Psychologies of the Environment: Searching for Themes in the Literature

Abstract

Psychology's leaders have called for research and practices that contribute to the cultivation of more environmentally sustainable lifestyles. Much work has been done by psychologies of the environment, which include environmental psychology, ecopsychology, ecological psychology, and other areas; but these diffuse and disparate disciplines with varying approaches, methodologies, and publication sources may make it difficult to identify efforts and findings relevant to environmental issues, behavior, and sustainability. As such, this study sought to explore research from psychologies of the environment to highlight content themes within the literature, sources in which this research was published, and the extent to which cases offered novel data. Using a qualitative approach, this study examined the content of 449 published works, identifying 12 themes in the literature. Results revealed the most common journal sources, as well as the content areas most active in collecting new data and publishing research.

In the 2008 Presidential Address at the 116th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (APA), Alan E. Kazdin, Ph.D., explored psychology's contributions to the cultivation of environmental sustainability. The then-president of the APA highlighted existing research sampled broadly from various disciplines within psychology, exploring relevance to environmental issues. However, Kazdin repeatedly mentioned that psychology's efforts have not yet reached the masses: “We have a stew full of theory and research, but it has yet to be served on a scale that feeds a very hungry world” (2009, p. 352).

It would seem that those areas of psychology most concerned with environmental context would contribute greatly to the environmental health and sustainable living practices that many have advocated. Environmental psychology represents “a disparate set of research areas and perspectives, spanning multiple disciplines, that are linked by a common focus” (Stokols, 1995, p. 822). This area has been generating scientific research and theory about human's interactions with their surroundings (including natural/built environments) since the 1970s. The theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of interdependence between behavior and settings, identified as ecological psychology, were established in the 1960s (Barker, 1965; Gibson, 1960). Ecopsychology as theory and study of the “synergistic interplay between planetary and personal well-being” emerged in the 1990s (Roszak, 1992, p. 321). More recently, conservation psychology has been identified to investigate “reciprocal relationships between humans and the rest of nature” by focusing on “conservation of the natural world” (Saunders, 2003, p. 138). All the while, other areas of psychology have generated relevant research as well (e.g., clinical and counseling, cognitive, community, health, life-span development, social). The existence of so many research areas and relevant interests might cause one to question why the research and theory described by Kazdin (2009) has not yet found widespread distribution and recognition.

As a graduate student focused on ecopsychology and environmental issues for the past several years, this budding researcher has often pondered the scope and scale of studying human relationships with varying environments. Readings in this area cover vast and diverse territory; it has been difficult to outline and focus a course of study. Most challenging have been attempts to define terms such as “environmental psychology” and “ecopsychology,” and to differentiate content belonging in each domain. These areas are broad and are perhaps even disserviced by such efforts. As one editor noted, “Well meaning attempts to delineate the disciplines and content areas of environmentally focused psychology…often founder because they focus on analysis (viewing these as separate elements) versus synthesis (understanding them in combination)” (Doherty, 2010, p. 203).

This study began as a personal attempt to map the broad and overlapping themes that appear in the research domains most concerned with human relationships to/with the environment. Taking an approach of synthesis, these areas will be referred to collectively as psychologies of the environment. However, the author does wish to acknowledge that researchers in these areas employ different theories and methods to investigate varying topics; it would be a mistake to assume that these domains represent a singular category. The decision to include them together here is an attempt to identify common themes among these areas, which is not to suggest that they have been, or even should be, conceptualized as parts of a cohesive body.

An additional question that has arisen regarding ecopsychology, in particular, is the extent to which studies in this area collect new data to evaluate or generate theory. As Thompson (2009) asserted, “For an area to be progressive, it needs to collect data about its outcome and the processes involved in what it claims to do” (p. 32). Thompson further noted that, historically, ecopsychological research has not been data driven; less than one-third of the sample for that study involved the collection of new data. The extent to which other psychologies of the environment are gathering new data remains unclear.

This study sought to explore research related to psychologies of the environment by approaching these areas using a qualitative methodology. The aims were to (1) explore the thematic content of literature pertaining to psychologies of the environment and (2) assess the extent to which these areas have collected new data.

Researcher Reflexivity

This researcher's background involves personal experience and work in ecopsychology and the benefits of wilderness settings. As such, familiarity and preferences within this area are focused on wilderness studies, ecotherapy, and conservation. Engaging the literature for this study has meant broadening personal conceptions of ecopsychology and environmental psychology and venturing into literature with which the researcher has little knowledge (e.g., Gibson and Barker's theories of ecological psychology). The researcher's ways of knowing are based in the principles of ecopsychology, and this study arises in that context. The search terms were selected from a previous study of ecopsychology, and two terms were added at the suggestion of a reviewer with an ecopsychology background. It is likely that a researcher with a different focus (e.g., environmental aspects of design) would have chosen different search terms. Although the search results were less susceptible to interpretation (ostensibly, PsycINFO will generate the same list when the same search parameters are entered), coding may reflect particular background and familiarity, as will the ways in which codes were grouped into themes. The aim is not to lay claim to particular areas of interest for ecopsychology, environmental psychology, or other fields, nor to advocate specific boundaries of these areas. Instead, the study is intended to offer a glimpse of the content themes that emerge from one person's exploration of the literature that came forward when ecopsychology, environmental psychology, and related search terms were deployed.

Methodology and Procedures

Searching the literature

Drawing from Thompson's (2009) finding that the PsycINFO database contained significantly more literature relevant to ecopsychological/environmental psychological search terms, this study exclusively utilized PsycINFO. This database of the APA houses over 3 million records in the behavioral and social sciences from the 1800s to the present (APA, 2011). The database was accessed via an APA-approved platform, EBSCOhost.

Selection of specific search terms began by reviewing those used by Thompson (2009): (1) ecopsychology, (2) environmental psychology, (3) ecological psychology, (4) ecotherapy, and (5) wilderness experience. Although Thompson utilized terms (2) through (5) for comparison to “ecopsychology,” these are often subject descriptors appearing in published works related to psychologies of the environment (which, although not explicitly stated, may be why Thompson chose them). To build on Thompson's work, and since the author was familiar with these subject descriptors in ecopsychological literature, these terms were selected. Search terms were placed in quotations to ensure accuracy and relevance of results. Language was limited to English.

An initial search was run with the five search terms in November 2009, which generated 11,703 hits. To narrow the literature to a manageable quantity for coding, the decision was made to search for keywords only. This generated 627 unique cases, which the researcher began gathering and reviewing. After noticing other subject identifiers and receiving advice from an editor to add specific terms, the researcher incorporated two additional search terms: conservation psychology and human ecology. A second search in December 2010 ran seven search terms simultaneously (i.e., “X” or “X” or “X”…), designated as keywords only: (1) ecopsychology, (2) environmental psychology, (3) ecological psychology, (4) ecotherapy, (5) wilderness experience, (6) conservation psychology, and (7) human ecology. As with the initial search, terms were placed in quotations, and parameters were limited to English language.

