A Peer Reviewed Journal for Ecopsychology

Abstract

Thomas Joseph Doherty

In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities. In the expert’s mind there are few.

—Shunryu Suzuki

Find your place on the planet. Dig in, and take responsibility from there.

—Gary Snyder

On behalf of our editorial board and reviewers, welcome to the inaugural issue of Ecopsychology. This first editorial provides an opportunity to introduce myself and share some experiences getting this project off the ground. I will offer some ways to understand ecopsychology in context of other forms of environmentally focused psychology, describe the mission of the new journal, and preview our first issue. Finally, I will give thanks for all that makes this 21st century electronic dialog possible and offer an invitation for readers to contribute to the development of this new journal.

Who I Am

I am mindful of the path that has led me to the role of editor of this new journal. Diverse experiences have provided their lessons and become part of my personal narrative and environmental identity. These include time spent on the frontier of the American West: Extracting living resources as a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska, and later facilitating experiences for those seeking restoration and healing as a river rafting guide in Grand Canyon and wilderness therapist. Spending time in the Grand Canyon—a riverine wilderness bookended by great hydroelectric dams and subject to daily flows based on the electricity use of citizens in nearby desert cities—provided my central ecological consciousness raising. This in turn led to immersion in the social world of the environmental movement as an idealistic Greenpeace fundraiser. When I was settling on a career, it is no exaggeration that—along with wilderness therapy mentors—coming upon Roszak’s The voice of the earth (1992) and its eloquent exposition of ecopsychology sealed in my mind an interest to become a psychologist.

My professional training brought further lessons. Research in health psychology and therapeutic work with individuals recovering from cardiac illness taught compassion for those struggling with lifestyle changes even when one’s life literally depends on it. I witnessed the innovative application of mindfulness meditation in health care and saw those holistic practices gain acceptance as their benefits were documented by research. My work as a psychotherapist in private practice teaches the complexity of fostering health in the modern world and caretaking the body and mind of the therapist. I am empowered by my local community that is, more than most, committed to sustainability and open to my contributions (Doherty, 2008). Most recently, there has been the opportunity to form collegial relationships with peers in science and academia and enjoy a role on the American Psychological Association’s Climate Change Task Force.

Understanding Ecopsychology

In an effort to enlist broad support for this project, I made personal contacts with a number of people in the broad ecopsychology/environmental psychology community. I was pleased to find support for the idea of the journal and recognition of its timeliness. I also found a healthy diversity in conceptions of ecopsychology and beliefs about the psychology of human–nature relationships. Certain concepts or signifiers (e.g., “psyche,” “mental health,” or “empirical”) quickly illuminated theoretical, epistemological, and methodological fault lines.

In its simplest conception, an “eco-psychology” places psychology—broadly defined—in its ecological and biospheric context.1 Defining ecopsychology is complicated by multiple senses and usages of its constituent terms. The prefix “eco-” foregrounds ecology, and thus humankind’s relationship with the natural environment with its philosophical and ethical implications. Psychology, at its origin a “psyche-logos”—a study of the soul—is also an empirical science of mind, emotions, and behavior. As I note below, both perspectives, the holistic and the empirical, are plausible within ecopsychology and will be explored in this journal.

In plain language, the mission of ecopsychology, as proposed by Roszak (1992) is to validate that an emotional connection to nature is normal and healthy and, in doing so, to help the environmental movement to be more effective by appealing to these positive ecological bonds rather than promoting conservation based on messages of fear or shame.

A comprehensive survey of the diverse individuals, ideas, and approaches that have contributed to ecopsychology is beyond the scope of this editorial. Further, my perspective is biased toward that of a white, male, doctoral psychology practitioner in the United States. I encourage you to see the other articles in this issue for a diverse, international perspective.

The value of the first generation of ecopsychology, as exemplified by contributions to the edited volume Ecopsychology (Roszak, Gomes, & Kanner, 1995), was that it provided an important counter-weight to the human-centric, reductionist, and primarily intellectual modes of academic psychology and mainstream clinical practice. Thus, first generation ecopsychology can be characterized as:

• Countercultural (Roszak, 1968/1995), offering an alternative to mainstream western urban industrial and consumer culture

• Holistic in seeing the needs of the planet and the person as a continuum and finding support in earth systems science (e.g., Lovelock, 1991)

• Ecocentric in terms of having earth-based values and presenting a philosophy of life in the tradition of deep ecology (Naess, 2008; Sessions, 1995)

• Experiential and nature-based, stressing the importance of personal connection and sensuous participation in nature (Abram, 1996; Cohen, 1995)

• Romantic in its worldview (Gergen, 1991/2000), valuing psychological depth, passion, intuition, the soul, and the stereotypically feminine (i.e., versus rational, scientific, competitive, and stereotypic male attributes of the enlightenment and modernism).

Ecopsychology has been unique among other forms of environmental psychology in having an explicitly therapeutic focus. Keeping with its countercultural and romantic mindset, ecopsychology provided a critique of mainstream psychology and psychiatry in the mode of Hillman and Ventura (1992) and highlighted perspectives and practices underrepresented in mainstream, academic settings in the US, including gestalt (Swanson, 1995), Jungian/archetypal (Aizenstat, 1995), feminist (Gomes & Kanner, 1995), and transpersonal psychology (Metzner, 1999); wilderness-based therapy (Greenway, 1995; Plotkin, 2003); and indigenous shamanistic practices (Gray, 1995).

As a search for an ecologically responsible psychotherapy (Conn, 1995), ecopsychology recognized the value of expressing emotions associated with environmental degradation (Macy & Brown, 1998), the important relationship between social and environmental justice (Anthony & Soule, 1998), and the necessity of cultural engagement to address issues such as consumerism (Kanner & Gomes, 1995).

Early responses to ecopsychology ranged from principled skepticism (Reser, 1995) to respectful critique (White, 1998) and dismissal (Parsons, 1999). Overtime, ecopsychology has benefited from clarification and theoretical and practical development, notably by Bragg (1996); Kidner (2001); Fisher (2002); Nicholsen (2002); Scull (1999, 2008); and Chalquist (2007). Winter and Koger (2004) demonstrated how ecopsychological concepts can be empirically validated and categorized ecopsychology within other psychological responses to environmental issues. Ecopsychology has always enjoyed a grassroots existence in “workshop culture” (Lertzman, 2004, p. 1) through the therapeutic work of individuals like Macy and Brown (1998) and Edwards and Buzzell (2008) and has recently found a hearing in mainstream psychology settings (e.g., Johnson & Johnson-Pynn, 2008; Vakoch, 2008).

Ecopsychology in Relation to Other Forms of Environmental Psychology

Ecopsychology evolved in tandem with other important environmentally-focused projects in academic psychology and other fields. This includes conservation psychology (Clayton & Brook, 2005; Saunders, 2003), which studies the social psychological bases of environmental identities and promotion of conservation and sustainable behaviors, itself an off-shoot of environmental psychology (e.g., Bechtel & Churchman, 2002), a diverse academic field studying topics such as human interactions with natural and built spaces, urban planning, the restorative effects of nature, and the determinants of pro-environmental behavior.

Ecopsychology has enjoyed creative tension with the more empirical variants in environmental psychology and environmental health (e.g., Anthony & Watkins, 2002; Lundberg, 1998) and interplay with other value-based approaches like conservation psychology and environmental ethics and spirituality (Berry, 1998; Fox, 1990).

To the extent that other disciplines and areas of practice contribute to the mission of ecopsychology—validating the synergistic importance of human–nature relationships and contributing to environmental conservation or sustainability—they can be considered allies. Indeed, understanding the restorative effects of natural settings (Kaplan, 1995), factors that promote pro-environmental behaviors (Stern, 2000), the identity formation of environmental activists (Kempton & Holland, 2003), techniques to resolve environmental conflicts (Clayton & Opotow, 2003), and ways to effectively communicate about climate change (Moser & Dilling, 2007) can be seen as essential to effective contemporary ecopsychology practice.

Second-Generation Ecopsychology

A holistic ecopsychological perspective did not readily find a voice in mainstream academic psychology and psychiatry. The outsider status of ecopsychology was also encouraged by its countercultural framing. However, the cultural landscape has changed, and there is eagerness to engage in a discussion of environmental issues and sustainability across academia, mental health disciplines, and public and private institutions. A mission of this new journal is to lay the foundations of a second-generation ecopsychology that honors its countercultural origins without being limited by them, accepts that one can work within the system while also challenging the status quo, and recognizes that tending data sets and tending souls are not mutually exclusive.

This second-generation perspective is influenced by developments in the environmental movement itself, including empowerment resulting from its worldwide reach (Hawken, 2007) and pragmatic attempts to make it a viable and comprehensive social and political force (Nordhaus & Shellenberger, 2007). There is renewed urgency as the psychological impacts of environmental toxins (Koger, Schettler, & Weiss, 2005) and climate change (Fritze, Blashki, Burke, & Wiseman, 2008) make the human–environment relations a recognized concern of psychology and health care.

Taking a cue from Fisher’s (2002) identification of developmental and critical tasks for ecopsychology, the inauguration of this new, peer-reviewed journal gives an opportunity to suggest other tasks: Self-reflection, pluralism, and pragmatism.

Self-reflection

Ecopsychology’s initial framing, as the antithesis of psychiatry and academic psychology, was useful in providing an identity and shared sense of purpose for an international community. But this also perpetuated dualisms—between research and practice, the empirical and the intuitive, cognition and emotion—that constrained ecopsychology’s development and inhibited dialogue with potential collaborators (Reser, 1995). A self-reflective task for ecopsychology includes an acknowledgement of reflexivity—how the nature of one’s observations or actions affect the very situations observed—and a consciousness of the potential for partisan reasoning (Weston, 2007), selectively viewing evidence based on the emotional activation of habitual schemas. Inevitably, reliance on preferred ways of knowing leads to cognitive or interpersonal blind spots and our editorial policy and peer review process insures consideration of alternative views.

Pluralism

Given the multiple ways that ecopsychology is understood, the Ecopsychology journal is guided by a philosophy of pluralism (Kellert, Longino, & Waters, 2008). There are different ways to conceive of and practice ecopsychology. This new journal positions itself in an inclusive manner, recognizing contributions of different schools within psychology and related fields while striving for the highest standards of scholarship.

Pragmatism

A pragmatic perspective implies a focus on achievable ideals and useful, observable outcomes in the present day. Our assumption is that fulfilling the promise of ecopsychology requires dialogue with other voices. Institutional barriers may have been unavoidable in the past, but times have changed. The mandate of Ecopsychology is broad enough to provide a creative commons for the variety of specialties, sub-disciplines, and areas of focus within psychology, therapeutic disciplines, and other fields that address human–nature relationships.

For the Ecopsychology journal, pragmatism includes openness to empiricism. Thompson (this issue) observes that “the history of ecopsychology is not steeped in data-driven research, but this does not have to define its future” (p. 36). Winter and Koger (2004) document research that lends empirical support for the benefits of experiential ecopsychology practices (e.g., Council of All Beings exercises) for promoting ecological conceptions of self, which in turn are correlated with increases in environmentally responsible behavior. Another example of pragmatic outcomes is the impact of Louv’s (2005) work on the role of nature connection in healthy child development. In addition to a newsworthy alarm about “nature deficit disorder,” Louv offered an accessible and compelling overview of environmental and developmental psychology research that has, in the space of 3 years, engendered an international grassroots movement and successful legislation (i.e., Washington State’s Leave No Child Inside initiative).

The Ecopsychology Journal

Ecopsychology is an international, online, peer-reviewed journal that chronicles ecopsychology as a transdisciplinary endeavor and social movement, advances the knowledge and practice of psychology and psychotherapy in an ecological context, and offers psychological solutions to environmental problems. An ecopsychological perspective raises provocative questions about consciousness, identity, health, and ethical living. The role of the journal is to foreground these questions and create a space for dialog.

While the journal will practice “beginner’s mind” and be open to a range of contributions that adopt an ecopsychological stance, we expect our contributors to be “experts” who can “dig in,” as Gary Snyder advises, and demonstrate a mastery of relevant literature, a clearly articulated theory and method, and recognition of the limitations of their conclusions. Attention will be given to papers that recognize diversity and cultural context, entertain alternative points of view, and have wide practical applications.

For Ecopsychology, we are working with Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., a universally respected publisher of peer-reviewed journals that have international impact. Liebert Publishing is a privately held company willing to take creative risks on promising journals and nurture them to success. Mary Ann Liebert pioneered journals on AIDS research and child psychopharmacology well before these areas were considered respectable areas of study. They have recently started journals on Environmental Justice and Sustainability. It is gratifying that there is a Mary Ann Liebert at Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., and that she is personally committed to this new publication.

