:: Biblioteca Digital de Ecopsicologia (BDE)

ECOPSYCHOLOGISTS’ VITAL IMPORTANCE IN THE TIME OF CLIMATE CRISES

ECOPSYCHOLOGISTS’ VITAL IMPORTANCE IN THE TIME OF CLIMATE CRISES

A Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of

Antioch University Santa Barbara

In partial fulfillment for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY

Nicole Auckerman

ORCID Scholar No. 0000-0001-8707-4763

March 2022

ECOPSYCHOLOGISTS’ VITAL IMPORTANCE IN THE TIME OF CLIMATE CRISES

This dissertation, by Nicole Auckerman, has

been approved by the committee members signed below

who recommend that it be accepted by the faculty of

Antioch University Santa Barbara

in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY

Dissertation Committee:

Susan Hawes, PhD, Committee Chair

Sandra Kenny, PhD, Committee Member

Craig Chalquist, PhD, Expert Reader

iii

Dedication

I dedicate this project to my two boys Leon Ray and Westley Jake that they may know

and love the earth with intimacy and reverence and to all the mamma’s who typed their

dissertations one handed with nursing babes upon their laps, and to my horse Sonny, my first eco

therapist, who’s lessons of life and joy for adventure still guide me.

ABSTRACT

ECOPSYCHOLOGISTS’ VITAL IMPORTANCE IN THE TIME OF CLIMATE CRISES

Nicole Auckerman

Antioch University Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA

Ecopsychology is a systems-based philosophy that expands the therapeutic lens to include client

interactions with and perceptions of the natural environment as an integral element of well-being

or pathology. Ecopsychology, known forward as EP, also looks at the pathology of our culture

and what kind of diagnoses lead to practices that put our planet at risk. In recent decades, the

field has amassed a substantial amount of empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness but

remains largely underutilized. First generation EP suggested a cultural reordering shifting away

from consumer culture and reordering our way of life. Second generation posits working within

the current structure is sufficient. They seek to green psychology, meaning utilizing nature as a

healing medium, and gather empirical evidence to bring credibility to the field. Most researchers

and practitioners agree a new perspective is needed to challenge the dominant social paradigm

which views nature and the earth as expendable and separate from human health. As the current

political climate becomes more central, there is need for “green” psychologists who are prepared

to handle climate refugees, climate change, and mass extinction. By interviewing experts, this

phenomenological study seeks to demystify EP while exploring future directions, as well as

obstacles, to making it a legitimized field. This research also lends support to ecopsychology, and

its applied practice known as ecotherapy as a viable and necessary treatment approach to a range

of psychopathologies including anxiety, depression, and ADHD. This dissertation is available in

open access at AURA (https://aura.antioch.edu) and OhioLINK ETD Center

(https://etd.ohiolink.edu).

Keywords: biophilia hypothesis, climate change, eco-alienation, eco-anxiety, ecofeminism,

ecology, ecopsychology, ecopsychologist, ecotherapy, nature, mental health, pathology,

phenomenology,

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... v

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1

Ecopsychology ................................................................................................................................ 4

Ecotherapy ...................................................................................................................................... 5

State of Current Research ............................................................................................................... 6

Ecopsychology: The Conflict in the Field................................................................................................... 7

Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 8

Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 9

Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................................. 10

Biophilia Hypothesis..................................................................................................................... 13

Empirical Research on Mental Disorders and Deprivation of Natural Environment ................... 14

ART .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

SRT .......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Critiques .................................................................................................................................................. 18

Exposure to Nature and Reduced Depression............................................................................... 18

History of Ecopsychology............................................................................................................. 19

Ecological Unconscious ........................................................................................................................... 21

Indigenous Knowledge............................................................................................................................ 22

Dualism ................................................................................................................................................... 23

Ecofeminism............................................................................................................................................ 23

A Divide in the Field Ecopsychology ........................................................................................... 25

Third Generation..................................................................................................................................... 27

Moving Forward ........................................................................................................................... 28

vii

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................... 31

Rationale for a Phenomenological Methodology ......................................................................... 32

Sampling and Selection................................................................................................................. 33

Interview Method ................................................................................................................................... 34

Recording ............................................................................................................................................ 34

Ethics and Informed Consent.................................................................................................................. 35

Efforts to Maintain Research Quality ........................................................................................... 35

Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 38

Researchers Assumptions and Bias .............................................................................................. 38

Results........................................................................................................................................... 40

Divide in the Field ................................................................................................................................... 40

First Generation .................................................................................................................................. 40

Second Generation ............................................................................................................................. 44

Straddlers ............................................................................................................................................ 46

Multiple Interpretations of Ecopsychology .................................................................................. 47

Greening The APA ....................................................................................................................... 51

Practice of Ecotherapy .................................................................................................................. 53

Professionalism and Credentials ................................................................................................... 55

Accessibility to the Field .............................................................................................................. 58

EP and Ethical Responsibility and Activism ................................................................................ 59

Popularity of Field ........................................................................................................................ 59

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION....................................................................................................... 61

Conflict Within the Field of Ecopsychology ............................................................................................ 62

The Value of the Broader Philosophical Ideas in Ecopsychology............................................................ 66

Eco-anxiety.......................................................................................................................................... 67

viii

Ecopsychology as Therapeutic Tool .................................................................................................... 68

Dualism ............................................................................................................................................... 69

Ecopsychology as a Movement that Challenges Larger Structures ........................................................ 70

Limitations of the Study................................................................................................................ 74

Recommendations For Further Research ...................................................................................... 75

Final Thought................................................................................................................................ 75

APPENDIX A: Interview Questions ............................................................................................ 81

APPENDIX B: Letter to Participants ........................................................................................... 84

APPENDIX C: Consent Form ...................................................................................................... 85

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Ecopsychology is a field of inquiry that expands the therapeutic lens to include client

interactions with and perceptions of the natural environment as fundamental elements of

well-being or pathology (Roszak, 2001). Its focus includes testing and exploring what an integral

approach to healthy nature relations could look like (C. Chalquist, personal communication,

February 18, 2021). Ecopsychologists posit that a large part of our pathology stems from a

narcissistic viewpoint that is born from our disconnection to the natural world (Fisher, 2013).

Ecopsychology also looks at the pathology of our culture which promotes domination,

exploitation, and destruction of the human habitat (which is the very basis of our survival as a

species) in pursuit of financial gain (Fisher, 2013; Roszak et al., 1995).

In recent decades we have seen what most consider undeniable evidence of climate

change (Lejeusnes et al., 2010; Pacheco, 2020). The effects of climate change include record

breaking temperatures which cause heat waves and fires, an increased risk of food- and

water-borne diseases, diminished food production in economically disadvantaged regions, rising

sea levels, and adverse effects of climate-altering pollutants including carbon dioxide (Lee, 2007;

Smith et al., 2009).

Therapists with an ecopsychology background believe their clients are either consciously

or unconsciously affected by the climate crises. These crises are conceptualized as a collective

outgrowth of man’s physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional disconnection from nature

(referred to as psychological dualism); practicing ecopsychologists strive to build resilience in

their clients. A common approach is to help the clients acknowledge and understand how they are

personally being affected by the climate crises (and or environmental degradation) and then to

empower them to help heal the earth while healing themselves. A large component of this healing

comes from no longer being psychically isolated, acknowledging one’s place in the greater

system of nature, and also tending to feelings of helplessness, guilt, and overwhelm (Davenport,

2017; Macey, 2012).

To address the psychological effects of our disharmony with nature, ecopsychology

arguably needs to take its place within the greater field of psychology. There are divisions and

concerns within the fields of ecopsychology and ecotherapy about how to have the greatest

impact in eliciting change in clients and society. Ecopsychology is a dynamic and emerging field

(Greenway, 1999). This project involves interviewing experts, who are also the founders of

ecopsychology and who can comment on how the field has evolved, which is valuable in

understanding ecopsychology’s impact on mainstream psychology. This study explores the

research questions: How is ecopsychology defined by experts in the field? Should all

psychologists be trained in ecopsychology? How is ecopsychology used in case

conceptualization?

Many activists, ecopsychologists, and researchers have devoted their life’s work to

mitigating climate crisis. Most visibly in recent news, Gretta Thunberg started the Fridays For

Future movement in August of 2018 and delivered what quickly became an iconic speech to

Parliament in March of 2019. She pleaded for action from world leaders and policy makers: “I

want you to panic . . . I want you to act as if you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the

house was on fire because it is.” Ecopsychology acknowledges the climate crises and its effect

on humans which results in many suffering from an unacknowledged yet prevalent level of

panic, panic that has seeped into the unconscious background and become part of “anxiety as a

lifestyle.” The media labeled this concept eco-anxiety 1 and the term is now used in the field of

ecopsychology.

Individuals experiencing eco-anxiety feel overwhelmed with the enormity of the task of

acknowledging the climate crises, while others are unwilling or unable to face the guilt of their

personal contribution. Meanwhile, consumeristic business practices involve the pursuit of money

and short-term profits at great cost to the environment. From an ecopsychological lens, this is not

sane. According to this lens, our culture is insane in that it practices ecocide, in other words, our

collective irresponsibility towards the environment is akin to “burning our house down.”

Within the field there is a myriad of views around ecopsychology’s role. Some feel

activism is a key element and that psychologists need to shed their distance from politics and not

only get involved but encourage their clients to participate in activism as a tool for recovery.

Others simply practice ecotherapy, utilizing nature in a therapeutic context without engaging

with the larger philosophy of ecopsychology and without encouraging or even participating in

activism.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has acknowledged the effects of climate

crises on the human psyche. Beginning in 2009, they have gathered a task force of expert panels

who have since issued three reports as a step towards preparing the psychological community to

respond. According to these reports, the psychological community will be called on to treat

climate refugees as well as populations suffering from the psychological and neurological

1The American Psychological Association first defined eco-anxiety in 2017 as “a chronic fear of

environmental doom.” Eco-anxiety refers to persistent worries about the future of Earth and the

life it shelters. Related terms—“climate change distress,” “eco-trauma,” “eco-angst,” and

“ecological grief,” to name a few—acknowledge that this concern often involves symptoms

beyond those of anxiety alone.

impacts of climate crises. Children are the most vulnerable casualties. According to a 2014

UNICEF report, weather-related disasters, such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, and cyclones,

directly affected an estimated 66.5 million children worldwide every year from 1990–2000, and

such events are expected to affect 175 million children per year over the upcoming decades.

Pacheco (2020) illustrates the severity for children living in megacities such as Mexico City, who

have been exposed to air pollution all their lives and have a myriad of physical and mental health

issues such as neurological inflammation, early histological hallmarks for Alzheimer’s and

Parkinson’s diseases, volumetric decreases in brain tissue, and cognitive dysfunction. There are

also increased risks of health problems associated with maternal exposures during pregnancy,

such as preterm delivery or low birth rate neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum

disorder, schizophrenia, and mood disorders; heart conditions; asthma; aero allergies and

eczema; and metabolic conditions, type 2 diabetes, or weight problems, increases the morbidity

and mortality that climate change will bring to children (Lieu et al., 2016).

Psychologists will be called on to help mitigate effects of climate change. When treating

clients, ecopsychologists incorporate the assumption that we are psychologically suffering from

bearing witness to and contributing to the “burning of our house” and use this knowledge as

motivation to save our planet. Ecopsychologists recognize the planet as being in a state of

emergency. It is should be recognized that not just ecopsychologists, but all psychologists, have a

duty as appointed healers to address with clients the psychological effects of climate change and

to alter the destructive behaviors of our culture as a whole.

Ecopsychology

Ecopsychology, a term coined by Robert Greenway in 1963, (Doherty, 2010) and was

popularized by ecopsychologist Theodore Roszak, is the study of the interplay between human

psychology and the state of the natural world. Specifically, ecopsychology seeks to bring

ecological concepts into the psychological field and to develop a psychological perspective

within the environmental movement. Ecopsychology draws a metaphor between treatment of the

natural environment and the treatment of the interior, or intrapsychic space. Ecopsychology

extends the idea of “environment” to include the client’s relationship with the natural world as an

integral aspect of assessment and treatment. This idea of holistic connection and the

impossibility of separating an individual from their environment fuels the philosophy and

practice behind ecopsychology and its therapeutic application, ecotherapy.

Shepard (1982) drew the connection that our current ecological crises reflect the spiritual,

emotional, and mental disease rampant in the twentieth century. Roszak (2001) openly

questioned Western culture’s “sanity,” arguing the destruction of home/earth is evidence of

collective madness and argued “collective alienation is at the root of both the environmental

crisis and individual neurosis” (p.277). One way to conceptualize this is if someone were to

mistreat their home by introducing toxic chemicals, and providing little to no maintenance, the

environment would quickly deteriorate and become uninhabitable. Not properly caring for one’s

physical body and environment can indicate problems with reasoning and possible thought and/

or mood disorders. For this reason, when psychologists conduct an intake, the client’s exterior

presentation is examined to provide insight to their interior world. Ecopsychologists suggest that

our lack of capacity for recognizing our interconnectedness with and role in caring for the

environment is a marker for pathology.

Ecotherapy

Ecotherapy is a systems-based therapeutic application of the philosophy behind

ecopsychology. Pastoral counselor and Civil Rights activist Howard Clinebell introduced the

term in 1996; other terms used interchangeably are green therapy and earth-centered therapy

(Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009). Ecotherapy incorporates a range of nature-based experiences that

claim to enhance and restore cognitive, emotional, and physical well-being (Chalquist, 2009).

Ecotherapists also seek to address eco-anxiety, a type of epistemological suffering, a sense of

loneliness, depression, and helplessness resulting from a lack of connection to the planet and

ambivalence towards the destruction of natural resources (Chalquist, 2009). Ecotherapy is not

psychotherapy, neither does it replace psychiatry, but it challenges both modalities to

re-conceptualize their view of human nature, suggesting that our healing must include the

healing of the earth (Reser, 1995).

Within the field there is a range of what practitioners believe qualifies as ecotherapy. A

person using the title ecopsychologist would be educated in the field and likely hold the

philosophy in their approach and treatment plan, but may or may not use eco therapeutic

techniques. In contrast, ecotherapists are utilizing nature in the treatment process, but may or

may not align with the philosophy of ecopsychology. Even the idea of “using” nature is up for

interpretation. Some feel simply holding sessions in a green space is “ecotherapeutic” while

others make the firm distinction that actual ecotherapy involves three distinct aspects, those

being the therapist, the patient, and nature itself. There has been controversy within the field as to

whether utilizing ecotherapy is “enough” or if this is furthering the commodification of nature

and detracts from the greater issues plaguing our planet and damaging our mental health.

State of Current Research

Ecopsychology is gaining momentum as evidenced by degrees being offered by

universities on the graduate level. There are also various workshops and certificate courses

available for both licensed therapists and the general public. Ecotherapy, the applied practice of

ecopsychology, is now an umbrella term which includes but is not limited to, animal assisted

therapy, wilderness therapy, forest bathing, and others. Clients are prescribed “park

prescriptions” and “green hours” for mild to moderate depression and ADHD symptoms. In

England, these prescriptions have replaced medication on a large scale. This will be discussed at

length in the literature review.

In recent decades, the field has amassed a substantial amount of empirical evidence

supporting its effectiveness, yet ecotherapy remains at the fringes of the larger field of

psychology. Despite disagreements in the field about what constitutes ecotherapy, there are

marked correlations between time spent inside and increased pathology. Studies have revealed

that regular exposure to green areas promoted attention restoration, supportive social groups,

self-discipline, moderation of stress, improved behavior and reduced symptoms of ADHD

(Kaplan, 1995; McCormick, 2017; Taylor & Kuo, 2009) and a reduction in psychological

pathologies such as, depression and anxiety (Marselle et al., 2015). However, despite the

mounting empirical evidence, nature continues to be a drastically underutilized mental health

resource.

Ecopsychology: The Conflict in the Field

Due to its radical roots, as well as its innate challenges to our capitalist and consumer

society, ecopsychology has largely been discounted and has struggled to make its philosophy

influence mainstream psychology. Philosophical tenants, including the idea of using a

psychological approach to increase effectiveness in environmental activism, have failed to have

significant influence. Beyond the field being marginalized, there is a philosophical differing

among its members that has come to be known as a generational divide.