Results from the search are displayed in Table 1, which depicts the distribution of hits across the search terms. The PsycINFO search yielded 670 unique potential cases, which were then sorted for inclusion. To focus on research content, exclusionary criteria included book reviews (n=97), responses/comments (n=49), obituaries (n=10), interview reports (n=6), editorials (n=5), and corrections/errata (n=3). Sources were then screened for relevance, defined as research contributing to the understanding of human behavior within or regarding environmental context and the built/natural world. Topics most frequently excluded from the sample included ecological models of social/familial relationships (emphasizing characteristics of social interaction, not environmental context), studies of architectural features that lacked behavioral focus, decision making in sports (where environment was conceived of as the sport), nonhuman animal studies, and technology research without a behavioral component. Fifty-one studies were excluded. The final result was an overall sample of cases, n=449. Detailed records with abstracts were downloaded from PsycINFO for each case.

Table 1.

Search Term Results

SEARCH TERM	NUMBER OF HITS	PERCENTAGE
“Environmental psychology”	320	46.99
“Ecological psychology”	182	26.73
“Human ecology”	73	10.72
“Ecopsychology”	71	10.43
“Wilderness experience”	26	3.82
“Ecotherapy”	6	0.88
“Conservation psychology”	3	0.44
Total	681	100.01

Total reflects cases that appeared under more than one search term (n=670 unique cases).

Procedures for preparing and analyzing the data

This research followed steps for qualitative inquiry outlined by Creswell (2009) and Marshall and Rossman (2011). According to these authors, the first step involves organizing the data. During this phase, the researcher gathered abstracts/summaries for all 449 cases. If case records did not contain an abstract/summary, the researcher accessed primary sources. A spreadsheet of cases was created, and a research diary tracked these activities. The second step involved immersion in the data, a process that includes “reading, rereading, and reading through the data” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 210) to glean a general impression. The researcher read each abstract carefully. It should be noted that the researcher had previous familiarity with several of the cases. In some instances, the abstract lacked enough information for coding; the researcher then sought primary sources to assess subject area, methodology, and findings. Abstracts were reviewed as a set a second time, with a second review of supplemental materials when warranted.

Coding the data marked the third step. This study employed strategies for attribute coding and descriptive content coding as outlined by Saldaña (2009). Attribute coding most frequently refers to the identification of demographic information or data format; in this case, noted attributes included source type (e.g., journal article, chapter) and whether or not the case involved the collection of new data. The data set was then revisited for descriptive content coding, which “summarizes in a word or short phrase…the basic topic of a passage” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 70). Codes were assigned to each case based on the topic of inquiry, identified by theoretical positions, methodological approaches, and empirical findings. For example, a theoretical piece about identity arising in an environmental context was coded as identity, an experimental study of interventions to increase recycling behaviors coded as recycling. Multiple codings were permitted for each item (i.e., a longitudinal study examining the development of environmental perceptions in children at yearly intervals may have been coded as environmental perception and development). For edited books covering content in various areas, the list of codings could be extensive.

A fourth step involved the generation of descriptions, categories, and themes (Creswell, 2009; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Codes were reviewed multiple times for patterns and repetition, and descriptive names were assigned. For example, codes for recycling, energy conservation, and related activities seemed to cluster around proenvironmental behaviors, which became the descriptive name assigned to a thematic category. These categories were reviewed—and renamed—several times as the researcher revisited the data. Proenvironmental behaviors, for example, were almost never explored without relation to environmental problems. As such, environmental problems and solutions became a core content theme. Finally, content themes were quantified into frequencies to establish prevalence in the literature. The researcher then assessed the frequency of cases with new data within each theme.

It would have been ideal to have a second researcher independently assess the data, codes, and themes to establish intercoder agreement or inter-rater reliability. However, lack of resources, relationships, and funding impeded the involvement of additional researchers. Although it has been asserted that “coding in most qualitative studies is a solitary act” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 28), the researcher employed recommended strategies to ensure that the analysis remained credible. These included spending extensive time immersed in the data, repeatedly checking codes against the data to prevent drift, maintaining a research diary to track progress, and checking themes with participants—in this case, the sources themselves (Creswell, 2009; Saldaña, 2009).

Results and Findings

Findings can be categorized into three domains: results for attributes, findings from content analyses, and explorations of new data. Each is discussed below.

Results for attributes

The data were coded for two sets of attributes. The first involved describing the specific source of each case: book (edited or authored), chapter in an edited volume, journal article, or dissertation. Results are presented in Table 2. Journal articles were, by far, the most common form for cases, whereas books represented the least common type. Journal articles were drawn from 57 distinct publications, the most productive in these areas shown in Table 3. Most common was Journal of Environmental Psychology, whereas a nearly equal number of articles were distributed across journals that published five or fewer pieces in these areas.

Table 2.

Source Attributes of the Sample

SOURCE	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE
Journal article	279	62.14
Chapter in edited volume	76	16.93
Dissertation	58	12.92
Book (combined)	36	8.02
Authored	(23)	(5.12%)
Edited	(13)	(2.90%)
Total	449	100.01

Table 3.

Distribution of Journal Sources

SOURCE	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE
Journal of Environmental Psychology	73	26.16
Ecological Psychology	39	13.98
American Psychologist	24	8.60
Ecopsychology	21	7.53
Environment & Behavior	18	6.45
The Humanistic Psychologist	12	4.30
International Journal of Sport Psychology	9	3.23
Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research	7	2.51
Theory & Psychology	7	2.51
Developmental Psychobiology	6	2.15
Annual Review of Psychology	5	1.79
Hiroshima Forum for Psychology	4	1.43
International Journal of Psychology	4	1.43
The International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research	3	1.08
Man-Environment Systems	3	1.08
PsychNology Journal	3	1.08
Journals containing one or two relevant articles	41	14.70
Total	279	100.01

Due to space considerations, journals containing one (n=15) or two (n=13) articles with relevant keywords have been omitted.

The second attribute involved the determination of whether the case utilized new data. Results revealed that 148 cases (32.96%) presented new data collected by researchers, the majority of literature offering theoretical discussions or reviews. New data are related to thematic content described next.

Findings from content analyses

Analysis of codings revealed the following 12 themes, organized by prevalence, regarding the content of literature pertaining to psychologies of the environment in this sample: (1) Environmental problems and solutions, (2) Cognitive and affective factors, (3) Impact on health and well-being, (4) Design and planning, (5) Behavior-in-context, (6) Environmental education and ecotherapy, (7) Significance, attachment, and environmental meaning, (8) Identity, personality, and self in nature, (9) Developmental issues, (10) Spiritual and transpersonal issues, (11) Media, advertising, and consumer behavior, and (12) Technology related to the environment. Information is presented in Table 4. Each theme is discussed below and examples are offered, which are not intended as an index of research in each domain but, rather, a glimpse into the kinds of studies conducted in each thematic area.

Table 4.

Prevalence of Content Themes

THEME	NUMBER	PERCENTAGE
Environmental problems and solutions	161	35.86
Cognitive and affective factors	145	32.29
Impact on health and well-being	104	23.16
Design and planning	97	21.60
Behavior-in-context	95	21.16
Environmental education and ecotherapy	87	19.38
Significance, attachment, and environmental meaning	86	19.15
Identity, personality, and self in nature	74	16.48
Developmental issues	57	12.69
Spiritual and transpersonal issues	24	5.35
Media, advertising, and consumer behavior	22	4.90
Technology related to the environment	18	4.01

n=449 cases, which may appear in multiple themes.

Environmental problems and solutions

This theme arose from studies and discussions of environmental problems and human interventions to address them, including the more recently identified area of conservation psychology (Saunders, 2003). Cases within this theme were divided between the theoretical/review (e.g., Schmuck & Vlek, 2003) and the data driven review (e.g., Gregory & Di Leo, 2003). Many publications explored or catalogued environmental degradation, including overpopulation/crowding, overconsumption of resources and effects (e.g., deforestation, soil quality), the impacts of pollution/contamination, global climate change, loss of biodiversity and mass species extinction, and the development of harmful technologies. The effects of these threats were investigated, as were theories relevant to understanding how such dangers are perceived, experienced, and approached (e.g., Gardner & Stern, 1996; Howard, 1997, 2000; Lebovits et al., 1986; Winter, 2003). This theme was also evident in cases dealing with natural/technological disasters, including effects on mental health and well-being (e.g., Baum & Fleming, 1993; Baum et al., 1983; Kastenbaum, 1974; Taylor, 1987; Yamamoto, 1984).

With regard to environmental solutions, research efforts included predictive theorizing, models, and empirical examinations of campaigns/programs designed to facilitate specific behaviors such as recycling and energy conservation through contact with/immersion in natural settings, awareness drives (e.g., media campaigns), involvement/collaborative efforts, wilderness programs, and eco-oriented interventions/therapies, as well as barriers to the effectiveness of such interventions, including attitudes, political and societal factors, individual/collective ideologies, short-/long-term behavioral orientation, habits, and numbness. A few studies centered around how personal and regional interests, proximity/familiarity with natural areas, quality of life, and worldviews impede or promote environmentally sustainable behaviors. Examples include Abrahamse et al. (2005); Clayton and Myers (2009); Gärling et al. (2002); Geller (2002); Kurz (2002); Steg et al. (2005); Valle et al. (2005); and Winter and Koger (2004).

Several cases offered reviews or dealt primarily with methodological approaches to these areas (e.g., Stern, 2000). A small subset of this category centered around eco-justice and the ethics of sustainability (e.g., Rosenbluth, 2010; Wilson, 2007).

Cognitive and affective factors

This theme involved investigations of cognitive and affective orientation to environmental context and nature. Most common in this category were studies of cognitive and affective processes related to environmental perception and action (e.g., Gärling & Evans, 1991; Ittelson, 1978; Weisman, 1991). Attention, visual perception, environmental assessment, and appraisal were frequent topics for study, as were representation and interpretation of environmental context (e.g., Brody et al., 2004; Peterson, 1974; Sewall, 1998, 1999; Singh et al., 2008; Smith, 1999). Environmental cognition was often investigated through research on spatial cognition, spatial orientation and perception, wayfinding, and place knowledge (e.g., Carpman & Grant, 2002; Evans, 1984; García-Mira & Real, 2005; Hubbard, 1996; Kaye, 1975; Turvey, 2004). Several studies focused on information-processing models, decision-making strategies, and problem-solving skills (e.g., Alvard, 2007; Araújo et al., 2006; Young & McNeese, 1995). Motivation and intention emerged as content in this category (e.g., Evans & Stecker, 2004; Reser & Scherl, 1988), as did attitudes, beliefs, preferences, values, and judgment (e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Joye, 2003, 2007; Milfont & Duckitt, 2004; Milfont & Gouveia, 2006). Emotions were also addressed (e.g., Ulrich, 1983). A few studies on cognitive development rounded out this content area (e.g., Liben & Downs, 1991; McMorris, 1999).

Impact on health and well-being

These cases dealt with the impact of environmental conditions on health, mental health, and well-being (e.g., Aldwin & Stokols, 1988; Baum et al., 1978; Kaplan, 2001). Within this theme, studies might be loosely divided into two broad categories—negative effects of environmental degradation or nature deprivation and positive effects of nature exposure or immersion. Research on negative effects tended to examine urban settings, focusing on the detriments to mental health arising from environmental stressors: crowding, noise, crime, traffic, pollution/contamination, privacy issues, immobility, and disconnection/alienation from community (e.g., Edelstein, 2002; Robin et al., 2007). Research on the positive effects of nature exposure/immersion most frequently examined the beneficial results of mental health improvements, well-being, creativity, caring/concern, empathy, and feelings of connection facilitated by contact and exposure (e.g., Frumkin, 2003; Kaplan & Talbot, 1983; Stevens, 2009). Quality of life seemed to be an underlying issue in the majority of these cases. A few studies within this category employed more experimental methods to measure mental health factors pre- and postnature intervention (e.g., Feral, 1998; Plas, 1995; Rader, 2010).

Design and planning

This category constituted studies of urban planning and life, dealing with crowding, population growth, and city planning by specifically focusing on design (e.g., Kaye, 1975; Kopec, 2006; Proshansky et al., 1976). Common topics included architecture, public/private space design and cultivation, and landscape planning (e.g., Churchman, 2002; Hubbard, 1996; Joye, 2003, 2007). Institutional planning was also prevalent among these studies, addressing workplace design, school and educational setting design, and residential planning for phases across the life span (e.g., Cloutier-Fisher & Harvey, 2009; Gorman et al., 2007; Lawton, 1990). Other studies explored the reciprocal influences of design and perception (e.g., Cherulnik & Wilderman, 1986).

Behavior-in-context

More commonly referred to as ecological psychology, behavior-in-context was the subject of roughly one-fifth of the cases. Although these studies did not address nature per se, an ecological model is one in which behavior cannot be separated from its context. These studies situated human behavior in its environment with an approach of interconnection, examining behavioral and environmental characteristics simultaneously for reciprocal influence. These cases typically employed unit analysis and transactional models to explore agent-environment interactions. They focused on noncognitive, dynamical systems to investigate how perception and action depend on environmental specifics. Frequent topics in this domain included affordances, spatial behaviors, goal-directed behaviors, moral behaviors and values, emotions, environmental constraints, virtues, and interrelating/mutualism/social interaction. Many cases advocated specific models. Examples include Barker (1965); Clark and Uzzell (2002); Heft (2001); Michaels and Beek (1995); Turvey (2004); Vicente (2003); Wagman and Miller (2003); Wagman and Pagano (2009); Wicker (1990); Winkel et al. (2009); and Zube (1991).

Environmental education and ecotherapy

This theme arose from content related to efforts to re-orient individuals and groups to nature and more sustainable, psychologically healthy living. These cases examined the structure, impact, and outcomes of environmental education programs designed to increase knowledge of nature, environmental issues, and conservation behaviors (e.g., Bitgood, 2002; Farmer, 2003; Howells, 1978; Lambert et al., 1978; Rader, 2010). Recent studies looked into wilderness-based therapeutics and ecotherapy, emerging psychotherapeutic methods focused on mental health interventions that incorporate the natural and animal worlds and/or take place in natural or wilderness settings (e.g., Burls, 2008; Chalquist, 2009; Harper & Scott, 2006; Higley & Milton, 2008). Several studies explored the impacts on health and well-being of wilderness exposure programs that might best be conceptualized as an amalgam of environmental education and nature-based psychotherapeutic interventions (e.g., Kaplan & Talbot, 1983; Sachs & Miller, 1992).

Significance, attachment, and environmental meaning

This content theme encompassed studies that dealt with the psychological significance or meaning of place/landscape. The most common element was the sense of home, which involved emotional connection and intimacy with place/landscape (e.g., Cloutier-Fisher & Harvey, 2009; Day, 1998; Mest, 2008; Ziegler, 2009). Many of these studies addressed cultural issues and meaning in place-based relationships, including how places come to be known, place-based worldviews, the appearance of landscape in myth/narrative, and cultural variation based in landscape differences (e.g., Auburn & Barnes, 2006; Krampen, 1991; Metzner, 1998; Moser et al., 2003). Community relations and social capital were also of interest (e.g., Nelson, 1948; Wood & Giles-Corti, 2008). Several studies explored reciprocal relationships between people and place (e.g., Froese, 2005). An emerging trend in this domain was research on place attachment (e.g., Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Embedded in many of the cases was an exploration of meaning attributed to place/landscape, and the psychological significance of changing notions of place/landscape (e.g., climate change, globalization). A few cases mentioned how place/landscape figured prominently in the lives and work of historical figures, including notable names in psychology (e.g., Barker, 1979; Holmes, 2003).

Identity, personality, and self in nature

Relationships between nature and identity, personality, and self were the foci of cases that explored how relations with built/natural environments arise from senses of self/identity and how sense of place shapes personality and identity development (e.g., Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Craik, 1990). Several studies expounded on how varying personality/identity factors influence relations to the natural world and willingness to engage in proenvironmental activism and conservation behaviors (e.g., Gardner, 2003; Gomes, 1998; Valera & Guàrdia, 2002), whereas others explored how changing environmental context affects the sense of self (e.g., Dixon & Durrheim, 2004). Researchers and authors writing about this content argued for worldviews that approach self and nature as interdependent and reciprocal (e.g., Besthorn, 2002; Meck, 2008). Many of these pieces described an isolated sense of self resulting from separation from nature, with several authors advocating for the cultivation of an “ecological self” (e.g., Bragg, 1996).

Developmental issues

A portion of the sample dealt primarily with developmental issues related to place and nature (e.g., Evans, 2006). Studies within this theme investigated or postulated impacts to development based on exposure to urban and natural settings (e.g., Spencer & Woolley, 2000). Others addressed the effects on development when children spent more time in nature (e.g., Fawcett, 2003) or explored how children experience and come to understand the natural world (Santostefano, 2008). Environmental preferences at varying developmental stages were explored (e.g., Lindberg et al., 1992; Zube et al., 1993), as were intervention approaches and strategies for environmental awareness and sustainability at different phases across the life span (e.g., Heft & Chawla, 2006; Santostefano, 2004). Environmental socialization was also a topic of research. A few models of nature-based and proenvironmental development were offered (e.g., Cintrón-Moscoso, 2010; Plotkin, 2008). Often, these cases addressed many of these topics in tandem.

Spiritual and transpersonal issues

Recognition of spiritual and transpersonal issues related to nature comprised the theme of these typically theoretical studies exploring relationships between psychological issues, spiritual and religious beliefs, and nature. Several drew from varying experiences, methodologies, and cultural/historical worldviews to explore or advocate for nature as a source of spiritual connection and religious belief systems (e.g., Fredrickson & Anderson, 1999; Stokols, 1990; Taylor, 2010). Many of these studies explored changing notions of spiritual, trans-species, and transpersonal ideologies based in changing relationships to nature (e.g., Davis, 1998; Sneep, 2007; Taylor, 2010). These cases seemed to address nature as a sacred interconnected web of life. Taking a design approach, a few studies evaluated how spiritual perspectives influenced environmental perceptions of design (e.g., Ruback et al., 2008) and the impact of changing environmental conditions on religious building design (Form & Dubrow, 2005).

Media, advertising, and consumer behavior

This theme arose from issues of consumerism, advertising, and media. Research in this domain most frequently targeted aspects of the retail environment, including environmental characteristics/stimuli, situational influence, and consumer motivation, attitudes, and emotions (e.g., Chebat & Michon, 2003; Tai & Fung, 1997). These studies explored consumer approach/avoidance behaviors and evaluation, such as shopper preference and selection. Several studies addressed advertising and marketing strategies dealing with perception and action, with major emphasis on natural imagery (e.g., Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2010). With regard to media, aspects of information campaigns and their delivery methods, as well as media environments, were studied (e.g., Allen et al., 2004).

Technology related to the environment

Finally, cases in this area addressed the application of environmental and ecological models to technology such as virtual environments and the Internet (e.g., Kirlik, 2006; O'Neill, 2005; Stokols & Montero, 2002; Wimelius, 2004). They tended to focus on human-technology interaction, how technology use has impacted exposure and relationships to the natural world, and how recent technologies might help reorient humans to their environmental surroundings/nature or increase conservation behaviors (e.g., Golledge, 2002; Hoff & Hauser, 2008; Kyttä et al., 2004). A few cases applied ecological models to specific technologies (e.g., Flach et al., 1995; Uğur & Şahin, 2010).

Explorations of new data

Overall, the majority of cases (roughly 67%) did not utilize new data. However, breaking down new data by content theme identified areas where new data were most commonly being collected. Table 5 illustrates the number of cases offering new data within each theme. It is clear that new data most commonly were gathered about environmental education and ecotherapy and cognitive and affective factors. Areas generating the least new data included spiritual and transpersonal issues and technology related to the environment. However, these numbers do not provide a complete picture, as content themes with fewer cases overall will, of course, offer fewer data-driven studies. Findings change when considered by percentage. Table 6 presents the percentages of studies within each content theme that offered new data. Although the theme of environmental education and ecotherapy showed new data in over half its cases, so did media, advertising, and consumer behavior. Behavior-in-context and significance, attachment, and environmental meaning displayed the smallest percentages of cases with new data.

Table 5.

Number of Cases Presenting New Data by Theme

THEME	CASES WITH NEW DATA	TOTAL CASES
Environmental education and ecotherapy	50	87
Cognitive and affective factors	45	145
Environmental problems and solutions	42	161
Impact on health and well-being	42	104
Design and planning	35	97
Identity, personality, and self in nature	30	74
Developmental issues	27	57
Behavior-in-context	21	95
Significance, attachment, and environmental meaning	13	86
Media, advertising, and consumer behavior	12	22
Spiritual and transpersonal issues	9	24
Technology related to the environment	7	18

Table 6.

Percentage of Cases Presenting New Data by Theme

THEME	PERCENTAGE WITH NEW DATA
Environmental education and ecotherapy	57.47
Media, advertising, and consumer behavior	54.55
Developmental issues	47.37
Identity, personality, and self in nature	40.54
Impact on health and well-being	40.38
Technology related to the environment	38.89
Spiritual and transpersonal issues	37.50
Design and planning	36.08
Cognitive and affective factors	31.03
Environmental problems and solutions	26.09
Behavior-in-context	22.11
Significance, attachment, and environmental meaning	15.12

Percentages calculated on the basis of number of cases with new data within each theme.