Our First Issue

The contributors to our first issue offer diverse, international perspectives on ecopsychology theory, practice, and research.

In Waking Up to Nature: Exploring a New Direction for Psychological Practice, psychologist Martin Milton explores ways in which psychotherapists can engage with the evidence that humanity’s relation to the natural world is closely linked to psychological and physical well-being. When issues of extinction, climate change, and environment degradation manifest themselves in the consulting room, Martin considers the question “How does a therapist respond?” His answer begins with openness to a journey. In fitting words for the launch of this new journal, Milton notes that “the assumption that we can know before we have the experience is a characteristic of modern life that continually proves to have limited worth” (p. 9). For Milton, practicing psychotherapy in an ecological way requires listening differently to people’s experiences of their distress, bringing nature into the assessment process and therapy into the outdoors, and engaging with colleagues from a range of disciplines to experiment with new ways of practice together.

In our second article, Elise Amel and colleagues Christie Manning and Britain Scott explore the role of mindful awareness in promoting ecological identity and potentially closing the gap between proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. The authors’ research with adults at a sustainability event found that acting with mindful awareness was significantly positively correlated with self-reported sustainable behaviors. The authors review predictors of proenvironmental behavior, perspectives on automatic cognitive processing, and the measurement of mindfulness. Their findings have relevance for the use of mindfulness training to promote well-being and healthy consumption and for modifying infrastructure and policy to promote sustainable behaviors.

In Nature and Self—An Ambivalent Attachment?, Martin Jordan examines the potential for a securely attached ecological self from the perspective of psychological theories of development, attachment, and affect regulation. Jordan explores the issue of human dependency and how this becomes enacted in relationships to nature through the work of theorists such as Searles, Bowlby, and Shepard. Citing the work of psychoanalytic theorist Melanie Klein, Jordan cautions against a “naïve positioning of nature” but rather a balanced view of nature’s potential to both heal and destroy.

In our initial Research Review offering, Miles Thompson examines the spread of the term “ecopsychology” in academic databases, with a focus on publication of original research. Although Thompson’s findings highlight a wealth of research data ascribed to ecopsychology, particularly concerning books or reviews of books, there is a low yield of ecopsychology citations describing original research evidence within the context of peer-reviewed journals. Much of the research discusses ecopsychology’s relation to other theoretical perspectives or social issues. While recognizing the value of non–data-driven research, Thompson notes that “an area that does not also ask questions about its outcomes and processes, collect data, and publish its results may struggle to move forward, particularly if it seeks to have an applied impact” (p. 36).

In his personal narrative, Cohabiting With the Wild, noted researcher Peter Kahn shares a personal and poetic meditation on the meaning of wildness for modern humans, who evolved in the wild and for whom wildness is retained as part of the architecture of the mind and body. While living simply in his cabin retreat, Kahn reflects on episodes from his life, brushes with danger, “dark thoughts,” insights from his research and travels, and sensual lessons from the landscape. For Kahn, wildness can refer to states that are “vast, free, and self organizing”; “nature unencumbered and unmediated by technological artifice”; and “freedom to move, and the strength to do so, and the land to do it in.”

We conclude this issue with an interview of an ecopsychology pioneer, the inimitable Robert Greenway. Robert works “towards an ecopsychology that will find within language an accurate articulation of the human–nature relationship,” one based on experience and deepened by ritual, and recognizing a variety of modes of knowing (p. 50). Robert shares candid reflections about his experiences in the 1960s counterculture and his training with influential mentors such as Abraham Maslow. He reflects on the formative role of nature experiences in his life, from WWII-era victory gardens to youthful mountaineering exploits, leadership of wilderness experiences for students at Sonoma State University, and his current livelihood as organic farmer.

Articles in preparation for issue two of Ecopsychology include a review of psychological outcomes from the Jane Goodall Global Youth Summit program; a review of research evidence supporting ecotherapy; an exploration of the Aphrodite archetype as a metaphorical and inspirational figure in ecopsychological therapies and education; and reviews of The power of sustainable thinking by Bob Doppelt and Ecological intelligence by Daniel Goleman.

