Zittau, Germany

    Markus Will

  4. European School of Sustainability Science and Research, Faculty of Life Sciences, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Ulmenliet 20, 21033, Hamburg, Germany

    Markus Will

Authors
  1. Johannes (Joost) Platje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Motylska-Kuzma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marjolein Caniels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Markus Will
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes (Joost) Platje .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Informatics, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, Poland

    Ngoc Thanh Nguyen

  2. Faculty of Information and Communication Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, VIC, Australia

    Ryszard Kowalczyk

  3. WSB University in Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland

    Jacek Mercik

  4. University of Lower Silesia, Wroclaw, Poland

    Anna Motylska-Kuźma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Platje, J.(., Motylska-Kuzma, A., Caniels, M., Will, M. (2022). The New Ecological Paradigm, Functional Stupidity and University Sustainability – A Polish Case Study. In: Nguyen, N.T., Kowalczyk, R., Mercik, J., Motylska-Kuźma, A. (eds) Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XXXVII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13750. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66597-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66597-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-66596-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-66597-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation