By 2030, at the latest, more people worldwide will live in cities than in the countryside. The importance of metropolises will therefore increase significantly in economic, political and ecological terms. But what will happen to our cities when they become more crowded, louder and warmer? What impact will these effects have on us humans? In the latest episode of the podcast "Wissen, wann du willst", Peer Niehof talks to environmental psychologist Dr. Anke Blöbaum about what influences cities have on people and how our environment affects us - positively and negatively. There are also answers to the questions of what solutions will make our cities fit for the future and what each individual can contribute.

Today's guest:

Dr. Anke Blöbaum has been working as a research associate at the Institute of Psychology at Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg since 2021. Since 2019, she has been conducting research in the interdisciplinary project "Build4People" on possible sustainable building and urban development in Phnom Penh. The national capital of Cambodia is one of the fastest growing metropolises worldwide. In the project, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Dr. Anke Blöbaum and her team are working on anchoring sustainability in urban development in the long term and thus improving the quality of life of the population of Phnom Penh.

*the audio file is only available in German

The Podcast to read

 
Intro voice: "Wissen, wann du wilst." The podcast about research at the University of Magdeburg.

Peer Niehof: Since the so called urban turnaround between 2007 and 2009, for the first time more people worldwide live in cities than in rural areas. Scientists even expect that from 2030 onwards, more people worldwide will live in cities than in rural areas. We are also seeing this trend in Germany. Here, 75% of the population already lives in cities. So much life in such a confined space naturally brings problems with it. Social, economic and, above all, ecological ones. How we can make cities fit for the future, what psychology has to do with our environment and why Magdeburg researchers are traveling to Cambodia, we discuss today in a new episode.

Know when you want. My name is Peer Niehof and I work at Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg in the field of media, communication and marketing. In our Podcast today I would like to welcome Dr. Anke Blöbaum. She is an environmental psychologist and works at the Faculty of Science in the Institute of Psychology here at the University of Magdeburg. Hello, nice to have you here, Dr. Blöbaum.

Anke Blöbaum: Hello.

Peer Niehof: Immediately the first question is, if you could choose: would you live in the city or live in the countryside?

Anke Blöbaum: Definitely live in the city.

Peer Niehof: And why?

Anke Blöbaum: I can also understand a bit of romantic notions that living in rural areas can be great. I would also say that I am close to nature. I like to be out in the countryside, and rural areas are naturally more beautiful for that. But that also means, depending on what we're doing, a lot of traveling to the next metropolis, to the city. That's time wasted. It's also not very ecological. And in the city, there are lots of opportunities to try out different ways of living together, to try out and experience cultural things. So it's definitely a city.

Peer Niehof: I can tell you from my own experience as someone (laughs) who grew up in the country, who knows that the bus only comes every two hours, who is very spoiled by it in the city and appreciates the advantages. Listeners will certainly ask themselves now, "Environment, psychology, what is that?" Maybe they don't know what to make of the term? What does our environment have to do with psychology? Can you explain that?

Anke Blöbaum: First of all, our whole life has to do with psychology and so does our environment. And environmental psychology is a special form of psychology, i.e. an applied form of psychology. And psychology in general deals with the experience, with the actions of people. And in psychology we look at that and try to understand how the environment affects people, and how they feel, how we perceive the environment, what the environment does to us. But we also deal with what we do with the environment, with nature.

That means we are concerned with environmentally friendly climate-protecting behavior and how we can understand that and how we can also encourage it.

Peer Niehof: You have been working in Magdeburg as an environmental psychologist at the Faculty of Natural Sciences for several years now. How did you get there? Why did you decide to choose this field?

Anke Blöbaum: I studied psychology in Bochum. I think, like most people, I started with the idea "I'm going to be a psychotherapist someday," because that's actually still the common image associated with psychology. That was also the case with me at the time. Then I was lucky enough to come to a place in Bochum where there was actually also environmental psychology as an applied subject in the main course. And I was totally enthusiastic about my professor who taught this subject and I understood: If I want to deal with how people are doing well, how they feel good, maybe one way is to deal with the individual persons and to say: How can I support them individually?

But I can also look at how we can shape the environment in such a way that people generally feel better, that their well-being is increased, so that they simply live in a more pleasant, healthier environment. And that fascinated me much more than dealing with people on an individual level.

Peer Niehof:That actually sounds like environmental psychology. As if these were questions that actually concern many people, actually all people, but also questions that have been asked or should have been asked for a long time. But nevertheless it is considered a relatively new field of research. Why is that?

Anke Blöbaum:Yes, I think the task and the question have been there for a long time. For us as a society and environmental psychology, well, it's not new now. But compared to psychology in general, it's already a rather newer subject and the more so traditional approach to the environment. Psychology was the part that dealt with "How does the environment affect people?" and in the 1980s, with the beginning of the so-called environmental crisis, these questions "How can we actually act, promote and support the environment?

How can we promote environmental awareness? These then came more to the fore. This period of the 80s was actually the beginning of this environmental psychology or environmental protection psychology, which dealt with environmental behavior. And the questions today are just as urgent and even more urgent than they were back then. Yes, I believe that this is not something that concerns only individual people in individual places, but all of us and all societies.

Peer Niehof: You just said that environmental psychology can be roughly divided into two subject areas. Can you outline them again and explain them in detail?

Anke Blöbaum: Yes, that is the older part of environmental psychology, the effect of the environment on people. There is also a whole series of fields that environmental psychologists deal with. One area is perhaps something that many people are familiar with. The whole field of noise impact research, i.e. how stressors, environmental stressors affect people, how we react to noise, how noise stresses us and why it is sometimes the case that the same sound level stresses one person more and the other less and what factors this depends on and what exactly constitutes this annoyance and this stress.

 How stress can be explained in the first place. There are a few other environmental stressors and another area would be, for example, how nature or green spaces affect people. I think that's intuitively clear to most people, that being in nature is good for us and in the environment. Psychology tries to understand a little more precisely and to look at what exactly it is that actually does us good in nature. And there is a whole series of models and studies where you can look and also empirically prove. Psychology sees itself as an empirical science.

So we always like to work with data and try to empirically confirm things that may seem plausible and are theoretically derived. Then there are studies where you can see that attention performance increases again, for example, if we were in nature compared to an urban environment, look at how urban structures or stressors affect people. We look at how people live. Psychology also has to do with living, with communication. How can we design spaces in such a way that communication becomes more likely? These are all areas that belong to the part of environmental psychology that deals with the effect of the environment on people, and the other part is "What do we actually do with the environment and nature?

That is, how do we behave, how do we change nature and the environment? And this is just this area, this environmental psychology. On the one hand, it's about looking at what influence something like environmental knowledge has. Does it inevitably lead to behavior? Or why does it not inevitably lead to behavior? What is the significance of such things as problem knowledge? What is the significance of norms or values? Are they relevant in different societies and how does that influence my intention to behave? And in the next step, perhaps also to look at what specific behavioral barriers exist?

What makes situations particularly difficult for me to behave in an environmentally friendly way? That's what we're trying to explore and explain, so that we can then derive specific measures to help people behave in an environmentally friendly way.

Peer Niehof: So the two topics can actually be divided into "Influence of the environment on humans" and "Influence of humans on the environment". And also in my preliminary research, I came across this again and again, especially the influence on the environment of people. I even know that from geography lessons, I know that from the Abitur, so to speak. But there it was said quite often. "Okay, how does traffic affect people, what influence does it have, and how are cities built or optimized in such a way that it actually has little influence on people?" That means that this is also a very interdisciplinary field?

Anke Blöbaum: Yes, absolutely. I would say that environmental psychology is generally somewhat interdisciplinary in its questions. It also aims to solve socially relevant tasks and problems. And to be honest, I think it's almost always the case that when it comes to socially relevant issues, they usually can't be solved in a mono-disciplinary way, but rather different disciplines have to work together. And I believe that this is also an important challenge for environmental psychology. It is also urgently necessary to have a certain openness to other disciplines and to see how we can cooperate fruitfully with other disciplines.

Because as a psychologist, I know a lot about how people perceive their environment, how they perceive traffic, for example, or traffic settings and structures, why they behave and when. And I can also perhaps make recommendations for what certain planning might look like or be helpful. But I'm not a planner, I can't do planning, I can't design. And on the one hand, I have to be a bit open to looking. I have to understand how these other subjects work. But you also have to see where you need different knowledge or expertise. And how can we cross-fertilize each other in order to solve problems appropriately?

Peer Niehof: Now, climate change is not exactly a new topic, but especially in the last few years and decades I have the impression that it has once again gained much greater relevance in the public. But has this also given a boost to environmental psychology as a subject area or as a field?

Anke Blöbaum: Yes, in the public perception, yes. We have been working on this topic for a number of years or even decades, and the reason for this is not really a good one, but the fact that it has become more visible in society as a whole and that the topic has become more present. However, it is still the case that - which is actually quite exciting - because I think there are an incredible number of tasks for environmental psychologists and there are also many, many people in psychology who deal with environmental issues. But actually, here at the University of Magdeburg, we have the only Master's in Environmental Psychology in Germany, where you can actually study a Master's in Environmental Psychology.

Peer Niehof: So do you also notice this in the students or in the pupils who want to join us? Or do you not feel it so much in everyday life that there is a push in this area?

Anke Blöbaum: What I think we are all observing through this whole Fridays for Future movement is that many young people are very interested in politics and environmental policy, go out on the streets, try to create publicity, try to do something, and are very interested in issues that also touch on environmental psychology. So we are already aware of that. We also have a good demand for our course of studies. And what we see is that students actually come to us. We are a relatively small master's program, but the people who come to us actually come from all over Germany and come here to Magdeburg to study this subject. I feel that this is a total privilege, because we are only dealing with students who are totally motivated and come here because this is exactly what they want to do.

Peer Niehof: In a certain way, we are all environmentally conscious. One conscientiously separates his garbage, the other drives long distances by bicycle instead of by car. But nevertheless, each of us also knows that we could always do more. Why is that?

Anke Blöbaum: Right. This challenging question, what we in environmental psychology always call the attitude-behavior gap, is something that psychology has been dealing with for a long time. And it's also the question that's often thrown at us: "Why is that?" After all, everyone is already so environmentally aware and yet they still don't behave accordingly. I think it's important to think again about what we actually mean by environmental behavior, because this supposed gap is something we observe from the outside, that someone says, "Yes, I'm environmentally aware, these issues are important to me," and then he or she doesn't behave that way. And I think it's important to look again at what behavior we actually mean and what this problem awareness refers to.

Because behavior is always specific. It's not general, but someone may ride a bicycle a lot and not drive a car, separate his garbage, but has not yet managed to reduce his meat consumption. That is, in some areas he behaves in an environmentally friendly way and in other areas he does not. This may initially be a contradiction, but it may also be related to the fact that the behavioral barriers or the behavioral costs in the different areas are quite different. So if it's a behavior that's relatively simple, that is, where I don't have so many obstacles to overcome, I have a relatively good chance that my attitude will also have a behavioral effect.

That is, if I am environmentally conscious and have a high awareness of the problem, then I have a chance that I will behave accordingly. But if you look at the situation you said at the beginning, you grew up in a rural area, you may be very environmentally aware, but you drive every day because the bus only leaves every two hours. That is the behavior. As difficult as the infrastructural conditions are, environmental awareness doesn't have a chance to take hold. That is also something we often observe, that people in some everyday contexts try to make their behavior environmentally friendly, but sometimes fail due to certain framework conditions.

And if you then notice - and this is also quite psychologically exciting - if you notice that people fail again and again because of the same framework conditions, then it is an important sign to look. This is when things become interdisciplinary again. This can't just be solved at the level of "strengthen knowledge or problem awareness," but rather other framework conditions must be created. And perhaps mobility and infrastructure have to be changed so that people behave in an environmentally friendly way.

Peer Niehof: There are always these very catchy expressions that people like to hear or read in the sense of "Okay, you're a vegetarian, vegan, people just pay attention to that, but you're using a smartphone." Yes, that's the same bold statement. Is it possible to refute that somehow (laughs) - that is, how could you refute it from the perspective of environmental psychology?

Anke Blöbaum: Yes, that's also a bit of a killer argument. That's also the killer argument that I think many young people who are also on the road at Fridays for Future hear. They are told: "Yes, you go out on the streets and somehow protest for climate protection, but you don't do everything right yourself in everyday life. And now you have no idea, you were at McDonald's." You have to be careful what is actually achieved with this argumentation, because the right behavior does not become wrong because a person does not behave perfectly in all areas at the same time.