Doherty (2009) labeled this philosophical divide as first generation and second

generation. First generation is rooted in radical, counter-culture ideals that call for a cultural

reordering that places a symbiotic relationship with the environment as of paramount

importance. The emotional bonds of human and planet are seen as integral to health. Healing is

obtained through direct interaction with nature. There is a need for activism and recognizing

oneself as implicitly connected to the planet and its cycles. First generation thinking is critical of

mainstream psychology and resists the induction of ecopsychology into it. They feel if

mainstreamed, the field would be irrevocably altered diminishing the potency of its teachings.

The lack of unification has perhaps divided the field’s energetic focus.

Second generation thinking reflects a more measured approach, striving for small

changes within the system. Here ecopsychology is conceptualized as the philosophical origins

behind ecotherapy and a medium for helping society to “green;” meaning to utilize nature in a

range of professional settings such as hospitals, schools, and prisons to facilitate greater

wellbeing. Additionally, second generation thinkers want to move away from counterculture

stigma and place emphases on empirical evidence.

Research Questions

This dissertation will explore the following research questions: (a) How is

ecopsychology defined by experts in the field? (b) Should all psychologists be trained in

ecopsychology? (c) How is ecopsychology used in case conceptualization? (d) What has kept or

is keeping EP from becoming more “mainstreamed”? (e) What can be done to allow greater

accessibility to the field of ecopsychology and ecotherapy?

Purpose of Study

In the era of climate change, it is vitally important that the field of ecopsychology gains

greater accessibility and utilization. In this paper I will interview experts in the field to obtain

understanding experientially of their views about the future of ecopsychology (known forward as

EP). The experts interviewed will have written extensively and no doubt have strong opinions

surrounding the controversy regarding the future of EP. The purpose of this research is to

determine these experts’ thoughts and feelings at the time of the interview in contrast to their

previously published work. This is of particular interest because EP is by definition a changing,

growing philosophy. The project also seeks to decipher the level of despair or hope in this time

of climate change among the experts. Utilizing the richness of interview data adheres to the

tenant of EP that promotes multiple ways of knowing rather than the reductionist, mechanistic

knowledge, gained from scientific method. This project seeks to highlight the value of EP. By

interviewing experts and determining their views in present time, I hope to reveal hidden

obstacles, possibilities, and or new directions for unification of the field.

At the present time, many professionals within the field of psychology have limited

knowledge of ecotherapy’s documented benefits for a variety of populations. An increase in

knowledge about these benefits as reported by colleagues will assist mental health professionals

with expanding the range of therapeutic interventions at their disposal. This project could also

assist professionals who are interested in helping build environmentally responsible communities

and fostering healthier environmental attitudes and behaviors in clients.

Methodology

This paper conducted a study using the qualitative research design in the form of expert

interviews. An exploratory approach was utilized to facilitate greater understanding of the field

including its strengths, limitations, and reasons for and against greater induction into and

utilization of ecopsychology within the larger fielded psychology.

A uniform email (See Appendix A) was sent to 20 experts in the field of ecopsychology

to inquire about willingness to take part in this study. A brief description of the study was

attached. The following nine subjects agreed to approximately one-hour interviews conducted

over Skype: Linda Buzzell, Allen Kanner, Thomas Doherty, Marc Pilisuk, Dan Lion, John Scull,

Patricia Hasbach, Lesley Davenport, and William Hafford.

Of the participants interviewed, there were four who were predominantly first generation

thinking, two second generation, and two straddlers meaning they saw themselves in both

generations. There was also one participant who did not fit into any of these categories.

Participants ranged from original founding members of the field who have been

publishing within academia to self-educated participants who solely focus on living and teaching

the embodied tenants of ecopsychology. Participants also include those who focus on activism

and political commentary.

Definition of Terms

In this project “natural environment” and “nature” are used interchangeably and refer to

the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and

products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. Nature can be experienced in

one’s backyard. This is different from wilderness, which for this paper, is distinguished as going

away from man-made or built world and deeper into the natural environment. Wilderness is an

important concept for ecopsychology as it acknowledges nature on its own terms and allows it to

become a source of inspiration and comfort that often finds a home within the human psyche

(Greenway, 1995; Ulrich, 1984).

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

This next chapter will review the relevant literature on ecopsychology. Ecopsychology

views man as part of and not separate from nature. Ecopsychologists such as Roszak (1992a)

echo the fundamental idea that therapists cannot treat people without taking into account the

impact of the modern environment on our non-modern brains. Highlighted are contributing

theories such as the biophilia hypothesis, Attention Restoration Theory (ART), and Stress

Reduction Theory (SRT), which emphasize time in nature as an essential element for human

health. Evidence is provided for the notion that mankind needs wildness to be fully human and

that to thrive mentally and emotionally depends on preserving this evolutionary connection to a

non-built environment.

EP arose from the recognition of the environmental crises and the need to make cultural

and global shifts in our thinking about how we interact with nature and natural resources to

preserve our planet and restore mental health. However, this direct challenging of existing

cultural paradigms, as well as the suggested reordering of established scholastic fields, is seen as

radical and often experienced as threatening (Fisher, 2012). Fisher (2012) defines radical as those

who “seek change in social institutions and practices, psychological structures (such as

personality, identity, consciousness, and needs), root metaphors, philosophical premises,

worldviews, and so on” (p. 80). EP’s founders sought to expand the field of psychology within

an environmental context.

Environmental psychology, which began in the late 1960s, is the study of the

interrelationship between the built and natural environment and human behavior. Ittelson et al.

(1974) explained, “the natural environment is studied as both a problem area, with respect

to environmental degradation, and as a setting for certain recreational and psychological needs”

(p. 6). In this next section, the psychological necessity for ecopsychology is explored within the

context of being part of multiple frameworks for looking at the importance of nature to mental

and physical health, including environmental psychology and the conservation sciences.

Ecopsychology is part of a growing collection of environmental and conservation psychologies

that have produced large amounts of scientific data to prove the importance of nature and

environment to mental and physical health. The history and central philosophies of

ecopsychology will also be expounded upon with some discussion of the influence of the

feminist approach as foundational to ecopsychology.

Biophilia Hypothesis

Biologist Edward Wilson introduced the biophilia hypothesis in his book Biophilia

(1984). The biophilia hypothesis is biologically and ecologically based and points to

evolutionary research to propel the argument that nature is essential for human health.

Environmental scientists agree that:

the overwhelming evolutionary experience of human beings as a species involves natural

environments, and we are therefore predisposed to resonate with these surroundings,

consciously or not. We consequently come away from them with an increase in our

positive affect and decrease in our negative feelings or stress. (Bratman et al., 2012, p.

121)

According to the biophilia hypothesis, we are biologically engineered to live in nature.

Gullone (2000) sums up Wilson’s integral point, “The brain which modern members of our

species have inherited must be a product of this evolutionary process—a brain attuned to

extracting, processing, and evaluating information from the natural environment” (p. 295).

Wilson’s (1989) argument suggests that in the short 200 years since our divorce with nature, the

biophilic learning rules have not been replaced. Thus, our cognitive ability to “cope” with

modern life is extremely limited as we have not been prepared, from an evolutionary standpoint,

to have the split with nature we now experience.

The following section will highlight evidence to link deprivation of natural environments

and consequences on human health for all demographics.

Empirical Research on Mental Disorders and Deprivation of Natural Environment

The National Health and Medical Research Report (NH and MRC, 1997) listed “living in

the later decades of the century as a risk factor for developing depression in young people” (as

cited in Gullone, 2000, p. 309). They suggest this separation could be contributing to mental

disorders such as drug addiction, depression, and suicidal behavior as well as an increase in

crime (Rutter & Smith, 1997). Lack of time spent in nature may be causing or contributing to

these issues, and other causes could be more demanding jobs, greater time spent commuting,

dietary issues, or countless other variables. However, proponents of the biophilia hypothesis

claim that regardless of the other contributing factors, separation from nature places significant

stress on the human system (Kellert & Wilson, 1995).

Bratman et al. (2012) conducted a lengthy and comprehensive review of the impacts of

nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health, including measures of

memory, attention, concentration, impulse inhibition, and mood. Though the causal effect has not

been pinpointed, it has been documented that urban settings, as opposed to rural, place greater

taxing processing demands on cognitive functions resulting in cognitive overload and attention

fatigue, causing more stress (Bratman et al., 2012).

Discussed below are two central explanatory theories from environmental psychology around

the psychological impact of built environments on cognition: Attention Restoration Theory

(ART) and Stress Reduction Theory (SRT).

ART

Developmental psychologists Kaplan and Kaplan are credited with Attention Restoration

Theory (ART). In ART, the attention-drawing quality of urban settings is referred to as “hard

fascination” or directed attention and requires intense focus that leads to mental fatigue. In

contrast, the attention people give to their natural environment is called “soft fascination” and

allows the executive system (the frontal lobes) that regulates directed or “hard fascination” to

rest (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Two of the studies they reference to inform their theory were by

Hartig et al. (1991), which demonstrate the link the between restorative experiences and

information-processing effectiveness, central in establishing the distinct role of directed attention

(Kaplan, 1995). The first study compared wilderness vacationers with urban vacationers and a

non-vacationing control group. After their trip, the wilderness group showed a significant

improvement in proofreading performance, a task that is highly demanding of directed attention.

The non-wilderness groups showed a pre-test-to-post-test decline (Hartig et al., 1991).

In the second study by Hartig et al. (1991), participants were randomly assigned to one of

three conditions. Those in the “natural environment” and “urban environment” conditions drove

to field sites where they completed attentionally fatiguing tasks before walking for 40 minutes in

the respective setting. The third group also completed attentionally fatiguing tasks before

participating in the passive relaxation condition of spending a comparable period listening to soft

music and reading magazines. In this study, Hartig et al. used multimethod assessments of

restoration which consisted of self-reports of affective states, cognitive performance, and

physiological measures. Both studies offer evidence of greater restorative effects arising from

experiences in nature. These were summarized in a “perceived restorativeness” score which was,

on average, highest for the natural environment group and was positively correlated (b-=0*22)

with the proof-reading score. Kaplan (1995) remarked:

What is particularly striking about these studies is how parallel the results are, despite

wide variation in setting and procedure. Several of these studies are clinical- or

field-oriented, an important type of research for a theory that is intended to make a

difference beyond the laboratory. (p. 175)

In 2003, Hartig et al. constructed another study where they continued to research time

spent in nature’s restorative effect on directed attention as well as psychophysiological stress

recovery. This time they used repeated measures of ambulatory blood pressure from 112

randomly assigned young adults. Again, participants completed attentionally demanding tasks

just before the treatment. During the study, one group sat in a room with views of trees and

another sat in a windowless room, the latter had slower decline in diastolic blood pressure.

Another group walked in a nature reserve, which fostered blood pressure change that indicated

greater stress reduction than afforded by those walking in the urban surroundings. Performance

on an attentional test improved slightly from the pretest to the midpoint of the walk in the nature

reserve, while it declined in the urban setting. This opened a performance gap that persisted after

the walk. Positive affect increased and anger decreased in the nature reserve by the end of the

walk; the opposite pattern emerged in the urban environment.

These studies support the notion that stress response is ignited in part by hard fascination

without restorative time in nature. Vulnerability to stress response is increased due to cognitive

overload and the reduction of the cognitive resources necessary to address daily burdens (Fiore et

al., 1993; Peacock et al., 2007). Attention fatigue can manifest in negative emotions such as

irritability, impulsiveness, impatience, reduced tolerance for frustration, and insensitivity to

interpersonal cues, which has the overall effect of decreasing altruistic behaviors (Kahn, 1997).

Excessive arousal, or heightened stress response, could be relieved by natural settings which has

less complexity, intensity, and movement than urban environments leading to restorative

influences (Evans, 2003; Kahn 1997; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Positive affect could be enhanced

by reducing the negative effect of stress, specifically a decrease in anger/aggression and fear.

Depression can both contribute to and stem from an overactive stress response.

SRT

Stress reduction theory (SRT), put forth by evidence-based healthcare design researcher

Ulrich (1984), focuses its framework more on evolutionary science. Suggesting the healing

power of nature lies in an unconscious, autonomic response to natural elements that can occur

without conscious recognition, this theory has been measured through testing physiological

responses before and after exposure (Ulrich, 1993). According to this theory, specific natural

landscapes (especially those along watersides and with visible horizons) are experienced as safe

havens—areas in which our species tended to have greater rates of survival. The positive

affective response that we feel in these spaces is due to this common evolutionary history. In

other words, merely seeing or being present within nature can reduce stress through the

automatic generation of physiological and psychological responses (Ewert & Chang, 2018;

Ulrich, 1991, 1993). Longitudinal cross-cultural studies conducted extensive research

administering in depth surveys across a broad global demographic population reflect our

preference for features such as wide-open spaces, trees with high canopies, inclement weather,

and bodies of water (Kahn, 1997; Kellert & Wilson, 1995; Ulrich, 1993).

Cross analyses of the data illustrated that cross culturally, people as a whole prefer the

savannah like features of our ancestral homes (Kahn, 1997). In a landmark study by Ulrich

(1984), some patients were provided with a view of greenery during postoperative recovery, the

control group were not. Subjects with a view experienced positive emotional states and had more

favorable recovery, shorter postoperative hospital stays, reduction in post-surgical complications,

fewer negative comments in nurses’ notes, and fewer pain pills and analgesics compared to those

with a view of a brick building.

Critiques

Theorists like Bone (2009) suggest biophilia is biologically deterministic and contradicts

or ignores what we know of behaviorism and operant conditioning2. Critiques also suggest that

this kind of determinism discounts the effects of culture on the psyche (Radmore, n.d.). One

aspect of biophilia is that not only are we innately attracted to “life and life like organisms”

(Wilson, 1984), but that we are also repelled by certain aspects of nature such as snakes; this is

called biophobia (Ulrich, 1984). These fears have kept us safe evolutionarily speaking. Though

there is some universal evidence to support this claim (Kellert, 1995, Ulrich, 1994), there is also

evidence that people of differing cultures experience different levels of sensitivity and reactions

to animals and the natural environment, implying a significant cultural effect on this variable

(Noe & Snow, 1990).

Exposure to Nature and Reduced Depression

According to depression statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC, 2010), about 9% of adult Americans have feelings of hopelessness, despondency, and/or

guilt that generate a diagnosis of depression. In a study by Peacock et al. (2007), 71% of people

found a reduction in depression after walking outdoors versus an indoor walk, which resulted in

only 45% depression reduction. This study suggests that time in nature can be part of an effective

treatment for depression.

2 Operant conditioning proposed by B. F. Skinner is a form of learning. Behavior is adapted due

to consequences (results) of the behavior. That consequence may be reward (positive outcome)

or punishment (negative outcome).

Bratman et al. (2015) also conducted an intriguing study hypothesizing that relative to

urban experience, nature experience would decrease anxiety, rumination, and negative affect, and

would increase positive affect. They also hypothesized that relative to urban experience, nature

experience would increase verbal and visual working memory capacity and improve

performance on the executive component of an attention test. In their study, there was an

assumption that participants, all of whom resided in suburban or urban environments, entered the

study with some degree of baseline directed attention depletion, and thus had the potential for a

decrease in baseline levels of stress. Over the course of 15 months about 65 participants were

assigned to nature or urban walks and exposed to a battery of tests including: State-Trait Anxiety

Inventory (STAI), Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ), and Positive and Negative

Affect Schedule (PANAS). To measure the cognitive impact of nature experience, they tested

verbal working memory, visuospatial working memory, and executive attention through a variety

of psychological measurements.

The forementioned studies demonstrate correlation and causation between time spent in

nature and positive effects on mental and emotional health, illustrating the need for humans to

have access to and spend significant time the natural environment. These studies show that just

walking in nature can reduce depression and anxiety. Ecotherapy builds on this body of

knowledge and further channels these restorative properties to incorporate a therapeutic

approach.