Discussion

This study investigated content themes of literature related to psychologies of the environment by employing a qualitative methodology focused on attribute and descriptive content analysis. The researcher utilized one database to search for seven keyword phrases, which generated 449 articles, chapters, books, and dissertations. Analyses revealed 12 emergent themes. These content themes were drawn from overlapping and interdependent topical areas and are not so much distinct domains in the literature as they are impressions of the core content at the heart of research related to psychologies of the environment in this sample.

The search for seven keywords produced 670 unique cases, dramatically smaller than Thompson's (2009) search of five terms yielding nearly 2300 hits. It was not surprising, given its longer history and broad scope, that “environmental psychology” generated almost as many hits as the other six search terms combined and encompassed almost half the sample. “Ecological psychology” was also a significant term, capturing about one-fourth of the sample. Although representing a (much) smaller percentage of the sample, the presence of ecopsychology in the literature has grown in the 25 months since Thompson's study. “Ecopsychology” (as a search term) generated <4% of the combined hits in Thompson's study, leading to the following conclusion: “It seems that ecopsychology is less frequently developing and expanding as an independent scholarly area in its own right” (p. 35). Two years later, a search for ecopsychology in the same database yielded >10% of the total hits, even with additional search terms. Although this increase may or may not be considered significant, its expanded presence in the literature suggests that ecopsychology is growing as an area of interest. Where Thompson had noted that research had “not, primarily, [been] married to the term ecopsychology” (p. 36), perhaps there is reason to suggest that researchers are, at least, beginning to court it.

The presence of ecotherapy also increased in the literature since Thompson's (2009) study. The current search generated more hits for ecotherapy than the previous study, even as other search terms decreased in prevalence when keyword designation was applied. Although the increase in number of hits was quite small, searching for the term without keyword designation would yield more results. A small increase in ecotherapy studies was also noted between the percentages of hits that the term generated in Thompson's investigation and the current study—even with additional search terms—giving further credence to the growing presence of ecotherapy in the literature.

Regarding sources, journal articles represented the most common type. The current study found higher percentages for journal articles, books, and chapters, and a significantly lower percentage of dissertations than Thompson's (2009) study. These differences may be explained by the addition of search terms in the current study, where dissertations identified as “ecopsychology” may have become subsumed by published works identified with keywords “environmental psychology” and “ecological psychology.”

Journal sources were markedly different, as well. Thompson's (2009) study identified The Humanistic Psychologist as containing more cases than other journals. In this sample, the Journal of Environmental Psychology was most common, publishing more than one-fourth of the journal articles. This is not surprising given the additional search terms (including “environmental psychology”). The expanded search terms revealed additional journal sources where related research was commonly published, including Ecological Psychology, American Psychologist, and Ecopsychology (which emerged after Thompson's search). The Humanistic Psychologist was the sixth most common journal source, though this study found fewer articles in this source, because interviews, editorials, and reviews were not considered. It was interesting to note that almost one-fourth of the sample was found in journals that had only published five or fewer pieces in the content areas identified by this study. The proliferation of cases across a wide variety of journals covering vast and divergent subject areas speaks to the “diffuse and less easily circumscribed identity for the field [of environmental psychology] as a whole” (Stokols, 1995, p. 822).

When considering the diffuse literature in the sample, the most prevalent content themes revolved around environmental problems and solutions, cognitive and affective factors related to the environment, and the impact of the environment on health and well-being. These domains represent the most common shared strands of content among psychologies of the environment in this sample. As psychology's leaders call for research on theories and strategies regarding environmental sustainability (e.g., Kazdin, 2009), it seems that psychologies of the environment are each answering that call in their own ways by addressing environmental degradation and interventions to increase conservation behaviors, the cognitive and affective processes that influence decisions to act (or not act) in sustainable ways, and the impacts of a variety of environmental conditions (including urbanization, climate change, built environments, and natural/wilderness areas) on physical and psychological functioning.

By comparison, technology, media, advertising, consumer behaviors, and spiritual and transpersonal issues have received the least attention in this sample of the literature. Of course, these areas may be represented in greater numbers under other search terms. However, many of these issues contribute to global environmental changes (e.g., Stokols et al., 2009), and some have speculated that important avenues in the facilitation of sustainable practices will emerge through media (e.g., Stern, 2000) or by addressing the spiritual and transpersonal dimensions of human relationships to nature (e.g., Davis, 1998; Sneep, 2007). It seems that these areas are relevant to psychologies of the environment and may deserve more attention. Although only occupying a small percentage of the overall sample, studies in these areas tended to be more recent, possibly reflecting newer trends to address these important issues within these fields.

Whether prevalent or not, it did not appear that work in these areas, in general, is being driven by studies based on new data. Only about one-third of the cases in this sample collected new data. Since Thompson (2009) found that just over one-fourth of new studies in ecopsychology contained novel data, it was anticipated that the addition of six related search terms with longer history than “ecopsychology” might have generated significantly more studies with new data. This does not appear to be the case.

The most active content areas in terms of collecting new data, based on overall numbers of data-driven studies, included environmental education and ecotherapy, cognitive and affective factors, environmental problems and solutions, and impact on health and well-being. The latter three represent themes with the greatest numbers of cases; these findings are predictable. However, environmental education and ecotherapy with fewer cases overall yielded the most data-driven research. Content domains with the greatest percentages of new data included environmental education and ecotherapy and media, advertising, and consumer behavior, with over half of the cases containing new data. Developmental issues and impact on health and well-being represented themes where nearly half of the cases offered novel data. Findings from this search and analysis reveal these areas to be those that have generated the most new data within psychologies of the environment.

The content themes with the fewest overall numbers of studies with new data included significance, attachment, and environmental meaning; media, advertising, and consumer behavior; spiritual and transpersonal issues; and technology related to the environment. The latter three reflect the smallest domains; thus, they would be expected to yield low numbers of new data. Themes representing the lowest percentages of new data within content area included environmental problems and solutions, behavior-in-context, and significance, attachment, and environmental meaning. It is interesting to note that research on environmental problems and solutions did generate a higher number of studies with new data than other thematic areas but that the overwhelming majority of studies in this area did not collect new data. Although some of these domains reflect areas where theoretical research may be more appropriate, it does seem concerning that the content domains most closely associated with environmental crises, sustainable solutions, and environmental significance, attachment, and meaning may be relying on theories that, in many ways, have yet to be tested.

Limitations

This study was limited by several factors. First, searches for literature were limited to a single database (PsycINFO). Though previous research found more relevant literature than other databases (Thompson, 2009), the inclusion of other databases may have produced cases with varying content. Second, this research only utilized keywords when searching the literature. It is possible—perhaps likely—that searching for the same terms without keyword designation would yield different content results. It is noteworthy that several seminal works in different content domains were missing from the search results (e.g., Buzzell & Chalquist's 2009 landmark book on ecotherapy), illustrating that keyword designation did limit the sample.

Third, the literature was coded by a single researcher with no inter-rater reliability. As previously stated, it is possible that the researcher's background and subjectivity influenced the results. It is also possible that previous exposure to the literature, including past reviews, influenced the findings. Though the proportions of content areas differ from previous studies, these findings were consistent with most of the domains identified in previous research examining the content of environmental psychology literature (Giuliani & Scopelliti, 2009). Finally, the search results were not examined temporally, and it is possible—particularly with regard to the issue of new data—that examination of the timeline of cases might reveal that thematic content and the presence of new data have changed over time in the literature. Nor were the search results examined for how the terms themselves mapped onto one another. Future research may seek to examine a greater variety of search terms and the uniqueness of the literature they generate, as well as temporal changes in search terms and content.