Giving Thanks

All human endeavors are earth-based. Any sense of separation is merely an “optical delusion” of consciousness, to use Einstein’s (1954) famous phrase. Thus, it is fitting to offer gratitude to the earth for providing the natural and human resources necessary to create this online Ecopsychology journal, including ecosystem services to power our infrastructure; and ingenuity, technological achievements, and qualities of faith, reason, courage, and compassion. Special thanks to individuals who have contributed advice and content, to the staff at Mary Ann Liebert Publishing for initiating this project and lending their expertise and material support, and to my family for allowing me to devote time to this venture.

An Invitation

While not being all things to all people, I am confident we can create a rigorous and pluralistic venue for advancing the discourse of ecopsychology and sharing its contributions with a larger audience. I am interested in getting your perspective on the Ecopsychology journal. Whether you identify as a clinician, healer, researcher, teacher, philosopher, or theorist; or work as an activist or in “the system”; please consider joining us as a member of our editorial board, a reviewer, or by contributing your original work. This is a timely endeavor and future generations of all species are watching.

There will be an opportunity to say more about the promise of ecopsychology in future issues. For now, to adopt the language of Milton (this issue), I invite our readers to join us on a safari (Swahili for “journey”) at “a pace that has to be related to the terrain and the challenges that the traveler encounters” (p. 8).

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Chelsea Harper, Malek Hall, Patricia Hasbach, and Jodie Emmet for the reviews and comments of earlier versions of this article.

Footnotes

¹The qualifier “biospheric” is added to emphasize the natural world and embeddedness in a planetary web of life and to avoid confusion with the use of the term “ecological” in a primarily social and interpersonal sense (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

References

Abram

(1996). The spell of the sensuous. New York: Pantheon.

Aizenstat

(1995). The wilderness effect and ecopsychology. In Roszak

, Gomes

M. E.

, & Kanner

A. D.

(Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 92–100). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Anthony

., & Soule

(1998). A multicultural approach to ecopsychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 26, 155–162.

Anthony

K. H

., & Watkins

N. J.

(2002). Exploring pathology: Relationships between clinical and environmental psychology. In Bechtel

R. B.

& Churchman

(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 129–148). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bechtel

R. B

., & Churchman

(Eds.). (2002). Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Berry

(1998). The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Bragg

E. A.

(1996). Towards the ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self theory. Journal of environmental psychology, 16, 93–108.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chalquist

(2007). Terrapsychology. New Orleans, LA: Spring Journal Books.

10.

Clayton

., & Brook

(2005). Can psychology save the world?. Journal of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5, 87–102.

11.

Clayton

., & Opotow

(Eds.). (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Clayton

., & Opotow

(2003). Identity and exclusion in rangeland conflict. In Clayton

& Opotow

(Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 249–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Cohen

M. J.

(1995). Well mind, well earth. Roche Harbor, WA: World Peace University press.

14.

Conn

S. A.

(1995). When the earth hurts, who responds? In Roszak

, Gomes

M. E.

, & Kanner

A. D.

(Eds.), Eco-psychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 156–171). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

15.

Doherty

T. J.

(2008, August). The psychologist as a community resource for sustainability. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Conference, Boston, MA.

16.

Edwards

S. A

., & Buzzell

(2008). The waking up syndrome. Hope Dance, 66. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://www.hopedance.org/cms/content/view/413/106/

17.

Einstein

(1954). Ideas and opinions. New York: Random House.

18.

Fisher

(2002). Radical ecopsychology: Psychology in the service of life. New York: State University of New York Press.

19.

Fox

(1990). Towards a transpersonal ecology: Developing new foundations for environmentalism. Boston: Shambhala.

20.

Fritze

J. G

., Blashki

G. A

., Burke

., & Wiseman

(2008). Hope, despair and transformation: Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 2, 13. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from http://ijmhs.com/content/2/1/13

21.

Gergen

K. J.

(2000). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1991)

22.

Gomes

M. E

., & Kanner

A. D.

(1995). The rape of the well-maidens: Feminist psychology and the environmental crisis. In Roszak

, Gomes

M. E.

, & Kanner

A. D.

(Eds.), Eco-psychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 111–121). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

23.

Gray

(1995). Shamanic counseling and ecopsychology. In Roszak

, Gomes

M. E.

, & Kanner

A. D.

(Eds.), Eco-psychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 172–182). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

24.

Greenway

(1995). The wilderness effect and ecopsychology. In Roszak

, Gomes

M. E.

, & Kanner

A. D.

(Eds.), Eco-psychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 122–135). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

25.

