Néhány az elmúlt években az ehhez a témakörhöz kapcsolódó angol nyelven megjelenő tanulmány:
1. Kirk Warren Brown - Tim Kasser (2005): Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle, Social Indicators Research, volume 74, pages 349–368
Happiness and ecological well-being are often portrayed as conflictual pursuits, but they may actually be complementary. In samples of adolescents (Study 1) and adults (Study 2), we tested this proposition and examined the role of three factors in promoting both subjective well-being (SWB) and ecologically responsible behavior (ERB). In both studies, individuals higher in SWB reported more ERB. An intrinsic value orientation (Studies 1 and 2) and dispositional mindfulness (Study 2) related to higher SWB and ERB, while a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity (Study 2) related to higher ERB. Further analyses showed that the compatibility of SWB and ERB was explained by intrinsic values and mindfulness. These findings offer clues to a sustainable way of life that enhances both personal and collective well-being.
2. Jeffrey Jacob - Emily Jovic - Merlin B. Brinkerhoff (2009): Personal and planetary well-being: Mindfulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior and personal quality of life in a survey from the social justice and ecological sustainability movement, Social Indicators Research, volume 93, pages 275–294
Employing data from a mailed survey of a sample of ecologically and spiritually aware respondents (N = 829), the study tests the hypothesized relationship between ecologically sustainable behavior (ESB) and subjective well-being (SWB). The proposed link between ESB and SWB is the spiritual practice of mindfulness meditation (MM). In multiple regression equations ESB and MM independently explain statistically significant amounts of variance in SWB, indicating, for at least the study’s sample, that there can be a relationship between personal and planetary well-being. The inter-relationships among SWB, ESB and MM suggest that for specific segments of the general population (e.g., the spiritually inclined) there may not necessarily be an insurmountable conflict between an environmentally responsible lifestyle and personal quality of life. The research reported here also points to the potential for meditative/mindful experiences to play a prominent role in the explanation of variance in SWB, a direction in QoL studies recently highlighted by several researchers (Layard 2005, pp. 189–192; Nettle 2005, pp. 153–160; Haidt 2006).
3. Elise L. Amel - Christie M. Manning - Britain A. Scott (2009): Mindfulness and sustainable behavior: Pondering attention and awareness as means for increasing green behavior, Ecopsychology, Volume 1, Number 1
Ecopsychologists have suggested that mindful awareness of our interdependence with nature may not only help us regain our lost, ecologically embedded identity (Roszak, 1992) but may also help us behave more sustainably, closing the documented gap between proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. We suggest more specifically that, in contemporary consumer culture with its dearth of proenvironmental norms and cues, mindful attentiveness may be necessary to develop sustainable habits. To explore the connection between mindfulness and sustainable behavior, we measured 100 adults attending a Midwestern sustainability expo on two mindfulness factors: acting with awareness and observing sensations. As predicted, acting with awareness was significantly positively correlated with self-reported sustainable behavior. This finding is consistent with the idea that, until sustainable decisions become the societal default, their enactment may depend on focused consideration of options and mindful behavior. In contrast, observing sensations did not predict behavior. This calls into question the notion that feeling connected to the world outside of ourselves is a precondition for sustainable action. We call for more research to further test the validity and generalizability of our findings.
4. M. Berners-Lee - C. Hoolohana - H. Cammack - C. N. Hewitt (2012): The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices, Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 184-190
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions embodied in 61 different categories of food are used, with information on the diet of different groups of the population (omnivorous, vegetarian and vegan), to calculate the embodied GHG emissions in different dietary scenarios. We calculate that the embodied GHG content of the current UK food supply is 7.4 kg CO2e person−1day−1, or 2.7t CO2e person−1y−1. This gives total food-related GHG emissions of 167Mt CO2e (1Mt=106 metric tonnes; CO2e being the mass of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential, when measured over 100 years, as a given mixture of greenhouse gases) for the entire UK population in 2009. This is 27% of total direct GHG emissions in the UK, or 19% of total GHG emissions from the UK, including those embodied in goods produced abroad. We calculate that potential GHG savings of 22% and 26% can be made by changing from the current UK-average diet to a vegetarian or vegan diet, respectively. Taking the average GHG saving from six vegetarian or vegan dietary scenarios compared with the current UK-average diet gives a potential national GHG saving of 40MtCO2ey−1. This is equivalent to a 50% reduction in current exhaust pipe emissions from the entire UK passenger car fleet. Hence realistic choices about diet can make substantial differences to embodied GHG emissions.
5. Samuel Soret - Alfredo Mejia - Michael Batech - Karen Jaceldo-Siegl - Helen Harwatt - Joan Sabaté (2014): Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 100, Issue suppl 1, July 2014, Pages 490S–495S
Background: Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) are a major consequence of our dietary choices. Assessments of plant-based compared with meat-based diets are emerging at the intersection of public health, environment, and nutrition.
Objectives: The objective was to compare the GHGEs associated with dietary patterns consumed in a large population across North America and to independently assess mortality according to dietary patterns in the same population.
Design: Data from the Adventist Health Study 2 (AHS-2) were used to characterize the differential environmental and health impacts of the following 3 dietary patterns, which varied in the quantity of animal and plant foods: vegetarian, semivegetarian, and nonvegetarian. The GHGE intensities of 210 foods were calculated through life-cycle assessments and by using published data. The all-cause mortality rates and all-cause mortality HRs for the AHS-2 subjects were adjusted for a range of lifestyle and sociodemographic factors and estimated according to dietary pattern.
Results: With the use of the nonvegetarian diet as a reference, the mean reductions in GHGEs for semivegetarian and vegetarian diets were 22% and 29%, respectively. The mortality rates for nonvegetarians, semivegetarians, and vegetarians were 6.66, 5.53, and 5.56 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively. The differences were significant. Compared with nonvegetarians, mortality HRs were lower for semivegetarians (0.86) and vegetarians (0.91).
Conclusions: Moderate differences in the caloric intake of meat products provided nontrivial reductions in GHGEs and improved health outcomes, as shown through the mortality analyses. However, this does not mean that diets lower in GHGEs are healthy.