Conclusions

Psychologies of the environment share content in a number of overlapping domains. Although they are approached differently, it seems important to identify common themes among these disciplines to draw from the multiple perspectives that are building the foundations of research in areas relevant to sustainability. Future researchers may wish to explore the individual strengths of these disciplines with emphasis on how they might contribute unique information about areas of core content. Across disciplines, data-driven research was not common in this sample; only a small portion of studies relied on the collection of novel data. Even the most common theme in this sample, the investigation of environmental problems and solutions, showed a very small percentage of studies with novel data. Increasing environmental degradation and global environmental changes make it important to collect fresh data in this and related areas to test existing theories and generate new approaches in a rapidly changing world. It seems of pressing importance to generate new research quickly, and—as many have already argued—interdisciplinary collaboration can facilitate the further, timely development of research in relevant content areas (Kazdin, 2009; Stern, 2000). For now, for this student of ecopsychology, it helps to have a sense of shared themes that exist across psychologies of the environment and how they are represented in the body of literature that Kazdin called forth to nourish a needy, hungry world.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank the reviewers and Jennifer Leigh Selig, Ph.D., for their feedback and encouragement of this article.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Earlier version of this study presented at the 118th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (APA), San Diego, CA, August 12–15, 2010.

References

Abrahamse

, Steg

, Vlek

, amp; Rothengatter

2005. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,3:273–291.

Aldwin

C. M.

, & Stokols

1988. The effects of environmental change on individuals and groups: Some neglected issues in stress research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8,1:57–75.

Allen

B. S.

, Otto

R. G.

, & Hoffman

2004. Media as lived environments: The ecological psychology of educational technology. Jonassen

D. H.

Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2nd 215–241. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Alvard

M. S.

2007. Evolutionary ecology and resource conservation. Penn &

D. J.

, Mysterud

Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems(pp. 81–103)Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

American Psychological Association (APA). 2011. PsycINFO. www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/index.aspx.

Araújo

, Davids

, amp; Hristovski

2006. The ecological dynamics of decision making in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7,6:653–676.

Auburn

, & Barnes

2006. Producing place: A neo-Schutzian perspective on the “psychology of place” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26,1:38–50.

Barker

R. G.

1965. Explorations in ecological psychology. American Psychologist, 20,1:1–14.

Barker

R. G.

1979. Settings of a professional lifetime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,12:2137–2157.

10.

Baum

, amp; Fleming

1993. Implications of psychological research on stress and technological accidents. American Psychologist, 48,6:665–672.

11.

Baum

, Fleming

, amp; Davidson

L. M.

1983. Natural disaster and technological catastrophe. Environment & Behavior, 15,3:333–354.

12.

Baum

, Singer

J. E.

, & Valins

1978. Advances in environmental psychology: I. The urban environment. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Besthorn

F. H.

2002. Radical environmentalism and the ecological self: Rethinking the concept of self-identity for social work practice. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 13,1:53–72.

14.

Bitgood

S. C.

2002. Environmental psychology in museums, zoos, and other exhibition centers. Bechtel &

R. B.

, Churchman

Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 461–480)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

15.

Bragg

E. A.

1996. Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self-theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16,2:93–108.

16.

Brody

S. D.

, Highfield

, amp; Alston

2004. Does location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environment and Behavior, 36,2:229–250.

17.

Brown

T. C.

, Peterson

G. L.

, Brodersen

R. M.

, Ford

, amp; Bell

P. A.

2005. The judged seriousness of an environmental loss is a matter of what caused it. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,1:13–21.

18.

Burls

A. P.

2008. Seeking nature: A contemporary therapeutic environment. Therapeutic Communities, 29,3:228–244.

19.

Buzzell

& Chalquist

2009. Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Fransisco: Sierra Club Books.

20.

Carpman

J. R.

, & Grant

M. A.

2002. Wayfinding: A broad view. Bechtel &

R. B.

, Churchman

Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 427–442)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

21.

Chalquist

2009. A look at the ecotherapy research evidence. Ecopsychology, 1,2:64–74.

22.

Chebat

J. C.

, & Michon

2003. Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions, cognition, and spending: A test of competitive causal theories. Journal of Business Research, 56,7:529–539.

23.

Cherulnik

P. D.

, & Wilderman

S. K.

1986. Symbols of status in urban neighborhoods: Contemporary perceptions of nineteenth-century Boston. Environment and Behavior, 18,5:604–622.

24.

Churchman

2002. Environmental psychology and urban planning: Where can the twain meet?

Bechtel &

R. B.

, Churchman

Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 191–200)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

25.

Cintrón-Moscoso

2010. Cultivating youth proenvironmental development: A critical ecological approach. Ecopsychology, 2,1:33–40.

26.

Clark

, & Uzzell

D. L.

2002. The affordances of the home, neighbourhood, school and town centre for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22,1–2:95–108.

27.

Clayton

, & Myers

2009. Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

28.

Clayton

, & Opotow

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

29.

Cloutier-Fisher

, & Harvey

2009. Home beyond the house: Experiences of place in an evolving retirement community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29,2:246–255.

30.

Craik

K. H.

1990. Environmental and personality psychology: Two collective narratives and four individual story lines. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 11:141–168.

31.

Creswell

J. W.

2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Davis

1998. The transpersonal dimensions of ecopsychology: Nature, nonduality, and spiritual practice. The Humanistic Psychologist, 26,–3:69–100.

33.

Day

M. D.

1998. Ecopsychology and the restoration of home. The Humanistic Psychologist, 26,1–3:51–67.

34.

Dixon

, & Durrheim

2004. Dislocating identity: Desegregation and the transformation of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,4:455–473.

35.

Doherty

T. J.

2010. Ecopsychology and environmentally focused psychologies. Ecopsychology, 2,4:203–204.

36.

Edelstein

M. R.

2002. Contamination: The invisible built environment. Bechtel &

R. B.

, Churchman

Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 559–588)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

37.

Evans

G. W.

1984. The effects of pathway configuration, landmarks and stress on environmental cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4,4:323–335.

38.

Evans

G. W.

2006. Child development and the physical environment. Fiske

S. T.

, Kazdin, &

A. E.

, Schacter

D. L.

Annual review of psychology(Vol. 57, pp. 423–451)Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

39.

Evans

G. W.

, & Stecker

2004. Motivational consequences of environmental stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,2:143–165.

40.

Farmer

P. M. K.

2003. In Idaho: Design and evaluation of a student orientation program for entering freshmen students at the University of Idaho utilizing wilderness experience (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

41.

Fawcett

L. K.

2003. Biological conservation of common and familiar animals: The roles of experience, age and gender in children's attitudes towards bats, frogs and raccoons (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

42.

Feral

C. H.

1998. The connectedness model and optimal development: Is ecopsychology the answer to emotional well-being? The Humanistic Psychologist, 26,1–3:243–274.

43.

Flach

J. M.

, Hancock

P. A.

, Caird

, & Vicente

K. J.

1995. Global perspectives on the ecology of human–machine systems(Vol. 1)Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

44.