That is, if I have already managed to do without meat consumption and to do many things in a totally environmentally friendly way, this does not become wrong because I have not yet managed to do so in another area, but then the question is precisely to look at what the specific behavioral barriers are there? Why can't the person do it in this area? Maybe it is not because of their conviction, but because of very specific behavioral barriers. Or perhaps she lacked the knowledge about the relevance in this particular case. Maybe she underestimated it and then it would be more of a hint to say yes, then we have to specifically provide the person with more so-called impact knowledge, i.e. explain more.

What influence does specific behavior actually have on the environment? Do we know from studies that we usually don't know exactly how strong the influence of certain behaviors is on climate protection or the environment?

Peer Niehof: But isn't it actually also wiser to advise people to do exactly that from a professional point of view, namely not to say, "Okay, now you make sure that you eat a vegan or vegetarian diet and give up your smartphone," but to say that you do it step by step and start on a small scale first. That would actually be the killer for the killer argument itself.

Anke Blöbaum: Exactly. So it would also be a good strategy to look at "What can I create? What are the areas where I can imagine that this could work well, and I'll try it out now." And if I do that regularly, then it becomes habitual, a long-lasting behavioral habit. That would be ideal. In other words, to establish environmentally friendly behavioral habits with the hope that this will eventually spread to other behaviors and gradually expand and, so to speak, in a resource-oriented manner in the direction of "what other possibilities do I have to create more, to try things out" and not to somehow say "well, but if you can't do that, then it's all useless.”

 So if you've now driven into town in the car, then you don't really need to do anything else, because that doesn't help anyway, because that's the very worst thing. Then the question is, of course, how motivating is that for the person, so that he or she will want to behave in an even more environmentally friendly way in the future?

Peer Niehof:A second strong argument that people always like to use, and which I also noticed in the context of last year's federal election, especially when people were talking about mobility, perhaps also about changing mobility, i.e. making it greener or more sustainable, is that many people in the countryside said. Mobility is different in the countryside or in the village. This is a luxury problem or a deluxe debate that people are having in cities. Is it really the case that you can say, well, I can't do without my car in the village.

Maybe I can in the city, because I have several alternatives there. But in the last year, I've noticed more and more that people are saying, "okay, that's a problem that city dwellers have," and that's a very bold statement.

Anke Blöbaum: I would agree with that in part. This is a problem that primarily affects the metropolises and the large, densely populated areas, where there is also a lot of traffic, and I wouldn't define it as a luxury problem, but I would say that the need for city dwellers to somehow manage to be more sustainably mobile is much more important. From the perspective of impact, it is first and foremost important that we get a good grip on this, and not just for reasons of CO2 emissions, but also thought through a bit further in the sense of "livable inner cities," "livable cities," and less densification of spaces.

What does it actually do to us to have so much car traffic in cities? In this respect, I would say that this is an important issue, and we urgently need to get to grips with it. Nevertheless, it is also important to look at how we can better connect urban areas and perhaps consider what innovative or other forms of mobile services there should actually be that are more demand-oriented. This is perhaps also a question for the logisticians: how can we manage to ensure that there is not only a bus every two hours as standard, but also how can we better connect people to the nearest cities and metropolitan areas?

Peer Niehof: But let's move on to the topic of cities. As I said at the beginning of the podcast, by 2030, more people in the world will live in cities than in the countryside. And sustainable urban development will therefore play a much more important role. But what do we actually mean by sustainable urban development?

Anke Blöbaum: So it's the concept of sustainability. It's a very big, huge term. You can actually include all kinds of things under it. And sustainable urban development concerns social as well as ecological and economic dimensions. On the one hand, it affects the entire mobility sector. We've already talked a bit about that. So how can I design a city in such a way that a more sustainable form of mobility is conceivable? That perhaps less land is sealed. This is also directly related to ensuring that mobility is possible for everyone and that certain population groups are not excluded.

This is also related to sustainability, that we have better air due to less motorized individual traffic. But sustainable urban development also has to do with making as much green space as possible accessible to everyone and also thinking about other forms of living and building, i.e., using sustainable materials in construction as far as possible, reusing building materials that perhaps, when something is torn down somewhere, are not all scrapped somehow, so to speak, but meanwhile people are also looking at how certain building materials can be reused again, using less cement. Cement is one of the biggest problems we have in cities. How can we perhaps establish other forms of living together? How can we build in a more climate-adapted way? These are all questions that have to do with sustainable urban development.