Hawken

(2007). Blessed unrest: How the largest movement in the world came into being and why no one saw it coming. New York: Viking Press.

26.

Hillman

., & Ventura

(1992). We’ve had a hundred years of psychotherapy and the world’s getting worse. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

27.

Johnson

L. R

., & Johnson-Pynn

J. S.

(2008, August). Ecopsychological approach to studying youth development across cultures. In D. A. Vakoch (Chair), Methodological challenges in eco-psychological research. Symposium presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Conference, Boston, MA.

28.

Kanner

A. D

., & Gomes

M. E.

(1995). The all-consuming self. In Roszak

, Gomes

M. E.

, & Kanner

A. D.

(Eds.), Eco-psychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 77–91). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

29.

Kaplan

(1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.

30.

Kellert

S. H

., Longino

H. E

., & Waters

C. K.

(Eds.). (2008). Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

31.

Kempton

., & Holland

D. C.

(2003). Identity and sustained environmental practice. In Clayton

& Opotow

(Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 317–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

32.

Kidner

D. W.

(2001). Nature and psyche. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

33.

Koger

., Schettler

., & Weiss

(2005). Environmental toxicants and developmental disabilities. American Psychologist, 60, 243–255.

34.

Lertzman

(2004). Ecopsychological theory and critical intervention. Organization and Environment, 17, 1–6.

35.

Louv

(2005). Last child in the woods. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

36.

Lovelock

(1991). Scientists on Gaia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

37.

Lundberg

(Ed.). (1998). The environment and mental health: A guide for clinicians. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Macy

., & Brown

M. Y.

(1998). Coming back to life: Practices to reconnect our lives, our world. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.

39.

Metzner

(1999). Green psychology: Transforming our relationship to the earth. Rochester, VT: Park Street.

40.

Moser

S. C

., & Dilling

(Eds.). (2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Naess

(2008). Lifestyle trends within the deep ecology movement. In Drengson

& Devall

(Eds.), The ecology of wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (pp. 140–141). Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint Press.

42.

Nicholsen

S. W.

(2002). The love of nature and the end of the world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

43.

Nordhaus

., & Shellenberger

(2007). Break through: From the death of environmentalism to the politics of possibility. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

44.

Parsons

(1999, Summer). Do we need Ecopsychology?. APA Division 34 Population and Environmental Psychology Bulletin, 25 (2), 9–10.

45.

Plotkin

(2003). Soulcraft: Crossing into the mysteries of nature and psyche. Novato, CA: New World Library.

46.

Reser

J. P.

(1995). Whither environmental psychology? The transpersonal ecopsychology crossroads. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 235–257.

47.

Roszak

(1992). The voice of the earth. New York: Simon & Shuster.

48.

Roszak

(1995). The making of a counterculture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1968)

49.

Roszak

, Gomes

M. E

., & Kanner

(Eds.). (1995). Ecopsychology. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

50.

Saunders

C. D.

(2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10, 137–149.

51.

Scull

(1999, March). Ecopsychology: Where does it fit in psychology? Paper presented at the Annual Psychology Conference, Malaspina University College [Electronic version]. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://members.shaw.ca/jscull/ecointro.htm

52.

Scull

(2008). Ecopsychology: Where does it fit in psychology in 2009?. Trumpeter, 24. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1100/1429

53.

Sessions

(1995). Ecocentrism and the anthropocentric detour. In Sessions

(Ed.), Deep ecology for the 21st century (pp. 156–184). Boston: Shambhala.

54.

Stern

(2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.

55.

Swanson

(1995). The call for gestalt’s contribution to ecopsychology: Figuring in the environmental field. Gestalt Journal, 18, 47–85.

56.

Vakoch

D. A.

(2008, August). Teaching ecopsychology in a doctoral training program. In Vakoch

D. A.

(Chair), Teaching ecopsychology—Institutions and approaches that foster innovative psychology curricula. Symposium presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Conference, Boston, MA.

57.

Weston

(2007). The political brain. New York: PublicAffairs.

58.

White

(1998). Psychiatry and ecopsychology. In Lundberg

(Ed.), The environment and mental health: A guide for clinicians (pp. 205–212). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

59.

Winter

D. D

., & Koger

(2004). The psychology of environmental problems (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.