History of Ecopsychology

In 1992, Theodore Roszak coined the term ecopsychology to describe the eco-based

philosophy which had emerged from the synthesis of other earth centered ways of understanding

man’s psychological relations with the natural environment (Roszak, 1992). The roots of this

movement stem from the 1960s and 1970s and were a response to the prominent environmental

degradation of the 1960s. This was a time marked by a general critical analysis of systems and

structures that were hierarchical and oppressive which inspired social movements such as the

civil rights movement, feminism, and the first earth day (Reser, 1995).

Radical (emerging, non-mainstream) perspectives rooted in the critical analysis of the

human domination of nature and oppression of minorities were emerging. Professor emeritus

Robert Greenway, who many consider the founding father of ecopsychology, was teaching what

he called “psycho ecology” at Sonoma University in the 60s (Greenway, 1999; Schroll, 2007).

Psycho ecology had roots in theories, such as ecofeminism, transpersonal ecology3, and depth

ecology4, which rejected traditional Western paradigms.

The beginning of the critical analysis of pedagogy of environmental studies started with

Greenway’s classes in the late 1960s and continued in the 1990’s Berkeley when one of

Greenway’s former students formed a group that discussed the relationship between the natural

environment and pathology in the Western world (Schroll, 2007). This group led to the

development of the field of ecopsychology to bridge the gap between ecology and psychology

and included Theodore Roszak, Mary Gomes, Allen Kanner (interviewed for this dissertation),

and Robert Greenway. The theorists from the Berkeley ecopsychology group saw a deficit in the

environmental movement, meaning there was a lack of connection in addressing the ecological

crisis without considering its psychological dimensions. “Mainstream psychology relegated

anxieties, pathologies, and other forms of mental illness to the personal domain, rarely

3 Transpersonal meaning greater than person or beyond the ego, a merging with more than self.

Ecology being the relationship of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings,

also the political movement that seeks to protect the environment, especially from pollution.

4 Depth ecology is an environmental movement and philosophy that regards human life as just

one of many equal components of a global ecosystem.

considering the effects of escalating planetary devastation or the benefits of direct contact with

nature” (Friedman & Hartelius, 2015, p. 599). Theodore Roszak is most known for coining the

phrase ecopsychology, which was simply a play on words from Greenway’s less popular term

“psycho ecology.” Roszak’s book, Voice of The Earth, brought the field mainstream attention

and is considered by many to be the “bible” of ecopsychology and frequently used as a

foundational text in universities (Roszak, 1992).

Ecological Unconscious

Roszak was passionate about getting the ideas of ecopsychology to be accepted by

greater academia. He was envisioning, or revisioning, psychology within the context of the

modern environment, which is cut off from nature. Roszak (1992) commented that the cause of

many modern psychopathologies stem from the “collective alienation [which is] at the root of

both the environmental crisis and individual neurosis” (p. 277). Since he viewed psychic

isolation as a cause of depression, and feeling a part of something larger than one’s self as an

integral element of health, he introduced the concept of the ecological unconscious. Ecological

unconscious builds on the Jungian collective unconscious to include a focus on our shared

cosmic history and the importance of identification with all living things which fosters a

self-identity beyond the individual. Roszak (1992b) wrote:

Just as it has been the goal of previous therapies to recover the repressed contents of the

unconscious, so the goal of ecopsychology is to awaken the inherent sense of

environmental reciprocity that lies within the ecological unconscious. Other therapies

seek to heal the alienation between person and person, person and family, person and

society. Ecopsychology seeks to heal the more fundamental alienation between the person

and the natural environment. (p. 320)

In ecopsychology, the ecological unconscious also includes what is known as eco-anxiety,

which is a collective and often unconscious stress experienced by humans in reaction to both the

mistreatment of the earth and our disconnection from nature. Roszak (1992a) goes on to explain,

“For ecopsychology, repression of the ecological unconscious is the deepest root of collusive

madness in industrial society; open access to the ecological unconscious is the path to sanity” (p.

320). These themes of repression of troubling conscious material that gets acted out as symptoms

of pathology draws on key tenants of Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

Grounding his theories in Freud served to situate/legitimize ecopsychology within the

broader field of psychology. According to Metzner (2004), Roszak intended to rehabilitate or

revise the Freudian concept of the id: instead of the “predatory, lecherous beast,” he describes the

id’s potential as the “repository of ancient ecological wisdom.” Metzner (2004) expands,

“Here Roszak makes a powerful point: the practices and beliefs often derided as ‘primitive’ and

‘superstitious’ may in fact be as effective, if not superior, than our own, and certainly promote a

greater degree of ecological sanity” (p. X).

Indigenous Knowledge

This introduces another popular tenant of EP, which is that we should look to indigenous

cultures as possible guidance towards mental and emotional health. It can be generalized that

during the pre-colonial era there was an animistic relationship between indigenous people and

nature. Conceptualizing resources as sacred invites a reciprocal relationship and prevents

overuse, depletion, and imbalance. Traditional Western construct is anthropocentric and views

resources as inanimate, which has led to resource crises. Roszak (1992a) explains why this idea

should be seen as a healthier alternative than our western construct:

animism might be credited with a more sophisticated perception of physicality than we

would have found in Western science … and (have) proven ecological utility: it

disciplines the relationship of humans to their environment, imposing an ethical restraint

upon exploitation and abuse. (p. 82)

Being a part of a living, or animistic world and system also guards against the feelings of

alienation and lack of purpose so prevalent in our modern culture which is also acknowledged as

the foundation of depression.

Dualism

Traditionally, Western culture conceptualizes the self as separate from the body and in

turn separate from nature. This is known as mind body dualism, or “Cartesian Dualism” based on

statement by French Enlightenment philosopher Rene Descartes, in his Discourse on Method

(1637): Cogito ergo sum (Latin: “I think, therefore I am”). This claim placed man’s intellect and

thinking ability “reason” as not only separate but superior to the body and thus all of nature.

Most ecopsychologists point to the fact that the brain does not exist without the body just as the

human does not exist outside his environment, thus illuminating a fundamental error in the

Western approach to both medicine and psychology which treats symptoms rather than holistic

causes. Greenway pointed to this kind of dualistic thinking as “perhaps the source of our

pervasive sense of being disconnected” from the natural world (p. 131) and suggested that such

dualism (in contrast to nondual or unitive perspectives) is also at the root of Western culture’s

domination, exploitation, and destruction of human habitat, “the very basis of our survival as a

species” (Doherty, 2010).

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminist, philosopher, and historian of science, Carolyn Merchant, reminds us that

prior to Descartes and the age of enlightenment, nature was conceived of as the benevolent and

maternal resource. During this time period, “conceptions of the Earth as nurturing bringer of life

began slowly to change to one of a resource to be exploited” (Merchant, 1980, p. 170). With the

idea that man was the most rational and intelligent being, came an entitlement to despoil the

earth and use its resources at will.

The ecofeminist movement highlighted the importance of addressing our impact on the

environment as well recognizing the parallels between subordination of both nature and women.

Ecofeminism emerged in the 1970s alongside the second wave of feminism and the green

movement, these philosophies incorporated “a concern about the impact of human activities on

the non-human world and from feminism the view of humanity as gendered in ways that

subordinate, exploit and oppress women” (Mellor, 1997, p. 1).

Ecofeminism promotes that the contemporary eco-crises have resulted from a patriarchal

culture that promotes the violence and destruction of the earth in pursuit of dominance and gain.

Eco-feminist writer Gomes (Gomes & Kanner (1995), who was also part of the original Berkeley

group writes, “A key insight of ecofeminism is the despoiling of the earth and the subjugation of

women are intimately connected” (p. 112). Feminist therapist Sullivan (1990) illustrated this

point: “The feminist approach does not seek to conquer nature or the world. Instead, it places

value on interdependence above individualism” (p. 19). Masculine attributes of independence

and disconnection are valued in our culture. We promote rugged individualism rather than

interdependence. Roszak et al. (1995) wrote, “Domination becomes a way to deny dependence a

dependence that has been culturally defined as a failure and a humiliation rather than as a natural

and inevitable part of life” (p. 115).

Ecopsychology incorporates this feminist perspective that the relationship between

humans and nature should be characterized by seamless interconnection rather than dominance.

Greenway (as cited in Doherty, 2010) speaks of time in wilderness as encompassing the healing

elements of this feminist unitive perspective, “I see the grip of the mental ‘dualistic habit’ still

tightly wrapped around the Western mind and I know, from former students, that immersion in

the wilderness loosens that grip.”

An expanded narrative had emerged from feminism: the personal domain had expanded

to the political, as illustrated in the slogan “What’s personal is political.” These schools of

thoughts influenced the field of psychology. Feminist therapists place the intersection of the

client’s gender, race, and socioeconomic status on equal levels of importance with family history

and childhood upbringing. Ecopsychology broadens the psychological lens to include not only

family, community, racial and cultural influences but also the relationship with the natural

environment and geo-political influences.

A Divide in the Field Ecopsychology

Within the field of ecopsychology there is debate around how much to challenge the field

of psychology and our larger consumer/capitalist lifestyle. The first editor of the Ecopsychology

journal, Thomas Doherty, labeled the different approaches in the field “first generation and

second generation thinking” (Doherty, 2009). He claims that the first generation believes a

cultural overhaul is necessary, while the second generation is more focused on mainstreaming the

therapeutic aspect through empirical data to lend credibility and provide more access to

eco-therapeutic treatment.

Founding theorists (such as Greenway) assert that ecopsychology should not become

another academic discipline because in doing so it would have to align with a scientific standard

of knowing that reflects the dualism which is philosophically at odds with the nondual and

unitive perspectives of ecopsychology. In an interview with Smith (2010), Greenway comments

on this divide within the field and why it is difficult to shift to an empirically based focus by

stating: “the field hasn’t just sidestepped science; it has denigrated it [scientific thinking] as a

system of inquiry that objectifies the natural world” (p. 36).

Fisher (2013) defines ecopsychology as a radical political, economic, and social

movement which suggests an overhaul of cultural values which would combat the extreme

destructive influence of capitalism on both the human psyche and the health of the planet. Fisher

describes his first book, Radical Ecopsychology, as “an attempt to help the field get on some

radical scholarly footings” (p.2). Fisher (2013) cites first generation contributors such as Shepard

(1982), Roszak (1992a), and Clinebell (1996) as proponents of a more radical approach to the

philosophy. He argues that the second generation of ecotherapy is mainstreaming ecopsychology

too much. Fisher (2013) suggests that to mainstream ecopsychology is to add to the problem

because he calls for a radical change in how we interact with nature. To prescribe an eco-

therapeutic intervention, such as gardening in the client’s backyard, would be ignoring the larger

scale neglect of and violence towards the planet and perhaps even leading to further exploitation.

First wave ecopsychologists call for placing the earth and connection to nature at the center of

public policy (Fisher, 2013). In 2009, however, a “second generation” ecopsychology was

proposed that came to do the exact opposite, explicitly depoliticizing the field in order to make it

more attractive to mainstream psychologists (Fisher, 2012).

Prominent second-generation thinkers, such as Kahn and Hasbach (2012), feel its

therapeutic potential is more important than its idealistic roots. Kahn (2013), Editor in Chief of

the journal Ecopsychology, clearly stated the need for incorporating science and technology

through quantitative studies and gathering a greater sphere of empirical data to garnish

acceptance and larger utilization of this therapy. Kahn and Hasbach (2012) arguably seek to

distance ecopsychology from this radical ecology, inferring that the former’s counter culturalism

now works against it. The second generation are proponents of ecotherapy who claim to offer a

remedy for anxiety and depression and to reduce symptoms of attention fatigue and ADHD

caused by what they call a “nature deficit.” These therapists want to bring the application of

eco-psychological ideas and philosophy into therapy rooms as well as schools, hospitals, and

jails. Distancing themselves from the original extremist roots of the philosophy could allow

greater access to this approach. Hasbach illustrates this point when she argues that “it is time for

the clinical fields to recognize that ecotherapy can and should stand alongside the other foremost

therapies that allow for the unfolding and flourishing of human lives” (Kahn & Hasbach, 2012,

p. 14).

Third Generation

Fisher calls for what I argue could be conceived of as a “third” generation EP. This stance

incorporates the prevailing notions of both first- and second-generation approaches. In his

writing, Fisher (2012) sought to alter the thinking that “radicalism implies dangerous extremism.

To the contrary, I aim to highlight the irrationality in the status quo, in our received modes of

thought and practice, and thus to present the radical view as deeply sensible and essentially

human” (p. 80). Part of the challenge for ecopsychologists is to flip our thinking and recognize

that what is typically conceived of as radical is actually necessary and sane. Incorporating more

second generation thinking, Fisher (2012) also points out the complexity of the field, hoping to

dispel the notion “that ecopsychology is an intellectual lightweight or merely therapeutic form of

psychology. Again, I argue the opposite—that it demands the highest degree of scholarly

sophistication” (p. 80), thus he also promotes research and second generational thinking as a way

to further establish the field.

Fisher (2013) clearly emphasizes that dualism is the root of epistemological suffering and

also creates the “ignorance” that allows the destruction of our habitat and stands behind an EP

that can lead us out of a pathologized mindset. This vision of EP requires inclusion of both

scholarly research and cultural paradigm shift. Fisher calls for the need to be honest with the

urgency of our situation, asks ecopsychologists to begin to resolve the fissure in the field by not

shying away from words like “radical” and “revolution.”

Moving Forward

EP has criticized psychology for not recognizing our interconnectedness with nature.

There has been some progress in this area with the APA recognizing the climate crises, but as an

institution, the APA has far to come to address the connection between the natural environment

and human health. “Psychology, so dedicated to awakening human consciousness, needs to wake

itself up to one of the most ancient human truths: we cannot be studied or cured apart from the

planet” (Hillman, 1995, pp. xvii–xxiii).

EP as a field aligns with ecofeminists and other radical ecology movements. Radical

ecopsychology is both personal and political and can be used as a platform to encourage

psychologists to become political. Roszak (1992b) concluded ecopsychology’s:

goal is to bridge our culture’s long-standing, historical gulf between the psychological

and ecological, to see the needs of the planet and the person as continuum . . . to span the

gap between the personal and planetary in a way that suggests political alternatives. (p. 9)

Traditionally psychologists have taken a neutral stance, stepping back from much of public

policy especially that around the environment and economics, but EP asserts that the time has

come for psychology to address not only the effect of environmental degradation on humans but

the how and why our culture must not allow this to go on.

The purpose of this review has been to introduce readers to the historical philosophy

behind ecopsychology as well as the practical application of ecotherapy to highlight the

importance of incorporating the core tenants of EP into mainstream psychology. The literature

suggests that psychologists from all backgrounds and approaches might consider a wider lens in

their definition of “environment” to include our relationship with the natural world. The

eco-psychological perspective views mental illness as going hand in hand with the debilitated

state of global ecosystems and advocates for an improved relationship with nature which may

lead to environmental awareness and policy change.

There are divisions and concerns within the fields of ecopsychology and ecotherapy

about how to have the greatest impact in eliciting change in clients and society. Ecopsychology is

a dynamic and emerging field (Greenway, 2000). This project involves interviewing experts

(who are also the founders) who can comment on how the field has evolved which is valuable in

understanding ecopsychology’s impact on mainstream psychology. This study explores the

research questions: (a) How is ecopsychology defined by experts in the field? (b) Should all

psychologists be trained in ecopsychology? (c) How is ecopsychology used in case

conceptualization? (d) What has kept or is keeping EP from becoming more “mainstreamed”? (e)

What can be done to allow greater accessibility to the field of ecopsychology and ecotherapy?

In recruiting participants, I attempted to balance schools of thought by including

prominent scholars who can be considered first generation and second-generation thinkers.

Participants ranged from original founding members of the field who have been publishing

within academia to self-educated participants who solely focus on living and teaching the

embodied tenants of ecopsychology. It was important to include a participant who was outside

the traditional field of academia to present data in the form of commentary that validates the

first-generation thinkers concerns about the vital message of ecopsychology (which is potentially

earth saving) being inaccessible to those who have not pursued graduate education because it is

largely written about in academic journals. This interview data attempts to facilitate a greater

understanding of ecopsychology including its strengths, limitations, and place within the larger

field of psychology.