Peer Niehof: Some listeners will perhaps have Asian cities in mind when they hear this explanation, and they will think about it when they hear the words. Others will perhaps think about European metropolises like Paris, where the volume of traffic is also enormous, but which are also working, for example, on making the Champs-Élysées traffic-friendly or traffic-free. Is there a difference in these challenges between industrialized countries, for example like in Europe, and metropolises that are located in developing and emerging countries

Anke Blöbaum: There is then a whole series of differences. One difference is, of course, the cultural difference. People who live in different regions of the world have different cultural backgrounds and different ideas. And in the meantime, of course, things are becoming more and more globalized, so some people have different ideas about how they want to live or what they expect in terms of quality of life. In part, however, it is sometimes also for very, very banal reasons that the climatic conditions are completely different and the question is not so much how do I get my apartment well heated in the winter, but perhaps rather how do I survive the heat and humidity in the summer months? 

Because heating may not be necessary at all. And apart from that, there is also the question of how far development or industrialization has already progressed. So we are dealing with a city, with a metropolis, that is actually already completely densified, that is actually already completely built up and can hardly expand and grow any further in width, because perhaps there is no longer enough space. Or are we dealing with metropolises in Asia that are growing and expanding at an incredible rate. But where not everything has been densified and built yet, and where there is perhaps another window of opportunity to develop a few more ideas on how to develop such a city, such a metropolis, in a more sustainable way.

Well, in other places, a lot of development has already gone wrong. There, it's more a question of how you can somehow bring them back and capture and transform them. Yes, but in other metropolises we still have the situation that we can still shape and influence a lot.

Peer Niehof:That actually sounds like a lot of problems and a lot of construction sites. And now some listeners may ask: "Yes, but where do you start? And above all, who is going to pay for it?" I'm sure people like to ask this question, but it actually makes a lot of sense, because how are you supposed to solve these numerous problems and make it affordable

Anke Blöbaum: Yes, not so far, a metropolis that is somewhere on the other side of the world, but think perhaps rather of metropolises or cities that are more in our immediate vicinity. There is rather the question sometimes, "Who also pays the consequences of a lot of planning?" Well, we pay them as a whole as the population, as taxpayers anyway. In other words, I would say that it would actually be good to plan from the outset so that we don't have to plan again and redo everything afterwards. If we transform cities and contribute to their sustainable development, I believe we will all benefit.

So we all benefit from that. And I don't believe that this necessarily has to be more expensive. Sometimes this also requires a stronger participation process, the involvement of the population in the process. At first glance, this may seem more time-consuming and protracted, and it may also cost money. But I believe that the results that are then achieved have a better fit and are more sustainable when they are actually implemented, so that it does not necessarily become more expensive in the long run.

Peer Niehof: … Optimally, the problems would also be addressed at the same time. And, of course, optimally, many of the listeners will now perhaps think "okay, well, funding is not the main problem now. As far as I personally am concerned. But what can each individual person contribute?" Are there any tips that you have where people can say, "okay, that's where you can start." Not as a company, not as politicians, but as every single person, as an individual.

Anke Blöbaum: So I, as an individual probably have more of an idea that I think, well, sustainable urban development. I can't do the planning for a street or something like that. But I am still, on the one hand, if I live in a city, I am also an expert for life in this city. That means I know a lot about what works or doesn't work in my immediate environment. And it's always good to look: Are there perhaps others in this city who are also interested in these topics? What we would call civic engagement exists in many cities. In Magdeburg, for example, there are many initiatives that already deal with the issue of sustainability, for example, are interested in making a city more sustainable and perhaps join them and see: Is there a group that deals with similar issues, where I can get involved, where I can help develop ideas, where I can also change and develop things in a very concrete way and perhaps also ensure that I am heard politically. Because of course, certain structures are only changed on a political level by political representatives. But sometimes it is also important that the political representatives hear that there are people who have ideas and who want something. I think it's really important to make it clear that we're interested in these issues, that they're important to us, in order to make ourselves heard.