Form

, & Dubrow

2005. Downtown metropolitan churches: Ecological situation and response. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44,3:271–290.

45.

Fredrickson

L. M.

, & Anderson

D. H.

1999. A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19,1:21–39.

46.

Froese

K. S.

2005. Children and the ditch: A study of the reciprocal relationship of children and earth (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

47.

Frumkin

2003. Healthy places: Exploring the evidence. American Journal of Public Health, 93,9:1451–1456.

48.

García-Mira

, & Real

J. E.

2005. Environmental perception and cognitive maps. International Journal of Psychology, 40,1:1–2.

49.

Gardner

G. T.

, & Stern

P. C.

1996. Environmental problems and human behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

50.

Gardner

M. K. A.

2003. Linking activism and the self: The politics and practice of linking social justice to environmental activism (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

51.

Gärling

, & Evans

G. W.

1991. Environment, cognition, and action: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Oxford University.

52.

Gärling

, Gärling

, & Loukopoulos

2002. Forecasting psychological consequences of car use reduction: A challenge to an environmental psychology of transportation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,1:90–106.

53.

Geller

E. S.

2002. The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. Bechtel &

R. B.

, Churchman

Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 525–540)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

54.

Gibson

J. J.

1960. The concept of the stimulus in psychology. American Psychologist, 15,11:694–703.

55.

Giuliani

M. V.

, & Scopelliti

2009. Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29:375–386.

56.

Golledge

R. G.

2002. The open door of GIS. Bechtel &

R. B.

, Churchman

Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 244–255)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

57.

Gomes

M. E.

1998. Personal transformation and social change: Conversations with ecopsychologists in action. The Humanistic Psychologist, 26,1–3:217–241.

58.

Gorman

, Lackney

J. A.

, Rollings

, & Huang

T. T. K.

2007. Designer schools: The role of school space and architecture in obesity prevention. Obesity, 15,11:2521–2530.

59.

Gregory

G. D.

, & Di Leo

2003. Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: The role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33,6:1261–1296.

60.

Harper

, & Scott

D. G.

2006. Therapeutic outfitting: Enhancing conventional adolescent mental health interventions through innovative collaborations with a wilderness experience programme. Therapeutic Communities, 27,4:549–571.

61.

Hartmann

, & Apaolaza-Ibáñez

2010. Beyond savanna: An evolutionary and environmental psychology approach to behavioral effects of nature scenery in green advertising. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30,1:119–128.

62.

Heft

2001. Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James's radical empiricism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

63.

Heft

, & Chawla

2006. Children as agents in sustainable development: The ecology of competence. Spencer &

, Blades

Children and their environments: Learning, using and designing spaces(pp. 199–216)New York, NY: Cambridge University.

64.

Higley

, & Milton

2008. Our connection to the earth—a neglected relationship in counselling psychology? Counselling Psychology Review, 23,2:10–22.

65.

Hoff

, & Hauser

2008. Applying a cognitive engineering approach to interface design of energy management systems. PsychNology Journal, 6,3:321–345.

66.

Holmes

S. J.

2003. Some lives and some theories. Clayton &

, Opotow

Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature(pp. 25–41)Cambridge, MA: MIT.

67.

Howard

G. S.

1997. Ecological psychology: Creating a more earth-friendly human nature. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.

68.

Howard

G. S.

2000. Adapting human lifestyles for the 21^st century. American Psychologist, 55,5:509–515.

69.

Howells

G. N.

1978. The field project as a tool for teaching environmental psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 5,4:195–198.

70.

Hubbard

1996. Conflicting interpretations of architecture: An empirical investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16,2:75–92.

71.

Ittelson

W. H.

1978. Environmental perception and urban experience. Environment & Behavior, 10,2:193–213.

72.

Joye

2003. Organic architecture as an expression of innate environmental preferences. Communication & Cognition, 36,3–4:391–429.

73.

Joye

2007. Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11,4:305–328.

74.

Kaplan

2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment & Behavior, 33,4:507–542.

75.

Kaplan

, & Talbot

J. F.

1983. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6:163–203.

76.

Kastenbaum

1974. Disaster, death, and human ecology. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 5,1:65–72.

77.

Kaye

S. M.

1975. Psychology in relation to design: An overview. Canadian Psychological Review/Psychologie Canadienne, 16,2:104–110.

78.

Kazdin

A. E.

2009. Psychological science's contributions to a sustainable environment: Extending our reach to a grand challenge of society. American Psychologist, 64,5:339–356.

79.

Kirlik

2006. Adaptive perspectives on human-technology interaction: Methods and models for cognitive engineering and human-computer interaction. New York, NY: Oxford University.

80.

Kopec

2006. Environmental psychology for design. New York, NY: Fairchild Publications.

81.

Krampen

1991. Environmental meaning. Zube &

E. H.

, Moore

G. T.

Advances in environment, behavior, and design(Vol. 3, pp. 231–268)New York, NY: Plenum Press Environmental Design Research Association.

82.

Kurz

2002. The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting together pieces of the puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2,1:257–278.

83.

Kyttä

, Kaaja

, & Horelli

2004. An Internet-based design game as a mediator of children's environmental visions. Environment and Behavior, 36,1:127–151.

84.

Lambert

M. J.

et al. 1978. Reported self-concept and self-actualizing value changes as a function of academic classes with wilderness experience. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46,3:1035–1040.

85.

Lawton

M. P.

1990. Residential environment and self-directedness among older people. American Psychologist, 45,5:638–640.

86.

Lebovits

A. H.

, Baum

, & Singer

J. E.

1986. Exposure to hazardous substances: Psychological parameters. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

87.

Liben

L. S.

, & Downs

R. M.

1991. The role of graphic representations in understanding the world. Downs

R. M.

, Liben, &

L. S.

, Palermo

D. S.

Visions of aesthetics, the environment & development: The legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwill(pp. 139–180)Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

88.

Lindberg

, Hartig

, Garvill

, & Gärling

1992. Residential-location preferences across the life span. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12,2:187–198.

89.

Marshall

, & Rossman

G. B.

2011. Designing qualitative research, 5th. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

90.

McMorris

1999. Cognitive development and the acquisition of decision-making skills. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30,2:151–172.

91.

Meck

2008. Identity and landscape: A panoramic view of correlation (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

92.

Mest

R. A.

2008. Ecopsychology: The transformative power of home. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36,1:52–71.

93.

Metzner

1998. The place and the story: Ecopsychology and bioregionalism. The Humanistic Psychologist, 26,1–3:35–49.

94.

Michaels

C. F.

, & Beek

1995. The state of ecological psychology. Ecological Psychology, 7,4:259–278.

95.

Milfont

T. L.

, & Duckitt

2004. The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,3:289–303.

96.

Milfont

T. L.

, & Gouveia

V. V.

2006. Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26,1:72–82.

97.

Moser

, Pol

, Bernard

, Bonnes

, Corraliza

J. A.

, & Giuliani

M. V.

2003. People, places, and sustainability. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.

98.

Nelson

1948. The rural community. Nelson

Rural sociology(pp. 71–96)New York, NY: American Book Company.

99.

O'Neill

2005. Presence, place and the virtual spectacle. PsychNology Journal, 3,2:149–161.

100.