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS

The following section describes the qualitative methodology used to conduct this

project. The research design was based on a constructionist perspective (Andrews, 2012)

achieved through interviewing experts in the field of ecopsychology. The notion of “experts” in

research methodology refers to persons responsible for development, implementation, or control

of solutions, strategies, or policies. Experts usually have privileged access to information about

groups of people or decision processes and have a high level of aggregated and specific

knowledge that is otherwise difficult to access (Littig, 2013). Researchers Meuser and Nagel

(1991, as cited in Bogner et al., 2009) recommended using expert interviews as data gathering

technique in research fields that are less established. Ecopsychology fits this category as a “new”

theoretical approach to healing within the discipline of psychology. Because the field of

ecopsychology is new, and there are divisions and concerns within the field, interviewing experts

(who are also the founders) and can comment on how the field has evolved is valuable in

understanding ecopsychology’s impact on mainstream psychology. This study used

semi-structured expert interviews.

Bogner et al. (2009) identify three different types of expert interview: exploratory,

systematizing, and theory generating, each intended for a different purpose. This paper primarily

used the exploratory expert interview to facilitate a deeper understanding of how EP is situated

within the larger field of psychology and also to highlight how restoring the human nature

relationship is necessary for greater psychological wellbeing (which is critical given the climate

crises). The following research questions guided the interviews: (a) How is ecopsychology

defined by experts in the field? (b) Should all psychologists be trained in ecopsychology? (c)

How is ecopsychology used in case conceptualization? (d) What has kept or is keeping EP from

becoming more “mainstreamed”? and (e) What can be done to allow greater accessibility to the

field of ecopsychology and ecotherapy?

Rationale for a Phenomenological Methodology

The qualitative approach rests on the idea that one can extrapolate knowledge by

studying the subjective experiences of others and that there are multiple truths as opposed to one

universal truth (Creswell, 2003). Phenomenological methods and ecopsychology share a focus

on human experience and resist reductionistic approaches to science.

Hermeneutics, for its part, is the art and science of interpretation and thus also of

meaning. Meaning in this context is not a thing that is final and stable, but something that

is continuously open to new insight and interpretation. (Friesen, N., Henriksson, C., &

Saevi, 2012, p. 1)

This research project focuses on interviewees’ experiences and knowledge which are also

interpretations.

The hermeneutic interview has a conversational structure: it is oriented to sense-making

and interpreting experiential meanings. . . In other words, both the interviewer and the

interviewee attempt to interpret the significance of the preliminary themes in the light of

the original phenomenological question. (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014, p. 12)

In my data analyses I examined both differences and consensus in the experts’ views of the field

of EP.

Edmund Husserl, considered the father of phenomenology, was interested in the

acquisition and utilization of knowledge, and felt the most important aspect of one’s experience

is consciousness about the manner in which the experience is engaged (Craig, 2003; Palmer,

1969). This mirrors ecopsychology as it is experientially based and has evolved from

transcendental philosophies (which presents an idealistic merging with nature). Though in recent

years ecopsychology has sought to legitimize itself by collecting and publishing empirically

based research studies, its philosophical origins reject the objectified reductionism of hard

science. Meaning making is at the heart of many therapeutic approaches including

ecopsychology.

Sampling and Selection

Denzin (1994) points out that a good informant is someone with the requisite knowledge

and experience desired for the study and is also someone with the ability to reflect in an

articulate manner. This study will employ purposeful sampling, also known as critical case

sampling (Mertens, 2014). According to Patton (2001), this approach is frequently employed in

qualitative research design and yields in-depth information about the chosen phenomenon.

In selecting participants there was a focus on including a diverse sample of

ecopsychologists to capture the characteristics and predominant qualities of the field.

Participants were selected based on their writing and or teaching of the subject of ecopsychology.

Efforts were made to get diverse viewpoints representing both “generations” of ecopsychological

thinking. Criteria for inclusion was clinicians operating under the title “ecopsychologists,”

holding either a PsyD or a PhD title, or other expert status including teachers and authors,

English speaking, and 20 years or older.

A uniform email (Appendix A) was sent to 12 potential participants to inquire about their

willingness to take part in this study. A brief description of the study was attached (Appendix B).

Approximately two weeks after the emails were sent, each potential subject was called to discuss

how the interviews would be structured and the aim of the study. When the potential subject

agreed to participate, they were asked to sign a consent form (Appendix C). The subject then

picked a date and time that worked for them and an appointment for a skype interview was

established.

It was anticipated that the response rate would be high because of a shared common

background which can increase the level of motivation on the part of the expert to participate in

an interview (Littig, 2013). Interviews included five male participants, four of which met the

criteria for holding a PsyD or PhD title, and one participant representing the more radical branch

of ecopsychology who is self-educated and “nature” educated. Four female participants were

included, three of them holding doctorate titles and one a published author and teacher.

Interview Method

Interviews took place over phone and / or Skype and were loosely based on 14 questions

(See Appendix B) that were intended to guide the interview. During the interviews, I used

Kvale’s (1996) framework for condensing and interpreting the meaning of what the participants

describe and reflecting it back to the participants to give them an opportunity to confirm or

disconfirm with corrections.

The second part of Kvale’s (1996) two-part procedural framework for the interview data

analysis is consistent with the philosophical stance of qualitative phenomenological research.

Data was reviewed and analyzed first through the transcribing verbatim. Using the central

research questions as a guide, I ascertained, highlighted, and categorized the natural meaning

units (NMUs) of each participant of this study. A natural meaning unit is a condensed summation

of meaning relevant to the research topic taken from passages from the interview. A list of NMUs

was formulated and compiled on each participant and catalogued by themes. A cross-case

analysis was conducted in order to identify any shared themes among the participants.

Recording

Participants’ interviews were recorded in three ways to ensure reliability of material.

x Researcher recorded interview on Skype platform (with the exception of two interviews

where participants were unable to Skype).

x Researcher used her phone as an audio recording device.

x Researcher ran a transcribing application off of Microsoft Word during interview as third

method to retain interview data.

Ethics and Informed Consent

The researcher anticipated the manner by which this study could potentially harm its

human participants. The main domain of risk was identified through the process of informed

consent and the clarification of the absence of confidentiality. The participants were volunteers

and agreed to allow their identities to be used to further enrich the pedagogy of ecopsychology.

Informed consent was obtained from each participant during initial contact which clearly

articulated the terms of participation in this study. A written Informed Consent document was

provided using clear language that delineated the limits of confidentiality, the risks inherent in

participation, the manner in which individuals’ personal information was securely handled and

stored, and the objectives of this research (Appendix C).

Efforts to Maintain Research Quality

Quality Control

I addressed the issues related to quality standards for qualitative research throughout the

data collection and analysis processes. Issues of reliability and validity are also addressed

through the strategic application of data comparison, which included the use of multiple data

collection sources in the form of reviewing the literature and interviewing multiple experts.

Mertens (2014) suggests the following categories to maintain research quality: Credibility,

Transferability, Dependability, Confirmability, and Transformative Criteria.

Credibility. As suggested by Mertens (2014), engaging in “prolonged and persistent

research in the field” (p. 330) creates credibility. I achieved this by conducting an in-depth

literature review and enrolling in an on-line interactive course for Ecopsychology at Pacifica

University, which was taught by three experts in the field; Buzzell, Chalquist, and Fisher.

Triangulation was achieved because the course leaders held different areas of expertise and

conflicting views. I was writing extensively and having my ideas reviewed by the professors and

the other members in the class, which represented a globally divers group of students. My expert

reader for this project, Chalquist, is an author and founder in the field of ecopsychology, which

ensures accurate representation of the field. Additionally, I became a member of various

ecopsychology groups on social media which allowed for a constant engagement with other

members of the field which was helpful in keeping current with the topics and developments in

the field.

Transferability. Transferability is the idea that the reader can assess within the context of

what the experts are speaking about is relevant to them. “The researcher’s responsibility is to

provide sufficient detail to enable the reader to make such a judgment” (Mertens, 2014, p. 333).

In this project, the interview data reflects the history, culture, and potential of the field as

experienced by and reported on by the experts interviewed. The readers of this material are

provided with context about the experts (i.e., whether they are first generation or second

generation) and multiple interpretations of the data from them and thus can decide which aspects

of the data is relevant to the reader.

Dependability. Dependability refers to the consistency and reliability of the research

findings as well as the degree to which research procedures are documented. Qualitative research

is dependable if someone outside the research project is able to understand, fact check, and

critique the research process (Polit et al., 2006; Sandelowski, 1986; Streubert, 2007). The data in

this project will prove consistent when compared with the participants previously written work

on the subject. The researcher was interested in evolution and growth in opinions of the

participants within the dynamic context of the field, however, the main tenants of the field as

discussed by experts remain unchanged. Thus, their expert opinions and input about various

aspects of the field will remain historically valid.

Confirmability. Confirmability is the degree to which research data can be confirmed by

other researchers as factual and not made up or conflated. To achieve this, multiple

documentation methods of interview data were used including voice recording of the raw data

and a transcribing application which printed the words verbatim. For the analyses, I used an

online coding program called MAXQDA, which is available for audit by expert readers, and has

documented the process which I arrived at various themes and coding which I then interpreted

for my results.

Transformative Criteria. According to Mertens (2003):

Transformative . . . scholars recommend the adoption of an explicit goal for research to

serve the ends of creating a more just and democratic society that permeates the entire

research process, from the problem formulation to the drawing of conclusions and the use

of results. (p. 159)

In specifying transformative criteria, Mertens was interested in how authors introduced

the transformative view into a research study through the use of a research problem that had

relevance to a marginalized community, and also how the research results are intended to

transform some aspect of the lives of some oppressed minority. Key issues of the community,

such as diversity and oppression are explored.

This transformative framework is innately imbibed in ecopsychological philosophies. A

large component of the philosophy of ecopsychology is ecojustice. Ecojustice incorporates

examining systemic oppression and exploitation of minoritized people in relation to the natural

environment and “eco rights.” I am using this term to describe the inalienable rights people

should have to clean air and water and access to nature. Minoritized people in America have less

access to nature and wilderness (Kanner, 2001), ecopsychology looks at the psychological effects

on these groups from this restriction. Ecojustice also describes giving voice and privilege to

native and tribal people about their homelands. Fundamental “rights” of nature such as trees and

rivers to exist and have innate value outside their usefulness to humans is also under the

ecojustice umbrella (Collins & Esterling, 2019).

Limitations

Limitations of the present study conditions beyond the control of the researcher which

may have effect on the outcome of the study included the following items.

x Not enough female voices. There are only three out of nine female voices.

x The study is Eurocentric. Since this research design focused on experts in the field,

and expert is largely defined as having published work in the field, certain voices are

not included.

x Participants were interviewed on Skype or phone versus in person which possibly

effected the poignancy of felt experience between participant and researcher thus

effecting the depth of interviews.

Researchers Assumptions and Bias

Because I have successfully worked with clients using an ecopsychological lens and

ecotherapeutic techniques, I have assumptions and biases that this is an effective therapeutic

method of healing and that the field has much to offer to the greater psychological community. I

worked to remain aware of where my predisposition possibly was influencing my interpretations.

It is imperative to the integrity of this research that personal biases and pre-formulated

hypotheses were examined and set aside, judgment suspended, and constant vigilance maintained

against forcing data outcomes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Qualitative analyses rests in part on the dependence upon the researchers’ subjectivity. In

this case, pre-knowledge may have affected my interpretation of participants’ interviews. I

attempted to minimize this distortion by remaining actively engaged in the community which

offers differing views on the purpose and future of the field. I intentionally selected participants

with opposing perspectives to actively reflect the diversity in the field.

The definition of phenomenological investigations requires us to look at the experience of

the participant in all its subjectivity. Assurances of neutrality must be practiced. The first being

that a complete record of the identifications of themes through coding is kept, so that the

researcher’s processes can be critically reviewed. The second assurance, and most important, is

that the attitude of the researcher is one of intersubjectivity. This means that the psychological

attitude of the researcher is constant vigilance to data as presented free of personal biases. The

researcher must remain aware of the fact that the data will be reviewed the processes by which

information and meaning is deduced can be scrutinized by a critical other. These are principles to

guide an objective outcome, not guarantees of objectivity.

Based on the literature and personal lived experience, this research was being conducted

under the following assumptions:

x to find meaning evokes healing, time in nature inspires one with a sense of meaning,

x the ecological crisis is real, meaning our natural resources are under threat of

extinction,

x knowledge of this crises consciously or unconsciously has negatively impacted

mental health,

x people are being negatively affected by their disconnection from nature and,

x an honest evaluation of one’s role in protecting natural resources for future

generations is necessary to ease “Eco angst,” which is the conscious or unconscious

feelings of anxiety resulting from the ecological crises.

Results

In this section I will present the results as organized by the interview questions (see

Appendix A) and themes.

Divide in the Field

As discussed in the literature review, EP has yet to become a unified field. This research

reaffirms there still is a philosophical differing among its members that is often described as the

generational divide and reveals tension that still exists.

Participants were asked the following interview question: “Can you describe the divide in

the field between first and second generation and walk me though why you fall on one side or

another?” In some cases, I introduced two probes when participants did not spontaneously speak

about these issues: (a) How do you respond to the criticism/ idea that mainstreaming EP will

cause it to become co-opted and less potent, and (b) How do you respond to the idea that if we

don’t mainstream EP, we’re withholding the elixir?

First Generation

First generation participants’ responses focused on action results, which is consistent with

a strong sense that the primary purpose of ecopsychology is to work towards systemic change,

critique organized academia, call for a paradigm shift, and recognize nature as an elixir and

teacher.

Themes. These themes appeared in all four of the first-generation participants responses:

x The field should remain radical and counter cultural. Mainstreaming the field would

threaten its potency.

x A critical view of the field of psychology (within academia and professional

organizations such as the APA) as a corporate tool/ power structure.

x The belief that capitalism is harmful to the earth and human psyche.

x A critical view of academia’s utility; specifically, that the writings and philosophies

become lost in journals and higher educational classrooms that are largely

inaccessible to the public.

x The necessity of seeking in nature the ultimate source of knowledge and human

healing.

x The belief and corresponding sense that there is an urgency and limited time to

address the climate crises and that radical praxis (as defined by Andy Fisher, 2012) is

necessary.

Participant Summaries. All of the participants reflected upon the above themes in their

interviews. The following are examples of particularly illustrative expressions of these themes

from three of the four individual participants’ responses I have categorized as first generation.

Themes. The field should remain radical and counter cultural. Mainstreaming the field

would threaten its potency. Kanner highlighted how many in the Berkley group who founded EP

already had their PhDs:

That if ecopsychology just becomes another field like social psychology or clinical … it

wouldn’t challenge these very large structures and systems and ways of thinking … it

wouldn’t be successful in facilitating the kinds of changes that we thought it needed.

Kanner explained that when the journal of Ecopsychology was first published, there was hope it

would broaden the accessibility of the field and move away from the radical label. But Kanner’s

reaction to that was skepticism: mainstreaming would mean depoliticizing the field and

participating in a “broken” system.

Themes. A critical view of the field of psychology (within academia and professional

organizations such as the APA) as a corporate tool/ power structure. Pilisuk is first generational

because he is vocal about identifying and critiquing powerful structures, including the structure

of the association that governs the field of psychology known as the American Psychological

Association (APA). In his interview, Pilisuk describes the “dirty dealings” of the APA,

illustrating that the organization has acted unethically at times. He cites the Hoffman Report

which found the APA culpable in covering for the contracts that psychologists were making in

the military and allowing psychologists to participate in coercive interrogation: “This reflects the

fact that APA is part of a larger system of which it seeks obsessional control, and it is not going

to rock its major financial sources.” This statement shows his skepticism that EP will be accepted

because of the control the APA holds. Pilisuk also stresses the importance of emotional

connection to nature rather than the cerebral academic view.

For some time ecopsychology was an attempt by psychologists to relate their work to

ecological concerns, it was largely a movement that went from one academic paper to

another usually involved white middle-class people and it introduced a message that is

still yet to be fulfilled, the idea that environmental problems can be solved technically.