Peer Niehof: So actually this is a call to action for all who listen to the podcast. You don't necessarily have to go into politics, you don't necessarily have to become an expert in urban planning, you can actually start with yourself in a small way around the corner. Whether it's organizing a bicycle demo, which also exists, to say: Okay, we want to strengthen the bicycle traffic. Or it could be other commitments in the district or in the city. And these are precisely the examples we have already mentioned in Magdeburg. Here, too, there are organizations that take care of bicycle traffic. There are also initiatives here, such as "Otto pflanzt" (Otto plants), that explicitly say "okay, we want to make Magdeburg greener and plant more trees."

Anke Blöbaum: So you don't have to look far. And in Magdeburg, for example, there is the Climate Alliance. There are now more than 50 initiatives that have joined forces. They are very multifaceted. I think there are a lot of opportunities for a lot of people to get involved.

Peer Niehof:Since 2019, you have been working in a collaborative project with several scientists from all over Germany and on the project to improve the quality of life in Phnom Penh in Cambodia. Perhaps for all listeners who don't know the city, it's the capital of Cambodia. I checked again, 2.3 million inhabitants lived there in 2019 in the south of Cambodia on the Mekong River, one of the fastest growing metropolises in the whole world. What are you researching there with your colleagues?

Anke Blöbaum: Yes, you just said it, one of the fastest growing metropolises. That's exactly the kind of place I was just talking about, where a lot is changing incredibly fast and where there's a window of opportunity where we believe there's still a chance to give impetus and see: "How can we set the tone now?" Supporting people on the ground to move this development in a more sustainable direction. And that is what drives us in our research project. We are interdisciplinary.

I think it is a bit exotic that we as psychologists are represented in a project. Otherwise, geography is represented. There are colleagues from architecture, urban development, urban planning, climatologists. That is, so to speak, the mixture of disciplines that are involved. And we try to work together in an interdisciplinary or, as we always say nowadays, transdisciplinary way, i.e. to support each other, to develop a program. In Phnom Penh, we are trying to promote more quality of life in the city, but at the same time to develop a sustainable form of quality of life.

I am not an architect, but my colleagues who are architects in the project have already shown us many things, including the architects on site. There is actually in Cambodia and also in Phnom Penh a traditional, very climate-adapted construction method, where they see that buildings are designed so that just not so much air conditioning would be necessary and because there is an automated ventilation. So that is compatible with the local climate, where buildings are built on stilts because of the humidity, where there are shaded areas underneath, where a certain circulation in the urban space is possible.

But if this building boom continues, there will be an insane amount of cement used, and you will have these classic reinforced concrete buildings that you see all over the world, but which are actually quite unfavorable from a climatic point of view. But we are on the way to a global world. That means that people, investors, take their cue from everything that is being built elsewhere, and the people who then move in there also look at "How do others live around the world?" And that's how I want to live now. And the challenge now is to see how we can somehow manage to anchor something like a social norm of sustainability, so that it is also something positive and perhaps also make it palatable, so that it could be an image that is also worthwhile for investors.

So to see, because of course they are economically oriented, but how can you get them to try a little bit in this direction, to change the market and to change the construction methods, to set a different trend?

Peer Niehof:You had already told me in the preliminary interview that you were already there despite the pandemic. What was your first impression of Phnom Penh when you landed at the airport and then drove into the city?

Anke Blöbaum: Yes, that was before the pandemic. In fact, we haven't been there for two years now, due to the pandemic. And when I was there for the first time, I'm not a geographer. Most of our colleagues had already been on the road more often in Asia and had projects there. But for me it was completely new. One thing was a completely different soundscape and totally different smells and, of course, the climate. So when you get off the plane and everything is air-conditioned, you suddenly realize. Yes, these are completely different living conditions. It's so muggy and warm that it's physically exhausting at first, and then it's further and further into the city. An unbelievable hustle and bustle. So now we've just been talking about traffic again, an incredible number of motorized two-wheelers, and increasingly more cars. That has also changed completely in recent years. But actually above all-noisy two-wheelers. Actually no traffic lights and no traffic rules of any kind. That was my impression. So nothing like right before left or any signs, but all drive apparently, move completely chaotically in streams over these streets. You first have to try to get used to it a little bit in order to get along there.