Peterson

G. L.

1974. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environment: Congruence between perception and aspiration. Environment and Behavior, 6,2:169–193.

101.

Plas

R. E.

1995. The effects of a wilderness experience program on self-esteem and locus of control in early adolescents (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

102.

Plotkin

2008. Nature and the human soul: Cultivating wholeness and community in a fragmented world. Novato, CA: New World Library.

103.

Proshansky

H. M.

, Ittelson

W. H.

, & Rivlin

L. G.

1976. Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings, 2nd. Oxford: Holt.

104.

Rader

S. S.

2010. Ecopsychology revealed: An empirical look at the benefits of nature experience for human beings and the world (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

105.

Reser

J. P.

, & Scherl

L. M.

1988. Clear and unambiguous feedback: A transactional and motivational analysis of environmental challenge and self-encounter. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8,4:269–286.

106.

Robin

, Matheau-Police

, & Couty

2007. Development of a scale of perceived environmental annoyances in urban settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27,1:55–68.

107.

Rosenbluth

2010. The interplay of environmental justice and environmental psychology in environmental conflicts: A case study of the La Farfana water sewage treatment plant and the Pudahuel community in Santiago, Chile (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Information & Learning.

108.

Roszak

1992. The voice of the earth. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

109.

Ruback

R. B.

, Pandey

, & Kohli

2008. Evaluations of a sacred place: Role and religious belief at the Magh Mela. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28,2:174–184.

110.

Sachs

J. J.

, & Miller

S. R.

1992. The impact of a wilderness experience on the social interactions and social expectations of behaviorally disordered adolescents. Behavioral Disorders, 17,2:89–98.

111.

Saldaña

2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

112.

Santostefano

2004. Child therapy in the great outdoors: A relational view. New York, NY: The Analytic Press/Taylor & Francis Group.

113.

Santostefano

2008. The sense of self inside and environments outside: How the two grow together and become one in healthy psychological development. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 18,4:513–535.

114.

Saunders

C. D.

2003. The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10,2:137–149.

115.

Scannell

, & Gifford

2010. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30,1:1–10.

116.

Schmuck

, & Vlek

2003. Psychologists can do much to support sustainable development. European Psychologist, 8,2:66–76.

117.

Sewall

1998. Looking for a worldview: Perceptual practice in an ecological age. The Humanistic Psychologist, 26,1–3:163–177.

118.

Sewall

1999. Sight and sensibility: The ecopsychology of perception. New York, NY: The Putnam Publishing Group.

119.

Singh

S. N.

, Donavan

D. T.

, Mishra

, & Little

T. D.

2008. The latent structure of landscape perception: A mean and covariance structure modeling approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28,4:339–352.

120.

Smith

1999. Truth and the visual field. Petitot

, Varela

F. J.

, Pachoud, &

, Roy

J. M.

Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science(pp. 317–329)Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

121.

Sneep

2007. Ecopsychology: An introduction and Christian critique. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 26,2:166–175.

122.

Spencer

, & Woolley

2000. Children and the city: A summary of recent environmental psychology research. Child: Care, Health and Development, 26,3:181–198.

123.

Steg

, Dreijerink

, & Abrahamse

2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,4:415–425.

124.

Stern

P. C.

2000. Psychology and the science of human-environment interactions. American Psychologist, 55,5:523–530.

125.

Stevens

2009. Exploring our physical connections: The role of magnetic fields in restorative environments. Ecopsychology, 2,1:85–92.

126.

Stokols

1990. Instrumental and spiritual views of people-environment relations. American Psychologist, 45,5:641–646.

127.

Stokols

1995. The paradox of environmental psychology. American Psychologist, 50,10:821–837.

128.

Stokols

, Misra

, Runnerstrom

M. G.

, & Hipp

J. A.

2009. Psychology in an age of ecological crisis: From personal angst to collective action. American Psychologist, 64,3:181–193.

129.

Stokols

, & Montero

2002. Toward an environmental psychology of the Internet. Bechtel &

R. B.

, Churchman

Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 661–675)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

130.

Tai

S. H. C.

, & Fung

A. M. C.

1997. Application of an environmental psychology model to in-store buying behaviour. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 7,4:311–337.

131.

Taylor

A. J.

1987. A taxonomy of disasters and their victims. Journal of Psychosomatic research, 31,5:535–544.

132.

Taylor

2010. Dark green religion: Nature spirituality and the planetary future. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

133.

Thompson

2009. Reviewing ecopsychology research: Exploring five databases and considering the future. Ecopsychology, 1,1:32–37.

134.

Turvey

M. T.

2004. Space (and its perception): The first and final frontier. Ecological Psychology, 16,1:25–29.

135.

Uğur

, & Şahin

2010. Traversability: A case study for learning and perceiving affordances in robots. Adaptive Behavior, 18,3–4:258–284.

136.

Ulrich

R. S.

1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6:85–125.

137.

Valera

, & Guàrdia

2002. Urban social identity and sustainability: Barcelona's Olympic Village. Environment and Behavior, 34,1:54–66.

138.

Valle

P. O. D.

, Rebelo

, Reis

, & Menezes

2005. Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior, 37,3:364–396.

139.

Vicente

K. J.

2003. Beyond the lens model and direct perception: Toward a broader ecological psychology. Ecological Psychology, 15,3:241–267.

140.

Wagman

J. B.

, & Miller

D. B.

2003. Nested reciprocities: The organism-environment system in perception-action and development. Developmental Psychobiology, 42,4:317–334.

141.

Wagman

J. B.

, & Pagano

C. C.

2009. Studies in perception and action X: Fifteenth international conference on perception and action. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

142.

Weisman

G. D.

1991. Conceptualization and application: Psychological processes in environmental cognition and assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University.

143.

Wicker

A. W.

1990. The Midwest Psychological Field Station: Some reflections of one participant. Environment and Behavior, 22,4:492–498.

144.

Wilson

E. O.

2007. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. Penn &

D. J.

, Mysterud

Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems(pp. 249–257)Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

145.

Wimelius

2004. Fundamentals of user perception and interaction: Environmental psychology applied in a study of web pages. PsychNology Journal, 2,3:282–303.

146.

Winkel

, Saegert

, & Evans

G. W.

2009. An ecological perspective on theory, methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29,3:318–328.

147.

Winter

D. D. N.

2003. Ecological psychology: Healing the split between planet and self. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

148.

Winter

D. D. N.

, & Koger

S. M.

2004. The psychology of environmental problems, 2nd. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

149.

Wood

, & Giles-Corti

2008. Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28,2:154–163.

150.

Yamamoto

1984. Current trends in Japanese environmental psychology. Hiroshima Forum for Psychology, 10:61–69.

151.

Young

M. F.

, & McNeese

M. D.

1995. A situated cognition approach to problem solving. Hancock

, Flach

J. M.

, Caird

, Vicente

& K. J.

Local applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems(Vol. 2, pp. 359–391)Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

152.

Ziegler

2009. Coming home. Ecopsychology, 1,4:199–201.

153.

Zube

E. H.

1991. Environmental psychology, global issues, and local landscape research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11,4:321–334.

154.

Zube

E. H.

, Pitt

D. G.

, & Evans

G. W.

1993. A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3,2:115–128.