Themes. The belief that capitalism is harmful to the earth and human psyche. All of the

participants responses echo the foundational idea of Roszak’s first tenants that the personal is

planetary. Ecopsychologists believe that reciprocal relationships with nature foster a healthier

psychological mindset and detract from habitual narcissistic thinking which capitalism promotes.

First generation participants were more vocal about naming capitalism as creating a consumer

mindset that acts as if natural resources are infinite. Lion highlights the links between corporate

greed, capitalism, and environmental crises. He explains how agriculture has changed to

monoculture and how corporations use “systematic propaganda” to weaken cultural values and

“instill a new one which enslaves” people and “strips them of their identity [and] turns them into

machines—that’s colonialism. Capitalism cannot thrive without colonial plantations.” Lion

emphasizes how Americans materialistic and consumeristic lifestyle comes at the cost of workers

dignity and the environment.

Themes. A critical view of academia’s utility; specifically, that the writings and

philosophies become lost in journals and higher educational classrooms that are largely

inaccessible to the public. Kanner, first generation, expressed the need for more direct action to

promote the ideas and philosophies of ecopsychology. “Beyond the journal too, we would need

to be saying, okay how do we get this out into the world more effectively with what we know?”

Kanner rejects the idea that empirical evidence (second generation thinking) should be a central

focus in the field. He is also emphatic about the urgency to act:

Another study showing that nature is healing? I don’t know how many more of those we

need, you know what I mean? So I don’t know if that’s the best emphasis, I don’t want to

dictate to people what they should or should not research or what kind of clinical work

they want to do but I want them to be thinking about these bigger questions and we are

running out of time so there is a kind of urgency to it all.

Themes. The belief and corresponding sense that there is an urgency and limited time to

address the climate crises and that radical praxis (as defined by Andy Fisher, 2012) is necessary.

Kanner emphasizes that “it takes some courage to challenge these bigger systems.” Since these

bigger systems are, according to Kanner, inherently toxic, incremental changes from within the

system are ineffectual because they don’t address the fundamental issues of capitalism and

colonialism which are embedded within academic institutions. Instead of solely publishing

scholarly articles, he calls for:

hav[ing] a strategy around taking your results and bringing them out into the world in the

most effective way possible … as opposed to just getting a publication in a journal, that

you know 72–80 people might read. And that would entail things like contacting activist

groups and saying I have this how can this help? Contacting the media and trying to get

coverage (which is not what you’re supposed to do as an academic) … so that you are

actually taking the knowledge and using the authority that you have gotten because

you’re a researcher, and you have results, and you have a publication, and then taking it

as far as you can … in terms of trying to make it more impactful. And not just to

convince your colleagues to reference you which is usually a criteria by which academic

success is measured.

Themes. The necessity of seeking in nature the ultimate source of knowledge and human

healing. John Scull would be considered first generation because his emphasis is not on

academia or gathering empirical knowledge, but rather getting out in nature and letting nature

itself be the “elixir.” He explains:

That is what we need to learn from our contact with nature, we need to let it change us

and change our culture and so taking a psychological theory like psychoanalysis, Gestalt

psychology, or trans-personal psychology … and applying that to nature is just

immediately missing the point. The point is to let … understanding flow in the other

direction, not to take our theories and map [them] onto the natural world ... as long as

people are indoors talking about it nothing’s going to happen.

Second Generation

These participants’ responses reflected a shift towards more academic involvement and

wanting to make changes from within the system that would “green” psychology. They take a

more measured approach, striving for small changes within the system instead of a call for a

paradigm shift. These participants conceptualize EP as the philosophical origins behind

ecotherapy and a medium for helping society to utilize nature in a range of professional settings

such as hospitals, schools, and prisons to facilitate greater wellbeing. Additionally, these

participants place an emphasis on empirical evidence and want to move away from what is

perceived as stigma against first generational thinking as being overly idealistic and not

organized enough to create change.

Themes. These themes appeared in second generation participants answers:

x The belief that the counter-culture origins reflect poorly on the field and keep it

marginalized.

x The importance of academia and empirical evidence to legitimize the field and

provide greater access to it.

x An emphasis on ecotherapy as a healing method that can be applied without

recognizing the philosophical origins of ecopsychology.

Participant Summaries. The following are examples from the interviews of Thomas

Doherty and Patricia Hasbach, whose statements strongly reflect second generational thinking.

Doherty believes it is better to legitimize the field by showing strong research and empirical

evidence to support effective eco therapy. Further, Doherty believes it is ineffective to challenge

the structures as the field will continue to be relegated to a counter-culture idealist philosophy

and it is more effective to make small changes from within the system: “Because of its grassroots

origins the field had a hard time getting a foot in academia, second generation helped to

legitimize the field in academia’s eyes.” Doherty views overtly challenging the system as

problematic because it keeps this field on the fray and viewed as counterculture.

Doherty expressed the belief that the radical philosophical origins of the field and

resistance of some of the founders to science and academia stopped the field from growing into a

movement. “I mean at any level, if you want to influence a school board or your town council or

your city or whatever organization you know, there are certain ways to do that, (laughs) you

know and um part of that is having a very clear argument and being very systematic.” Doherty

sees the second generation as the grounding force that the field needs to progress.

Hasbach identifies as second generation because of her position that the field needs

“greater scholarship and stronger scientific research” in order for it to be taken more seriously.

She sees value in utilizing the field as a way to provide health and healing to more people. Here

she expresses hope for the future of the field because it has moved away from its counterculture

stigma with legitimate studies proving its efficacy.

I think there is a lot more crossover where ecopsychology was still looked at as this woo-

woo fringy field where true researchers don’t want to tread. In fact, we’re seeing just a lot

of work from using empirical data around treatment of depression and treatment of

anxiety and some of those treatments being based on ecopsychology theory and biophilia

and those kinds of theoretical bases. So, I think there has been tremendous growth.

Hasbach acknowledges EP’s roll in validating qualitative as opposed to quantitative research but

also suggests qualitative research and data can and should be further legitimized.

Straddlers

Two participants consider themselves “straddlers,” meaning they view themselves to be

on both sides of the philosophical divide.

Themes.

x The belief that the counterculture philosophical origins are necessary wisdom for the

field moving forward.

x The perspective that systemic and structural change can be created from accumulative

changes within the “broken” system.

Participant Summaries. William Hafford expresses why he “straddles” between first

and second generations. He conceptualizes first generational thinking as the more passionate

approach and second generational as more logical.

I think I straddle in part because here I am in an academic capacity … I see the need to

formalize and green psychology … and then I can totally see Andy Fisher’s point of

radical ecopsychology and the need for that. He has my heart, and my brain kind of says

like well at the same time we need to increase our reach and it’s got to be through these

kind of formal channels and we need to infect this larger organization and get them

moving in that direction. So, you know that’s a tough one … we can go down the river in

two canoes for a little while and hopefully meet up.

Hafford expresses hope that both approaches can meld at some point.

Linda Buzzell also straddles both sides of the generational line. She passionately reveres

the indigenous roots of the philosophies around EP and credits her own garden with providing “a

transformational experience” for her. Thus, she views nature as an elixir and conducts therapy

outdoors. Buzzell expresses first generational radical thinking:

Do we really want ecopsychology to be one more psychology? Do you really want

ecotherapy to be one more therapy or is it a revolutionary thing? It’s actually … a total

paradigm shift and that’s what people … within ecopsychology are asking for. It’s not

enough just to include good therapeutic methods within some mainstream psychology or

medical treatment … and especially because of the eco crisis.

Yet she is also deeply rooted in the academic world, and it could be argued that her books have

put ecotherapy on the map, thus mainstreaming the practice of ecotherapy. Buzzell expresses

second generation support in connection with the usefulness of gathering empirical evidence:

I do think that [the efficacy of ecotherapy is] beginning to be accepted and I think the

rapid growth of ecotherapy is because of those studies so I’m all in favor of them. I mean

some of their research on the effects of nature connection on various conditions is

mind-boggling. And I think unless the research results had been that robust, I don’t think

people would have felt confident. I mean the reason why medical doctors are now doing

nature research is because we produced these studies [with positive effects on mental and

physical health that we don’t see from] many, many other things including medication.

It’s just unequivocal; I mean the studies that were done from 2005 to 2006 in the UK at

the University of Essex that showed that a walk in green nature was as effective as

antidepressants for mild to moderate depression was a mind blower.

Multiple Interpretations of Ecopsychology

There are multiple interpretations of ecopsychology in the literature. Many agree that its

very definition is flexible with permeable boundaries that resist concrete definition. From a

phenomenological viewpoint, I am interested in getting the perspectives of the experts of their

evolving definition of what is important and perhaps core to EP at the time of this interview. The

participants were asked the following interview questions: What is your personal definition of

ecopsychology? What are the key tenets in your definition?

All of the participants agreed EP is a philosophical frame that places emotional and

psychological wellbeing of humans as inextricably related to the health of the planet. Buzzell

references the root meaning of the word to orient her definition.

If you take the word ecopsychology and break it down there’s a lot in there. Eco is a

Greek word for home, psyche is pretty self-evident, and then Logos which you could

interpret as the study of, so if you put those together I think it does come up with some

sort of, the study of this relationship between the human psyche and nature our home. So

I think you can dig really deeply into that word and get a lot of interesting stuff.

Buzzell’s response was the only one that referenced the literal definition of the word, but I think

she sums up nicely the consensus of the rest of the participants.

All of the participants echoed one of Roszak’s tenants of the field describing the need to

interact with the environment in a way that preserves it. Kanner expresses this when he

advocates for “a return to a more reciprocal way of living with the world around us, that at the

end of the day … we can continue living in this environment.”

All of the participants agreed that there is an element of environmental activism5

associated with the philosophy that should be enacted. They differ in their approach, however;

about half expressed the belief that the hands-on activism with the environment as well as

political activism6, is the most important element of ecopsychology. Scull emphasizes the

5 Based on the definition of “environmental activism” that appears on TheFreeDictionary.com,

one can define an environmental activist as a person who advocates for, or works towards,

protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution.

6 For the purpose of this paper, I am describing two kinds of activists one is hands on, meaning

being physically involved with nature, restoring habitats or protecting natural sites with a

importance of involving youth in this hands-on approach and “forgetting” about theory and

philosophy.

I reckon that might be where ecopsychology could really have an influence, forgetting

about Young and Hellman and those people and just take a bunch of kids out and help

them repair the natural world. I do a lot on the land trust movement we do a lot of

planting trees and clearing invasive plants and restoring streams. To me that’s what

ecopsychology is about, do that mindfully and thoughtfully.

Lesley Davenport and Buzzell emphasized EP as a platform to treat climate change

victims or climate refugees. Davenport (2017) nicely summarizes why she wrote her book in

which the title indicates her intent, Emotional Resilience in the Era of Climate Change.

Looking at health and healing from multiple perspectives with each discipline having a

valid voice, … what if we bring that over to the climate change arena? Yes, we need the

engineers. Yes, we need the science, but psychology has not been at the table very much

and yet we have so much to offer. I came up with a book about how to work with denial,

how to change habits [because] even when someone wants to get on board it’s hard to do.

This quote illustrates Davenport’s interpretation of ecopsychology as a platform for helping with

behavioral change that would lead to hands on activism.

Four of the participants were more politically oriented and had a more radical philosophy

that holds responsible large cultural structures such as capitalism as the root of the climate crises

and western cultures growing pathologies. Buzzell describes how our capitalist system has

“brainwashed” us into accepting an ecocidal culture as “normal.” She explains:

Once you really understand that you are part and parcel of industrial culture … I mean

we’ve all been brainwashed into it … it’s very hard to see through all of it … It’s actually

an abomination and how a lot of indigenous cultures were living was normal and we’re

living in this incredibly unnormal situation. I mean we’re destroying [the earth] …

suicidal, matriarchal, ecocidal, that’s our culture. That’s pretty weird; if we had been like

this all through the history of humanity we wouldn’t be here.

physical presence. Political activism involves attending protests, writing letters, spreading

information.

Historically EP created a platform for critiquing the field of psychology, which is also

viewed by first generation thinkers as a powerful structure that should be questioned and

monitored. More than half of the participants consider this as continuing to be an important

central tenant, as is reflected in the following quote by Pilisuk as he calls attention to the

corporate aspect of psychology and why as an organization it does not always function with the

health of humans as a first concern.

Psychology is a well-organized and large corporate professional endeavor and to the

extent that it can do things that regard racial equality or environmental concerns without

Rocking the Boat they are happy to do that. They get good publicity for doing

that. Where it starts to affect their bottom line as an organization, they’re much more

reluctant.

Hafford also challenges the field by directly questioning how we interpret mental health issues

such as anxiety and depression and what we consider the role of the psychologist in the context

of capitalism and the climate crises.

Take heart in the words of Clarence Darrow, “we should comfort the afflicted and afflict

the comfortable” because I think it’s totally true and I often think it’s true for us as

psychologists. It’s like what is our role? To help people get over their depression and

anxiety so that they can become better consumers and define the structure that ends our

species? Or is our role to uncover and examine the underpinnings? Maybe depression and

anxiety are a normal response to destructive human patterns of living. Are there other

frames that we can be pursuing? I think that is a hopeful piece for us, maybe a role in

afflicting the comfortable. And honestly, as a field we have been very comfortable for a

long time. I’m happy that there is some discomfort.

The participants who represent first generation thinking also take issue with the apolitical stance

traditionally taken by academics in the field of psychology. These participants believe that

because mental, emotional, and environmental health are affected by political legislation,

psychologists should not have a neutral stance in these matters, but rather speak to evidence of

what humans need to prosper and thrive. As ecopsychologists, this includes issues around

environmental justice.

In contrast Doherty was the only participant who advises against publicly critiquing the

field as he believes that is not the most effective way forward.

I don’t insult the community; I don’t tell them that their damaged, their broken I don’t tell

them that I’m smarter than they are, so they should listen to me, you know. I don’t point

the finger; that doesn’t work very well. Sometimes people who are really fired up about

these issues forget that.

Of all the participants, Doherty was the most outspoken about the dangers of alienating the larger

community and limiting the possibility of collaboration. Like other second generational thinkers

Doherty advocates for working from within the system making small sustainable changes

towards reform.

First generation participant responses included an exploration of the problems with the

Cartesian dualism that is still present within the field. As mentioned in the literature review, this

dualism allowed humans to identify primarily as an intellectual being which was the beginning

of adopting the anthropocentric view that the physical, including the natural world and its

resources were disposable and non-sacred. Most ecopsychologists point to the fact that humans

do not exist outside their environment just as the brain does not exist without the body, thus

illuminating a fundamental error in the Western approach to both medicine and psychology

which treats symptoms and “parts” rather than holistic causes.

Greening The APA

The APA now supports psychologists’ involvement in scientific research on global

climate change and on the role of human behavior as a significant contributor. In 2017, the APA

and The Climate for Health and Eco America put forth a report on climate change and “the

psychological aspects of human environment relations”. However, this report is problematic in

that it continues to reflect the field’s anthropocentric values. It does not take into account man’s

devastation on the environment, but rather, it suggests the beginning of a framework for how

psychologists can help people cope with the effects of climate change including counseling

practices for psychologists working with climate refugees. The participants were asked: Does

this report indicate that APA is making steps towards greening psychology?

Most of the participants agree this is a step towards greening psychology. Two added that

the greening of psychology would only be possible if it became financially advantageous for the

corporation of psychology (APA) to green. About half of the participants referenced Division 34

of the APA as being a driving force towards issuing the 2017 report. This division includes

environmental psychology and conservation psychology. They noted this division has a positive

influence on the greater field of psychology as it reflects a step towards ecological awareness.

Here, Hasbach expresses her view that this kind of report is a step towards greening the

field of psychology as it takes the relationship between humans and the environment as part of a

scientific study which can then lead to a greater ability to influence behavior changes.

I think that over the years that I have been involved in APA there’s definitely been a lot of

shifts. The division 34 of APA which concentrates on environmental psychology and

conservation psychology really has become quite an active division. I do think that APA

has definitely grown in the clinical application of ecotherapy but they’re also recognizing

the psychological role of many social changes, in this case climate change. You know we

can give people lots of facts and information but to try to change behaviors, we then have

to understand more about their relationship with the environment. So I do think that over

the last, certainly 6 to 10 years there has been greater appreciation of that relationship.