Peer Niehof:That means they actually experienced all the challenges directly themselves. (laughs) But when you were on site, what did you start with? What was the first thing you could say, "Okay, let's start with that." Now in the project on site?

Anke Blöbaum: Two things, actually: making one thing a bit more tangible and understanding how local life actually works. So how does mobility work there? How do people actually live there? How do people live? And also to get a feel for it. What is it like? How we now talk about sustainable lifestyles. Is sustainability actually a topic? Is that happening there somewhere? Is that important to people? Is that somehow visible as a topic in the public sphere? That was the one thing that interested me very much. Then we were shown a lot of typical forms of housing, architecture, different parts of the city, and also something that slowly developed. That was one part, and the other was first of all to network intensively on site and to see what was happening. The first challenge was to find local partners at the institutes or universities. In our project, every single department, including psychology, has a local partner in Phnom Penh, and our partner is the Institute of Psychology at the Royal University in Phnom Penh. And we now have two great colleagues with whom we are working together.

First of all, you have to find your way around and see how you can work together. It works differently than it does here. And for us, it is a special challenge that there is no environmental psychology in Cambodia. Actually, because of the very special historical problematic situation in Cambodia, psychology is actually a way of coping with trauma. This has shaped psychology over the past decades, and there is now a strong interest in changing psychology and being able to connect to newer social challenges.

But since there is no environmental psychology on site at the moment, we are also very busy developing a curriculum together with our colleagues and looking at how we can implement teaching on site as a first step and then also research step by step. In the long term, of course, the goal is not for us to always travel there now and then try to support something further, but ideally - of course, you can best design and research the processes for your own living environment. That's what it should be about in the long term.

Peer Niehof: Apart from these recommendations, is there actually a quasi-optimal case from the point of view of environmental psychology or from your expertise as to how the numerous construction sites can be solved on site? Or is that now first of all the project with which you start to say "Okay, we first try to educate and sensitize the people on site?"

Anke Blöbaum: I see this as a key opportunity. Of course, at the moment, we are also conducting workshops and participation processes in parallel and are looking to advance planning in workshops with people on site - with various stakeholders on site. So we are conducting a relatively large-scale survey to see what the mindset of the local people is, i.e. how sensitive are they to certain environmental issues, which environmental behaviors are relevant to them? What are the central problems that the population sees and how well can I actually anchor something like a social norm of environmental protection there?

That looks completely different from what might be the case here. So we are also on the road with such planning references. That is one thing. But you can divide these many construction sites - so we go there with an external perspective - and then I can divide it into these different sectors of housing, neighborhood, maybe garbage, noise, traffic, green spaces in the city center. These are different sectors and then I can deal with them thematically. For our colleagues who come more from the field of climatology and urban green space, they naturally have their standard measurement procedures and try to record this somehow in terms of data and can make designs for it and carry out analyses.

For us in psychology, it's honestly a bit more difficult, because we have to look at, "How can we understand how people think on the ground?" What is important to them, how they act and the interaction of people and environment? Here in Europe, it's completely different, and I always look at it from an outside perspective. But that won't help me in the long run. I have to discuss this together with the people on site. I actually have to see how I can support the people on the ground so that, ideally, they begin to develop the ideal solutions for them through participation processes with the population, because I can't develop them because, as a European, I know far too little about everyday life for that.

That is always difficult when I want to do things appropriately, i.e. when I want to have a sensible fit between environmental planning and people and human needs and behavior, then I must - this is my firm conviction - always involve the people on site as experts for their everyday lives. And that is exactly the case, but for me as a researcher from Germany that will of course be much more complicated than for my colleagues from the university there. They are simply closer to their own culture than I might be.

Peer Niehof: But do you have the impression - especially when you talk to your partners on the ground in Phnom Penh or when you get more and more a feeling for the population - that you are open? Both the partners on the ground and the population open to this change? And you don't say, "Ah, here comes some European or German joint project and says we have to do it this way and that way." Do you sense that they are open to change?

Anke Blöbaum: So in general, I would say first of all that my perception is that the people or people of Phomn Penh are basically very open in their nature. So I find that it is comparatively easy to get into communication. And they are very open and very interested and very communicative. At least that's something that makes it very easy. The structures don't necessarily make it easy, because they work very, very differently than here. It's very hierarchical and not everyone can do what they want in their company or university.