Doherty also acknowledges the report as a positive step towards raising awareness of the

relationship between climate change and mental health. However, he also reminds us of the

vastness of the field and its penchant for creating subdivisions and various categories of

psychology and is therefore skeptical of the concept of greening psychology.

The APA having the climate change task force years ago that I was involved in was a

positive step …I think the reports are good as far as raising consciousness of people

…and having that foundation about this idea that climate change does in fact effect

mental health. Greening psychology on the other hand is a whole different thing … some

sort of ecological vision for society, and that’s a tougher issue. I don’t know if it’s

possible to talk about psychology in any kind of unitary term, like there is an “it” that you

are greening, a psychology “it” because psychology is this huge vast field.

The participants’ responses all reflected the idea that this report is a step towards looking

at our relationship with the natural world, but also skepticism about the significance it will have

on the practice of psychology. Doherty’s comment suggests limitations in making small changes

from within the system and he also rejects the possibility and value of paradigm shifts. Straddlers

such as Buzzell may take issue with this point of view as she suggested both small changes and

system overhaul is helpful, needed, and possible.

Practice of Ecotherapy

The practice of EP widens the therapeutic lens from a traditional context of gender, race,

age, and socioeconomic status to include the patient’s current interaction with nature and

animals, as well as their historical relationship to nature and animals. Ecotherapists often but not

exclusively interact with their clients in an outdoor setting. They also explore their clients’

feelings of hope or despair regarding environmental damage, and the climate crises, which is

known within the field as eco anxiety. The following questions were asked to bring further

clarity to the practice of ecotherapy: How is the intake process different for an ecotherapist? If

you are not hearing [eco-anxiety] in a client’s story how do you address it?

Four participants are both currently in practice and commented on their intake process.

None of these four overtly advertise themselves as ecotherapists, rather, they integrate this

orientation into their approach. Three of them write about it on their websites. None of the

therapists push or lead their clients to talk about nature or eco-anxiety. Their ecotherapeutic

approach can appear in several contexts.

Davenport has the following question about climate change on her therapy practice intake

form: “When you hear about what’s happening in the world, in particular climate change, how do

you feel, what do you notice, do you find it distressing?” She reported, “You know I get a little

of everything like I don’t really think about it, to wow great question, wasn’t expecting this on a

therapist form.”

Hasbach and Buzzell ask about a client’s relationship with nature during their intake

process. Here Hasbach describes her intake process within the context of ecotherapy: “Part of my

intake is talking a little bit about their relationship with the natural world while I’m getting

information about their families of origin. If someone claims not to have much of a relationship

with nature or doesn’t care much about a relationship with nature, I just note it.” Buzzell

describes how her approach is more general in her intake process, but she also listens for themes

that relate to ecopsychology:

It’s interesting to ask a client how they feel about the state of the world - perhaps not even

mentioning the earth. It can be helpful to encourage talking about how the world was

during their childhood and their parents’ and grandparents’ times and what they and

perhaps their children and grandchildren are dealing with now. Very few clients aren’t

aware of the significant degeneration that’s happened to quality of life, political and

cultural degeneration, worsening health of the planet, etc. Asking people how they think

things will be here on earth during their children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes can also

release a flood of thoughts and feelings.

Buzzell is describing how she is listening for ecopsychological themes without necessarily

naming them for her client.

All of the participants who use ecopsychology and ecotherapy as a framework for

practicing therapy are careful not to push an agenda with their clients. Here Davenport describes

her technique of both understanding her clients from within an EP framework and how she may

introduce ecotherapeutic techniques once the rapport is established:

Notice if it makes a difference … putting your feet in the dirt … it could easily be a part

of [therapeutic homework] along with watching your self-talk, it’s not that hard [to

introduce ecotherapeutic strategies] once there is that rapport and they are coming to you

for help.

Hafford and Buzzell provided examples of how they hold the theoretical framework of

EP and prescribe ecotherapeutic activities. Hafford takes people for walks and also leads

adventure therapies. Buzzell meets people in her garden and practices horticulture therapy. Here

Hafford describes why he utilizes ecotherapy within the ecopsychological context.

It allows a wider experience than just clinician and client. There is the client and their

environment and their challenge of whatever activity you are engaging in, whatever kind

of natural experience they’re having of observing a pond, or a stream, or a lake, or just

about anything really. It allows for that kind of rich intersubjective experience, so that to

me is a key element of what makes ecopsychology useful and relevant.

Professionalism and Credentials

Currently there are no credentials required for a person to utilize ecotherapy, and

according to the literature review, a person can call themselves an ecotherapist without any

formal training or professional affiliations. However, the title ecopsychologist requires a

doctorate in psychology. The participants were asked: Currently there are no credentials needed

for a person to administer ecotherapy, can you talk about the pros and cons of this? The

participants’ responses explored the issues surrounding professionalism and the benefits and

drawbacks of the lack of credentialing.

In terms of mainstreaming ecotherapy half of the participants had some key concerns

about why this would be harmful for the field. The two emerging reservation’s themes were: the

field should maintain its counterculture roots and philosophies, valuable practitioners without

doctorates could be excluded.

Lions, who has no formal educational training, would be one of the practitioners

excluded if credentials were needed to practice ecotherapy. He takes people on walks and hikes

teaching foraging, medicinal plant identification, and various wilderness survival techniques.

Lions reports zero incidents of illness or harm to his students in over a decade of teaching. He

has several thousand social media followers. Here Lions talks about his alternative “education”

and how nature teaches people important lessons of perceiving themselves as part of a greater

system and cycle.

[I have no formal education] I am people educated and book educated, and internet

educated, and workshop educated. I believe more in the Indian ideal I seek the teacher

and sit with them. It’s not about what kind of piece of paper you have it’s the time you

spend with people who are knowledgeable. I believe in elders and I’m constantly

searching for what are the elders of this culture and also Rites of Passage because now

we’re about three years old emotionally, and adults intellectually. We don’t necessarily

get an emotional education [as children] and I believe that the number one cause of the

disconnect and the lack of empathy and the suffering [in our culture] is because we’re not

taught how to perceive outside of ourselves.

Davenport, who has a master’s in clinical psychology but not a doctorate, also felt it was

important to be able to get involved in the movement without needing advanced degrees or titles.

Here she describes how she navigates: “Well, I don’t call myself that [an ecopsychologist or an

ecotherapist], but I do say that I’m involved in climate psychology, which is tricky because I’m

not a psychologist.”

On the other hand, some participants expressed concerns around issues of competency

and client safety resulting from lack of regulation. Including the issue of people practicing

beyond their scope, which includes not properly assessing psychological needs or fragility as

well as “leaders” not having expertise in keeping people physically safe in wilderness situations.

Hafford expresses the dangers in non-accredited programs taking people to nature, but he also

expresses concern about relying solely on that small pool of graduates who come out of our

university system.

Unfortunately, we have had some programs that have branded themselves Adventure

therapy programs and they killed their participants by accident or through neglect or

maltreatment. I think about, well what are we really looking for from ecopsychology and

it is a return to a more reciprocal way of living with the world around us that, at the end

of the day, we can continue living in this environment. I find it difficult to think that’s

only going to be done by licensed and credentialed providers verses … whatever the

answer is, I just doubt it’s going to come only from a handful of highly credentialed

experts I’m just a very reluctant to endorse that view.

Without the boundaries or structures of a licensed field, there is not an agreed upon code

of ethics to guide practitioners. Hasbach expresses the ethical risks that come with lack of

regulation and the need for standards of competency:

I think there are some pros and cons about it. I think I get concerned when people call

themselves Ecotherapists and they’ve taken one class or a 3-hour workshop and I think

that’s true again with any pioneering field whether it’s an education or psychology. So,

people really have to be competent with not only the methods and therapeutic practices

they’re doing but also really need to be competent in the safety issues or have First

Responders with them if they’re really taking people out. And I think that’s unique to

ecotherapy but our ethics boards whether it’s APA or ACA or social work ethics all of

those have the expectation that we work within our field of competency and I think that’s

an important piece that covers all of it these topics.

Some participants’ responses showed both sides of the issue discussing pros and cons of

greater regulation. Buzzell reflects this paradox:

I’m not recommending more regulation I believe that we have so much regulation in

terms of our current psychological practice which there is reasons all of it have happened,

there’s been some really awful cases where people really have been damaged. So, it’s the

same thing with doctors I mean we want a certain amount of regulation we don’t want

doctors running around doing awful things. But at the same time you don’t want to sort of

squish the life out of something and you know a lot of it can be dealt with giving people

informed consent you know really educating people so they can make a decision about if

a visit is good for them is safe for them.

About half the participants voiced a need for specific practices to be examined such as

who is qualified or has the cultural right to use indigenous ceremonial practices such as vision

quests in pursuit of psychological healing. Buzzell discusses concerns about cultural

appropriation and also safety of the clients: “I mean somebody could just anoint themselves

some kind of Eco group and take people out. There are big questions even about Vision Quests

first of all are they cultural appropriated? Second are the people involved actually trained?”

Accessibility to the Field

EP is gaining popularity in universities, but it is not well known outside academia or in

the media. Participants were asked the following questions which address both why EP is not

more popular and what can be done to promote the field and its philosophies: What can be done

to allow greater accessibility to the field of ecopsychology and eco therapy? What do you think

could/should be done to bring its message to a greater audience?

About half of the participants mentioned the field’s association with higher education as

being part of the problem in that it only influences a small demographic. Lions expresses this

sentiment when he says:

Academia is full of insightful ideas but nobody I know is reading psychological medical

journals about ecopsychology on PubMed and in order for that to become different it

needs to be presented in a way where it feels like it matters not just because it sounds

intellectually convincing.

Kanner expressed concern that there is danger in losing the importance of the

philosophical origins of ecopsychology in the contemporary halls of academia. He expressed the

belief that an education around ecopsychology should be used as a way to educate and inform a

more lay audience about the movement.

Don’t miss the big picture because I can tell you exactly what will happen [if

professionals only focus on scholarly writing] you have a nice publication you’ll have a

nice career and you’ll be in the Ivory Tower and nothing’s going to change, and we don’t

have time . . . academic ideas and academia … have changed society but it’s very slow

process and so we need some other kind of idea of what it means to be an

ecopsychologist that doesn’t conform to the normal kind of career path.

This is indicative of first generation thinking that reflects the idea that ecopsychology is more

than a degree or a career path: it is a means of activism that should ignite critical change that can

help save the planet.

EP and Ethical Responsibility and Activism

Participants were asked the following question: What is the connection between

promoting EP and your professional ethical responsibility as a therapist (teacher / researcher)?

There was a consensus around the idea that once the connection between environmental

responsibilities and mental health (polluted planet and polluted mind) was made they

experienced an awakening. Once this awareness is attained their world view was changed.

Hafford sums this sentiment up when he says:

Well, I feel like if we know, we should help. And so, I think it’s difficult to absolve

ourselves once we have this knowledge. I think the futility of that effort is secondary to

the ethical imperative, I guess. So yes, I think it’s more of an ethic.

Buzzell expresses this responsibility through training psychologists as a way to educate others as

ecotherapists and ecopsychologists.

Well, how I see it and what I’m trying to do with my work, is being involved with

training lots of existing mental health professionals in [EP philosophy and Ecotherapy

techniques] and how to do it so we really have a lot of people all over the country who

are willing and really good at working with people. It is evidenced-based therapy, which

is a new sort of gold standard within therapy. My goal is to just make more of the existing

people helpers aware that this exists as a tool that can be a part of their tool kit. Of

course, I think it’s much more than that but that’s sort of that first step that I hope to see

people take, just to get educated.

Popularity of Field

Another barrier to the popularity of the field, besides the lack of unity, in terms of

theoretical differences, is the inability to gain traction in public discourse. Some of these barriers

discussed by participants included the absence of a leadership figure and effective branding.

Lions suggests that perhaps a charismatic spokesperson for the field is needed; he is one

of three participants who expressed this sentiment:

I feel like psychology mutters amongst itself in these journals that are hidden away

instead of being spokespeople. For example, Bill Nye or … Carl Sagan, these are people

that can break the mold of just chattering in medical journals that actually can bridge the

gap back into our societies.

Lions also expresses how the term “global warming” minimized the danger of the situation; he

discusses how other terms could be more effective in helping people to conceptualize the

scientific reality of climate change.

In this movement environmental scientists are not very good at marketing or PR and

when they came out with their presentation of environmental catastrophe, they said the

wrong word which was ‘global warming’ and if they would have said … climate

erraticness, or something different. If the meaning was something more encompassing of

unstable environmental changes instead of ‘heating up’ then it would have been a totally

different situation.

At the heart of it, EP is more than a cerebral experience. Participants mentioned that EP is

not just an intellectual idea, and the solutions will not come from people experiencing something

on an intellectual level. Participants suggested using art as a medium for increasing people’s

empathy towards the environment or finding a charismatic spokesperson that can reach people’s

emotions and ability to care for the environment. Many participants envision the purpose of the

field to reach people on a more holistic level and ignite the passion necessary to save the planet.

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

Ecopsychology (EP) looks at the pathology of North American culture and examines

behaviors that put our planet at risk. This paper primarily used exploratory expert interviews to

facilitate a deeper understanding of how EP is situated within the larger field of psychology and

to highlight how restoring the human nature relationship is necessary for greater psychological

wellbeing (which is also critical given the climate crises).

Most researchers and practitioners of EP agree a new perspective is needed to challenge

the dominant social paradigm which views nature and the earth as expendable and separate from

human health. In recent decades, the field has amassed a substantial amount of empirical

evidence supporting the effectiveness of ecotherapy (the applied practice of ecopsychology), but

ecotherapy remains largely underutilized in part due to its radical roots and continued call for

cultural change. There are divisions and concerns within the fields of ecopsychology and

ecotherapy about how to have the greatest impact in eliciting change in clients and society.

To address the psychological effects of our disharmony with nature, ecopsychology

arguably needs to have more influence within the greater field of psychology. The research

suggests that experts and founding members of the movement believe it is critically important

that both psychologists and laymen gain access to the tenants and philosophies of EP. While

participants did care about the notoriety of the field, they were more interested in the ideas

circulating, even if the tenants were not presented under the EP label.

The foundational ideas of EP are based on indigenous teachings which advocate for a

reciprocal relationship with nature including the concept of “honorable harvest,” which instills

the practice of taking only what is given (and needed). This approach is incompatible with our

consumerist capitalistic culture. Many of the participants feel it is time for psychologists to take a

more active role in identifying and discouraging beliefs and attitudes that harm people and planet

and to encourage more environmentally synergistic habits.

Three main themes emerged from the data: the importance of and obstacles to greening

psychology, the value of utilizing the philosophical ideas behind EP, and how EP is a social

movement that challenges larger societal structures’ negative impact on person and planet.

Conflict Within the Field of Ecopsychology

Greening psychology is a term Roszak used to describe his belief that the broader field of

psychology needs to widen the therapeutic lens to include EP principles which acknowledge the

link between personal and planetary health. Roszack’s sentiment that EP becoming its own field

is less important than the philosophical approach infiltrating the broader field of psychology still

rings true. One common theme that emerged from the expert interviews was that being under the

umbrella of the EP label is less important than carrying on what is known as “the work” [Joanna

Macey’s term for being a green citizen].

Some, such as Hasbach, feel it is important to work under the label of EP to keep the

body of work organized and moving forward. Others feel labels were useful at first to organize

the collection of thoughts that started the EP movement, but now these ideas have infiltrated and

influenced a broad variety of fields.

Doherty explains his view that EP can be used as a foundation for individuals to study or

pursue fields and specific approaches that are not necessarily under the umbrella of EP yet

incorporate EP ideas such as conservation psychology, climate psychology, and psycho education

surrounding living in balance with the planet’s resources. De Lion, Davenport, and Doherty use

the foundational ideas of EP to address psychological health in the time of climate crises, yet

none of them consider themselves active in the field of EP. De Lions, Davenport, and Doherty

share the first generational thinking that activism is a greater pressing issue than identifying as

part of the field of ecopsychology.

Doherty reminds us that EP did not start out as an academic field, “It started out as a kind

of grassroots field and it’s always had a hard time finding a footing in academia.” He describes

how there was not consensus about:

foundational assumptions where everyone agreed. So it wasn’t founded in a logical

systemic way like other academic fields, where there would be some general agreement

about a knowledge base and a research base and some empirical bases. It was born more

ideologically more as a movement as a social movement.

Doherty commented, “I’m not actively involved in EP right now, I’m not teaching and

I’m not working with the journal,” and explained that he used the label “first generation” to

describe the differences in thinking that emerged in his generation versus the original thinkers:

“It was really just more descriptive in the sense that I was of a different generation than

Theodore Roszak … I was born while he was writing his first [articles] so that was a different

generation.” Some, including Buzzell, argue that Doherty’s labels of “first generation” and

“second generation” could be interpreted as derisive to first generation thinkers. Buzzell

reflected on how the labels could be viewed as insulting and “almost a fighting term that

somebody came up with to basically insult the people who started the field, saying that we had

not been scientific enough.” Buzzell does not strictly align with either generational view and

feels both are necessary for the enrichment and forward movement of the field.

I always see EP as a big tent and there's plenty of room for …the traditional science

people … but I don't think there is any need to kind of trash the early people who come

from a little bit more philosophical and spiritual [background].

Within EP, there is difference of opinion as to what approach will actually create a

greener society. Doherty feels that the most effective way to create change is to work from within

the system. He does not believe that first generation approach of creating a new society is

possible and that effective activism involves learning how to work from within the system to

make changes. According to Doherty, radical approaches are a waste of time and energy.

Doherty suggests that because “some of the early people … were against science or academia …

it kind of stopped the field from actually growing to be a movement.” Doherty identifies as a

pragmatist and argues:

If you want to make change in society, I mean at any level … you know, there are certain

ways to do that. Part of that is having a very clear argument . . . and being very

systematic so people can understand where you are coming from. Some of the folks that

do environmental work and eco psyche work don't do that kind of thing. It sort of

becomes a you are with me or against me.

According to Doherty, currently the EP label is not necessarily going to afford any traction in

making societal changes, due to the counterculture roots and the tendency for black and white

thinking within the field. Doherty suggests the label can actually be an obstacle for the

movement being taken seriously within certain platforms.

Hasbach expresses her view that regardless of first generation second generation labels,

her efforts were grounded in the desire to move the field forward by recognizing the importance

of both the more radical beginnings of the field and the move towards a body of empirical

evidence.

Yeah, I never thought that it was, you know a confrontational phrase, if you really look at

the forward in our book … one of the things that we wanted to emphasize was really

moving the field forward on some work that had been done that was pioneering work and

really important work to call out and identify the human and nature relationship. What we

were trying to do was not only heal a divide but move it forward and to recognize that

there is good work being done in environmental psychology and there is good work being

done in conservation psychology and that grounds a lot of the work that we would do.

Hasbach chalks up the tension to a natural outgrowth of the field finding its voice. “I guess I’ve

been in this long enough [to see] there’s been different waves [in the field of EP] and anytime

there’s transition people tend to get edgy about that.”

Doherty inadvertently threw out these labels as descriptive terms to distinguish differing

views and directions the field of EP could take. His labels brought clarity to what some view as

opposing forces within the field, which creates obstacles for unification and strength and

ultimately hinder the ability to spread key ideas that are important to humanity. Yet regardless of

Doherty naming the distinction, the dynamic nature of the field lends to a broad variety of

interpretations of which paths to take. Many feel there is enough room for all these differing

ideas and that the labels moved the conversation forward creating traction. Ultimately, now years

later, most advocate for getting away from or not worrying too much about whether something

fits under the umbrella label of EP, but rather focus on how to make skillful practical change.

Doherty is not interested in which generation is “right,” but rather holds the view that the

ideas of EP are alive and well and spreading through other fields (such as ecology and medicine)

that utilize nature as a healing resource. This idea of the fundamental importance of fostering (or

remembering) the relationship between man and nature is one that is unanimously backed by all

participants as essential to healing planet and person.

Davenport is a licensed integrative psychotherapist and does not affiliate with

ecopsychology or ecotherapy. She calls herself a “climate psychology consultant.” She explained

that as an activist she felt an urgency to distribute her book, Emotional Resiliency in the Era of

Climate Change - A Clinicians Guide, as a practical tool for clinicians to help their clients

navigate the climate crises. I included her as a participant to evaluate what was happening in this

arena, but outside the eco psychological label. In her book and the interview, she maps out a way

through “eco angst” to connect or reconnect with nature in a way that is sustainable to our

psyche and the earth. She does so without a doctorate and without the EP label. The main points

Davenport is arguing for are a greening of all fields, bringing psychology to the climate crises

table, focusing on activism (specifically how to deal with denial), and changing eco habits. In the

interview data it emerged that Davenport did not want to be constrained by the title of being an

ecopsychologist, and she did not want to be bogged down in the politics of the field. Davenport

stated that she wanted to “throw myself into where I had the most weight.” Despite not being

affiliated with the field, it could be argued that Davenport’s approach is very “first generational”

as it is motivated by activism.

The Value of the Broader Philosophical Ideas in Ecopsychology

Some core tenants of EP should be foundational to any psychological approach. Just as

traditional psychology looks at the importance of family systems as essential for helping clients,

EP maintains that one must place themselves in the larger system of nature and have a

relationship to it. The literature suggests that psychologists from all backgrounds and approaches

might consider a wider lens in their definition of “environment” to include our relationship with

the natural world. We are part of the system of nature and locating ourselves within that system

helps fight against isolation, rumination, depression, and narcissistic thinking, which are

arguably the roots of all mental illness. Ecopsychologists recognize indigenous knowledge and a

traditional approach to the environment as the only way out of the eco crises, specifically the

idea that a reciprocal relationship with nature fosters a healthier psychological mindset and

detracts from habitual narcissistic thinking.

The participants emphasized the importance of the indigenous practice of reciprocity.

Kanner mentions how Native American colleagues view reciprocity as it relates to psychological

health: “If you got something from working with nature that was healing, giving back in some

meaningful way [is] necessary for full healing to occur.” Kanner advocates for psychologists

“explicitly talking to people about how they're going to give back” to nature as part of their role

as re educators.

Eco-anxiety

The eco-psychological perspective views mental illness as going hand in hand with the

debilitated state of global ecosystems and advocates for an improved relationship with nature.

The data reveals the importance of having a theoretical background in EP, including how

clinicians should listen for various aspects of eco anxiety. Because eco anxiety is so prevalent

and is increasingly being acknowledged by the APA, it is important to screen for this with

clients. Davenport, Hasbach, Buzzell, and Hafford elaborated on the benefits of knowing the

features of eco anxiety and the importance of being sophisticated about it. As Davenport

explains, “You can’t tell a client they have eco anxiety, but you’re listening for it.” Scull

describes his perspective on how to have an ecopsychological ear while working with clients. “In

your game plan you’re thinking ecologically, you’re thinking politically, and you’re thinking this

bigger picture … but you wouldn’t necessarily ask questions that would evoke those answers.”

Buzzell explains how she incorporates an EP approach even with people who may deny

climate crises issues:

It’s interesting to ask a client how they feel about the state of the world—perhaps not

even mentioning the earth. It can be helpful to encourage talking about how the world

was during their childhood … Very few clients aren’t aware of the significant

degeneration that’s happened to quality of life, political and cultural degeneration,

worsening health of the planet, etc. Asking people how they think things will be here on

Earth during their children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes can also release a flood of

thoughts and feelings.

In Buzzell’s response, we can see that guiding clients to think of their families in eco terms

illustrates why the therapeutic lens should be widened to include EP.

Ecopsychology needs to be incorporated into the broader field of psychology because

repressed material leads to being symptomatic. Buzzell expounds on her approach in holding an

ecopsychological lens to work with what she calls eco grief.

I believe that most people on the planet who have heard of environmental issues are in

some way affected, either consciously or unconsciously. For many people, the frightening

information is rejected or repressed until some new local or distant crisis makes it no

longer deniable. Underlying anxiety is often there, no matter how vigorously or

emphatically we’ve denied the existential threat to human and non-human life. When an

ecotherapist asks people how they’re feeling about what’s happening in the world, or in

nature, often a flood of previously unexpressed anxiety and eco-grief emerges.

A working knowledge of EP enables clinicians to recognize the root of eco anxiety and correctly

diagnose.

Ecopsychology as Therapeutic Tool

Ecotherapy, as the applied practice of EP, is a valuable tool for any therapist as the natural

world is abundant in metaphors and can inspire introspection and reflection. Scull expands on

this idea of the necessity of integrating EP as a theoretical approach in therapy, creating insight

into our cultural tendency towards isolation and narcissism and how nature can help heal this and

bring people out of isolation and into a felt sense of being part of a system and community. Scull

argues that part of the therapeutic process:

is getting people out of themselves, getting them to think about their children, their

family, their community, or the natural world … and nature is a very powerful way to do that if

people have any connection with a natural world. Hafford gives his opinion on how including the

natural environment within the therapeutic relationship can lead to insight. Hafford advocates for

taking clients into nature as this “allows a wider experience than just clinician and client” and

assists clients in “finding their own answers.”

I suppose for me ecopsychology is really the merging of … cultivating an intimate

understanding of your environment, your place in that environment and what it has to

teach you, and within that there are a lot of natural opportunities to work on the things

that were struggling with inherently as humans. It is a rich and interpretive environment,

and we are meaning making machines so it just makes sense to me to be in [nature

because there is so] much of a dynamic between us and the environment we inhabit.

The data echoed core tenants of ecopsychology, specifically that a symbiotic relationship with

the environment is of paramount importance. The emotional connection that people have to

nature is seen as integral to health. Healing can be obtained through direct interaction with

nature. Scull echoes the idea of nature supporting the client to discover their own truths.

So I think a lot of it is any good therapist spends a lot of time listening to a client and

building the therapy around them. Just like I was saying before, you don’t want to bring

your psychological theories and impose them on nature, but that applies to therapy and

generally you don’t want to take your theories and impose them on your clients. My

mentor in neuroscience years and years ago said that patients, as we called them in those

days, the patient has all the answers, you just have to ask the right questions and nature

has all the answers.

Utilizing eco therapeutic technique can enrich the therapeutic process.

Dualism

Most ecopsychologists point to the fact that the brain does not exist without the body just

as the human does not exist outside the environment, thus illuminating a fundamental error in the

Western approach to both medicine and psychology, which treats symptoms rather than holistic

causes. Buzzell explains the connection between Dualism and anthropocentric narcissism. Our

dualistic thinking has led to increased planetary and personal dis-ease. Buzzell explains the

dangers of this narcissism:

I think it started a long time ago, some people take it [back ] to agriculture, some people

take it to patriarchies, some people take it to the industrial revolution, some people take it

to Descartes, some people take it to Genesis … the whole idea that God gave us this

planet to do whatever the hell we wanted with it. I mean there’s a lot of places where you

can see the antecedent to our current situation. How do we get away from these ideas?

It’s what I call ‘the big lie’ that humans are separate or superior to the rest of nature. If

you want the philosophical origin of our current mess that would be it. So that’s what

we’re trying to do is recover from ‘the big lie’ into what I call ‘the deep truth,’ which is

that we are embedded in nature, we’re not separate from it, or superior to it, that’s the

‘truth.’

EP has always tried to push the field towards what Buzzell is describing as “the deep truth.”

Therapists and practitioners have a responsibility to adopt the theoretical framework of EP and

push back against our pathological culture.

Greenway (2009) pointed to dualistic thinking as “perhaps the source of our pervasive

sense of being disconnected” from the natural world (p. 131). The cornerstone of Western

psychology continues to be Freud’s theory that repressed material leads to symptomatic behavior.

Most westerners in urban environments are not aware of their grief and anxiety resulting from a

diminishing relationship with nature. Ecopsychologists view this disconnection and repression as

largely responsible for the sharp rises in mental health issues in recent decades.

Ecopsychology as a Movement that Challenges Larger Structures

EP analyzes and acknowledges the harmful effects of living in a culture deeply immersed

in a system of colonialism, speciesism, capitalism, and consumerism. One of the more

noteworthy aspects of the original EP movement is its critique of the larger field of psychology.

There was a unanimous consensus from both first and second generation participants that

psychologists need to take a more active role in pushing against various aspects of our culture

that are harmful to human psychological health.

Referring to the founders of the movement of EP, Hasbach explains “they were very

vocal about critiquing psychology and really looking at the field as something that … is being

used to fuel consumerism and a lot of the things that are detrimental to our environment.” This

critique of psychology was a part of a movement that challenges larger structures.

Rethinking what aspects of our environment deserve respect has stemmed from ongoing

reexamination of privilege and behavior towards minorities. Fisher (2012) commented the call

for a revolution has been “in the air since the 1960s, with all the social, cultural, and personal

changes that it implies” (p. 81). Fisher (2012) punctuates:

Ecopsychology has taken the ‘eco’ in its name quite seriously. Rather than accept the

dualism and reductionism that is typical of Western culture and positivist science,

ecopsychology has been accepting of other worldviews, particularly those of indigenous

peoples and of Asian spiritual traditions. (p. 81)

Almost all of the participants shared the first generational critique of the field of

psychology’s unwillingness to comment or call out the harmful effects of capitalism which is

viewed as the corner stone of environmental crises. In the data, capitalism is discussed as a

powerful structure which, with its inherent base of advertising and consuming, is extremely

incompatible with health of people and planet. As Kanner explains, to achieve greater cultural

psychological health, “the narcissistic wounding of the public by the advertising industry will

have to stop.” It is widely agreed upon in all psychological fields that humans have two basic

needs, the need for attachment and the need for authenticity. These needs are manipulated by

advertising companies in the support of capitalistic gain at the expense of our psychological and

emotional health. The central and pervasive message being that one is not enough as they are and

must engage in constant consuming.

In the Western tradition of psychology, it was widely accepted that psychologists should

be silent listeners reflecting the client’s inner world. Hafford’s response illuminates the notion

that more active guiding towards holistic health is appropriate.

I take heart in the words of Clarence Darrow that we should ‘comfort the afflicted and

afflict the comfortable,’ because I think it’s totally true for us as psychologists, it’s like

what is our role? Is our role to help people get over their depression and anxiety so that

they can become better consumers and define the structure that ends our species? Or is

our role to uncover and examine the underpinnings? Maybe depression and anxiety are a

normal response to destructive human patterns of living? Are there other frames that we

can be pursuing? I think that is a hopeful piece for us may be a role in that afflicting the

comfortable and honestly as a field we have been very comfortable for a long time I’m

happy that there is some discomfort.

Hafford is not only arguing for “afflicting” the client, but also for challenging the status quo of

the larger field of psychology. Hafford questions what psychology’s role should be in the context

of treating clients. He argues that decreasing anxiety and depression is not enough, but that there

is a larger responsibility to actually influence a client’s world view towards greater sustainability.

All participants focused on clinicians’ responsibilities towards their clients in the face of the

climate crises. What participants emphasized more than which label they viewed themselves as

falling under was the agreement that all clinicians within the broader field of psychology need to

be examining their role and taking a more directive stance to address the link between personal

and planetary health.

The participants’ interviews illustrate how a capitalist, consumerist lifestyle is harmful

and suggests that difficult and extreme changes must be made, which is challenging for

individuals to acknowledge. According to some of the participants, because members of the field

look critically at “taboo” subjects such as economic oppression and the links between capitalism,

environmental degradation, and mental illnesses, the field is frequently marginalized. Kanner

offers one example of how to achieve cultural change starting with individual clients when he

advocates for psychologists to acknowledge and address what he refers to as “economic

oppression.” Kanner points out that psychologists are now comfortable discussing many

oppressive social norms with clients:

This is one of the ironic things … we’ve done that with sexism, we’ve done that with

racism, we’ve done that with a number of forms of social oppression where somebody

comes in and they’ve been subjected to harassment at work or something like that we will

bring up patriarchy, but we won’t bring up capitalism, the economy. [Psychologists and

clients exploring] social oppression is okay now, but economic oppression, is still taboo.