The systems and the clocks tick a little differently. You first have to understand that a little bit and also comprehend how embedded decision-making processes are on site. And of course the people in Phomn Penh also know that every now and then some people from development funding come and we somehow bring money there and do something interesting. And the challenge was to first make it clear that we are actually interested in this topic and also have a serious interest in cooperation at eye level. Because I work with colleagues who are also involved in research at the university.

It's not like I'm explaining to them how the world works, but I'm going to develop something together with them. I have the impression that at some point it became clear that the way we work together has changed. At the moment, that is, in the meantime. It took a long time and there was a lot of work, and a lot of networking involved. Also from our coordinator, who comes from the University of Hamburg. This includes following up again and again and to talk and to negotiate. And now, I think we are on a pretty good footing, where we also get support from the city administration and where there is an interest in working together.

Peer Niehof: How long has the project been running on site and is there an initial interim conclusion?

Anke Blöbaum: So we first had only a preparation phase, then a definition phase. Now we are in the so-called "research and development phase," which will last until 25 and then - theoretically it would still be possible - to extend the implementation phase by another year and a half. So all in all, it's a relatively long prospect.

Peer Niehof:Both the project in Cambodia and now, in general, the subject areas of environmental psychology-that sounds like multifaceted work, interdisciplinary work. But it also sounds like many challenges that you can tackle. That actually sounds to me like the job as an environmental psychologist is quite future-proof?

Anke Blöbaum: So future-proof, in the sense that there are enough tasks to work on, I would share that. I think there's an incredible amount to do for people with our technical background. However, it's not - I think it does require a bit of creativity and also a bit of self-commitment from the people who go into the field. Because, of course, it's not like I open the newspaper and then there are job postings everywhere where environmental psychologists are wanted, but there I have to kind of maybe develop a little bit of vision and be creative and also a little bit brash and say "This is a field now, I know my way around there, too." Maybe you don't know yet that there is environmental psychology, but I think I have the competencies and I can contribute something.

Peer Niehof: And maybe now we have some listeners who say, "Okay, sounds interesting!" Do you have any tips for those who want to get in? Maybe things to bring with you in any case?

Anke Blöbaum: So, what I think is the most important thing is that you have to want to work in a systematic empirical way. Maybe that didn't become so clear in our conversation, but of course that happens to people during their studies. When you study with us, you do a lot with methods and statistics, because we are an empirical science. That means we generate data and somehow try to make things empirically comprehensible and to confirm them empirically. You have to have a desire to systematically research and understand things, and to keep at it and look closely. At the same time, you also have to have a curiosity to work together with other subjects and not just to see what I know, what I can do, but also to see what questions there are that might arise in other fields.

And I believe that it is perhaps also a very important prerequisite to maintain a respect for the other disciplines, but also a curiosity to understand what is happening in the other disciplines and how it is possible to develop solutions together.

Peer Niehof: I think respect and curiosity about something different is actually a nice combination, I have to say in all sincerity. Ms. Blöbaum, as a parting question, or rather to conclude: if you were allowed to wish, what would cities in Germany look like in 15 years' time?

Anke Blöbaum: Quite a lot of green, accessible to all. We've reduced and cleared a whole lot of streets and parking areas. And there are very, very few cars moving around the city, lots of bicycles, lots of people walking, and lots of life happening in public spaces.

Peer Niehof: That sounds good, that wouldn't be far from what I want. (laughs) Thank you very much for the interview. We can look forward to seeing whether this wish comes true. Thank you very much for the informative interview, Ms. Blöbaum. If this has whetted your appetite to learn more about research at the University of Magdeburg, I'll put the latest episodes of our podcast at your fingertips. Because if you haven't heard them yet. In it, for example, we talked to a chemist at the university about new approaches to cancer that he and his team are researching. We're also always happy to receive feedback, whether it's on this episode or other editions, by email or on our social media channels.

We'll be back in two months with a new episode for you. Thank you. Until then, ciao, bye and stay healthy. Thank you Mrs. Blöbaum!

Anke Blöbaum: Bye, thank you too.

Intro voice: "Wissen, wann du wilst." The podcast about research at the University of Magdeburg.