As Kanner explains, it is easy to alienate audiences when speaking of economic

structures because in western culture pursuits of financial gain at all costs (such as damaging

physical and mental health, relationships, and the environment) is accepted as normal. Larger

structures (such as corporations) are even more resistant to change as they function not as

humans that can awaken to personal consequences of environmental degradation, but as

mechanisms designed to sustain themselves through financial gain. Pilisuck views the broader

field of psychology as one such cultural structure absent of humanity. He explains the limitations

of the broader field of psychology in facilitating cultural change:

Psychology is really a large corporate professional endeavor and to the extent that it can

do things that regard racial equality or environmental concerns without rocking the boat

they are happy to do that, they get good publicity for doing that. Where it starts to affect

their bottom line as an organization, they’re much more reluctant.

This reflects a unanimous consensus among participants, that as an organization, the APA

does not have what is best for person and planet at the top of their agenda. Part of having an

ecopsychological lens is to be able to recognize the effects of economic oppression and the

limitations of doing therapy within the structural limitations of the APA (as the leading

organization representing psychology in America). Pilisuk goes on to illustrate how APA, in their

intent to secure their reputation, is willing to consider covering up morally questionable actions.

His specific example was regarding the Hoffman report in 2017.

The APA had commissioned and later rejected the results of the report because it found

the APA really culpable in covering for the contracts that psychologists were making in

the military and allowing psychologists to work in Guantanamo Bay. Fortunately, [at the

February 2017 meeting in San Francisco, they voted to keep the full account in the

Hoffman report], but it will come up again it reflects the fact that APA is part of a larger

system of obsessional control and it is not going to rock its major financial sources.

Although participants recognize that the APA has begun to make small changes towards greening

psychology, for example, officially recognizing the harmful effects of climate change on the

psyche, progress is limited and slow because of their corporate agenda. Challenging these larger

systems is considered radical, even if it is for the sake of planetary health. The data revealed this

radical vein still active in the field.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of this study is there were no indigenous participants interviewed. The

lack of indigenous voices is problematic because much of the underlying philosophical approach

to ecopsychology is rooted in indigenous wisdom. Several participants emphasized the

importance of enacting ideas such as reciprocity and an honorable harvest. Not hearing from

indigenous peoples themselves, but rather hearing about their models from white participants,

may result in misinterpretation and appropriation of ideas. Participants characterized EP as a

social justice movement that analyzes and challenges powerful sociological and economic

structures while also recognizing indigenous people as stewards of the land whose approach to a

relationship with nature can lead to greater psychological and planetary health.

Another limitation is there could have been more female voices in my sample: female

voices would have been helpful as many aspects of ecopsychology attribute patriarchy as

contributing to the domination of nature. In particular, Mary Gomes was highly influential in

starting the ecopsychological movement and would have added more depth and nuanced

information from an eco-feminist perspective.

As I was crafting my questions, I had a slight bias towards the more radical first

generation thinking which steered me in the direction of seeking to illuminate the generational

divide. This bias placed too much emphasis on generational divide: there could have been more

questions about the influence of indigenous knowledge on EP, which would have resulted in

more commentary about what ecopsychologists envision as necessary to combat climate change.

One unexpected finding was both “sides” [first generation and second generation thinkers] share

common viewpoints and goals, which are utilization of nature as an integral part of holistic

health and engaging in research and conversation which promote ecopsychological ideas.

Recommendations For Further Research

Future studies should include indigenous voices. Future studies should also include more

eco feminists who are practicing EP as the philosophy of EP is arguably rooted in challenges to

the patriarchy.

Final Thought

All the participants viewed the eco crises as a symptom of collective mental illness (to

destroy one’s home and food supply is not “sane”). EP also looks at how to slow or even reverse

the eco crises. The data was unanimous in stating the importance of “remembering” a

relationship between nature and humans. Locating ourselves within the system is integral for

mental health, but also will lead to better ecological practices.

Greening psychology is the next evolution of psychology. Freud started with a narrow

lens focused on the individual, and the lens has widened to include family systems and the

feminist approach of locating a person within socio economic and cultural context.

Buzzell (2016) explains that “psychologists will be called on to treat conditions specific

to our historical moment, such as eco-anxiety, eco-grief, eco-trauma, eco-shame, eco-despair,

and trauma from forced migration.” Ecotherapists embrace principles of ecopsychology. They

believe that reconnecting to nature can improve physical and mental health while encouraging

people to uncover new solutions to long-standing environmental problems.

Ecotherapists may soon be considered important first responders at any environmental

trauma scene, using techniques to facilitate transition and restoration of the community

commons, to help build personal and community eco-resilience, and to serve as catalysts in the

collective recovery from consumerism (Buzzell, 2016).

EP does not have to look like other fields within psychology. This is part of its value. The

field still holds the flames of authenticity and creates an avenue for people to reconnect with

nature to have transformational experiences that can inspire healing for self and planet. There is a

need to protect the non-regulated “wild” part of the field which reflects the crux of one of the

foundational ideas of ecopsychology which is the need to protect the “wild” unregulated part of

ourselves and the “wild” part of nature.

References

Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review, 11(1).

Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature

reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for information

Systems, 34(1), 12.

Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Introduction: Expert interviews—An introduction to a

new methodological debate. In Interviewing experts (pp. 1–13). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_1

Bone, J. (2009). Beyond biophobia: A response to Jackson and Rees. Sociology, 41(5), 917–930.

Bratman, G. N., Daily, G. C., Levy, B. J., & Gross, J. J. (2012). The benefits of nature

experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005

Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature

experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, 112(28), 8567–8572.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112

Chalquist, C. (2009). A look at the ecotherapy research evidence. Ecopsychology, 1(2), 64–74.

https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0003

Clinebell, H. (1996). Ecotherapy: Healing ourselves, healing the earth. Haworth Press.

Collins, T., & Esterling, S. (2019). Fluid personality: Indigenous rights and the Te Awa Tupua

(Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 in Aotearoa New Zealand. Melbourne

Journal of International Law, 20, 197.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods design.

Sage.

Davenport, L. (2017). Emotional resiliency in the era of climate change: A clinician’s guide.

Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage

Publications, Inc.

Doherty, T. J. (2010). Robert Greenway: The ecopsychology interview. Ecopsychology, 1(1),

47–52. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2010.2101

Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 80(4),

536–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg063

Fisher, A. (2012). Ecopsychology at the crossroads: Contesting the nature of a field.

Ecopsychology, 5(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2013.0031

Friedman, H. L., & Hartelius, G. (Eds.). (2015). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal

psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Friesen, N., Henriksson, C., & Saevi, T. (Eds.). (2012). Hermeneutic phenomenology in

education: Method and practice (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media.

Gomes, M., & Kanner, A. D. (1995). The rape of the well maidens: Feminist psychology and the

environmental crisis. In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology

restoring the earth healing the mind (pp. 111–121). Sierra Club Books.

Greenway, R. (1995). The wilderness effect and ecopsychology. In T. Roszak, M. E. Gomes, &

A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth healing the mind. Sierra Club

Books.

Greenway, R. (1999). A personal history of ecopsychology. In Gatherings: Seeking

ecopsychology. http://www.ecopsychology.org/journal/gatherings/personal.htm.

Gullone, E. (2000). The biophilia hypothesis and life in the 21st century: Increasing mental

health or increasing pathology? Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(3), 293–322.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010043827986

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment

experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3–26.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591231001

Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration

in natural and urban field settings. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(2), 109-123.

Hillman, J. (1995). A psyche the size of the earth: A psychological forward. In T. Roszak, M. E.

Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth healing the mind

(pp. xvii–xxiii). Sierra Club Books.

Kahn, P. H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s

affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17(1), 1–61.

https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1996.0430

Kahn, Jr., P. H. (2013). The next phase for ecopsychology: Ideas and directions. Ecopsychology,

5(3), 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2013.5301

Kahn Jr, P. H., & Hasbach, P. H. (Eds.). (2012). Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the

technological species. MIT Press.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-

4944(95)90001-2

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.

Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.

Lee, H. (2007). Intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Littig, B. (2013). Expert interviews. Methodology and practice. IHS Vienna, IASR lecture series,

Vienna.

Metzner, R. (2004). The voice of the Earth by Theodore Roszak.

National Health Interview Survey, United States, 1997–2014, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly

Report (MMWR), 64(33), 925.

Noe, F. P., & Snow, R. (1990). Hispanic cultural influence on environmental concern. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 27–34.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9941928

Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation theory in Schleiermacher,

Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer (pp. 3–71). Northwestern

University Press.

Peacock, J., Hine, R., & Pretty, J. (2007). Ecotherapy: The green agenda for mental

health. MIND.

Radmore, D. (n.d.). Examination of the biophilia hypothesis and its implications for mental

health. http://www.ecopsychology.org/gatherings/wp

content/uploads/2014/02/BiophiliaMentalHealth.pdf

Rutter, M., & Smith, D. J. (1997). Towards causal explanations of time trends in psychosocial

disorders of young people. Psychosocial Disorders in Young People: Time Trends and

Their Causes, 782–808.

Roszak, T. (1992a). The voice of the earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. Red Wheel/Weiser.

Roszak, T. (1992b). The voice of the earth: Discovering the ecological ego. The Trumpeter, 9(1).

Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.). (1995). Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth,

healing the mind. Sierra Club Books.

Roszak, T. (2001). The voice of the earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. Red Wheel/Weiser.

Schroll, M. A. (2007). Remembering ecopsychology’s origins: A chronicle of meetings,

conversations, and significant publication. Journal of the International Community for

Ecopsychology.

Scull, J. (2008). Ecopsychology: Where does it fit in psychology in 2009? Trumpeter, 24(3).

Shepard, P. (1982). Nature and madness. University of Georgia Press.

Smith, D. (2010) Is there an ecological unconscious? New York Times Magazine.

Smith, J. B., Schneider, S. H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe, G. W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M. D., ...

& van Ypersele, J. P. (2009). Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)“reasons for

concern”. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 106(11), 4133-4137.

Taylor, A. F., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk

in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(5), 402–409.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323000

Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224,

420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402

Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O.

Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Island Press/Shearwater Books.

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.

https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674045231

APPENDIX A: Interview Questions

1.Will you share your ecological story?

Who is your ecological self?

2. Do you believe in an ecological unconscious?

What is your relationship to this?

How do you see this concept at work in your life?

3. What is your personal definition of ecopsychology?

What are the key tenets in your definition?

What has traditionally been a part of the field that is no longer relevant or that needs to

evolve?

4. Ecopsychology has not yet been recognized as a central therapeutic approach. Roszak’s

hope of ‘greening psychology’ has also not come to fruition. What do you think

could/should be done to bring its message to a greater audience?

What is the connection between promoting EP and your professional ethical

responsibility as a therapist (teacher/ researcher)?

5. Can you describe the divide in the field between first and second generation and walk me

through why you fall on one side or another?

How do you respond to the criticism/ idea that mainstreaming EP will cause it to become

co-opted and less potent?

How do you respond to the idea that if we don’t mainstream EP we’re withholding the

elixir?

6. Recently, the APA and The Climate for Health and Eco America have put forth a report on

Climate Change and “the psychological aspects of human environment relations.” The

APA now supports psychologists’ involvement in scientific research on global climate

change and on the role of human behavior as a significant contributor to these changes. In

reference to this report does this appear to be a step towards greening psychology.

7. Is there a stigma attached to identifying as an EP, and or an ET?

8. Currently there are no credentials needed for a person to administer ecotherapy, can you talk

about the pros and cons of this?

9. Do you think the present political climate; monuments shrinking, an increase in oil drilling,

and roll backs on emission regulations, is this a last pushback from a growing green

liberal outlook, or a symptom of things getting worse?

10. We are also seeing good things in the media on a civilian level such as: ‘The last straw

Campaign,’ various ocean cleanups, the awareness of the pacific garbage patch, social media

encouraging reduction in waist and packaging, Joanna Macey calls this evidence of “the great

turning.”

x Do you agree?

x Is this enough?

x Is there hope?

x If so where else do you see it?

11. How do you manage your own ecoanxiety?

If you’re not hearing it in a client’s story, how do you address it?

12. Is it presumptuous to assume everyone is in an eco-crisis? What of people who feel:

x It’s not as bad as it seems

x b. We’re meant to self-destruct?

13. Some, such as Sbicca (2011) have noted the similarities of queer theory to EP as

post-modern social justice movements. EP and queer both resist the mechanistic

reductionist, “Cartesian,” view of man and nature as separate and suggests there are more

‘ways of knowing’ in place of and in addition to the scientific method. Do you think

queer theory has been more popular and successful in invoking societal change?

13. EP makes cultural diagnoses such as addiction (to consumerism), egoism, narcissism, a

separation or loss of authentic self. Roszak and Metzner among others draw attention to our

lack of initiation rites leading to Ontological crippling.

x Do you agree?

x If so where do you see evidence of this in media/ culture?

14. The survivors from the Parkland shootings mentioned many social justice issues but did not

mention the eco crises. Your thoughts on this?

APPENDIX B: Letter to Participants

Dear ( )

I am a fourth-year graduate student pursuing my doctorate in clinical psychology at

Antioch University, Santa Barbara. The tenet of ecopsychology which states that the health of

planet and person are inextricably intertwined resonates deeply with me. For my dissertation I

will interview experts in the field to obtain understanding experientially, of thoughts and feelings

about the current and possible future status of the field, specifically regarding accessibility and

utilization. The experts interviewed will have written extensively and will likely have strong

opinions surrounding the controversy regarding the future of the field. The purpose of this

research, however, is to determine the views at the time of the interview.

Ecopsychology is, by definition, a changing, growing philosophy. Using this lens, this

project seeks to comprehend the complexity of issues as perceived by respected specialists in this

field, including their opinions concerning climate crises and human health. This project seeks to

contribute to the academia surrounding the legitimization of ecopsychology by incorporating

emotion and feeling as a guide to understanding. Through these interviews I hope to reveal

hidden obstacles, possibilities, and or new directions for unification of the field.

I am contacting you because of your expertise in the field of ecopsychology. I am eager

to secure a mixed sample of psychologists, therapists, authors, professors, and philosophers who

are involved with ecotherapy and or ecopsychology in their personal and professional lives.

Thank you so much for your consideration of this project.

Respectfully,

Nicole Auckerman

APPENDIX C: Consent Form

Project Title: The Future of Ecopsychology

Project Investigator: Nicole Auckerman

Dissertation Chair: Susan Hawes

1. I understand that the nature of this study is purely research based. It may offer no direct

benefit to me.

2. Participation in this study is voluntary. I may refuse to enter or may withdraw

at any time without creating any harmful consequences to myself. I understand

also, that the investigator may dismiss me at any time from the study at her sole discretion.

3. The purpose of this study is: a. To gauge the possibilities of the philosophy of

ecopsychology to infiltrate mainstream psychology and academia. b. To understand the

challenges, including inherent benefits and risks if the field should become mainstream. c. To

comprehend the complexity of issues, as perceived by respected specialists in this field including

their opinions concerning climate crises and human health.

4. As a participant in the study, I will be asked to take part in the following

procedures:

A skype or in-person interview lasting approximately one hour.

1. The risks, discomforts and inconveniences of the above procedures might be: a. having to

think deeply and reflectively on psychology and the state of the planet. b. disclosing

information on my personal journey and belief system regarding ecopsychology and

ecotherapy. Some of these views may not be popular or congruent with generally

accepted belief systems.

5. It is my personal choice as to whether I would like to participate anonymously or have my

opinions/ experience linked to my name.

6. The possible benefits of the a. To reflect on my experiences as a professional. b. To find

greater meaning in my work. c. To educate and inform others about the field of ecopsychology

and or the health benefits of human interaction with nature. d. To continue the pedological

discussion around psychology and healing practices.

7. Information about the study was discussed with me by Nicole Auckerman.

If I have further questions, I can call her at xxx-xxx-xxxx I may email her at

xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.

8. Though the purpose of this study is primarily to fulfill my requirement to

complete a formal research project as a dissertation at Antioch University, I also

intend to include the data and results of the study in future scholarly publications

and presentations. Our confidentiality agreement, as articulated above, will be

effective in all cases of data sharing.

Signed:_____________________________Date:___________________________