970x125
If you feel more relaxed and recharged after a walk in the woods or a day at the beach, there is a psychological reason for that. Interacting with the natural world is not only good for our body, but it is good for our mind and spirit too.
What we intuitively know – that getting outdoors is good for us – is now supported by a robust body of research. In the last decade there has been an explosion of studies that demonstrate that interactions with nature lowers stress, reduces ruminations (the negative thoughts associated with depression), and lessens anxiety. Studies have also shown that interacting with nature fosters creativity, improves cognitive function, restores attention fatigue, increases our sense of happiness, and can impact pro-social and pro-environmental behaviors. These studies provide evidence that paves the way for mental health practitioners to incorporate the natural world into their therapeutic work as a best practice. These nature-based methods are sometimes referred to as ecotherapy.
Historically, psychotherapy occurs in indoor office spaces and focuses on issues that stop at the urban boundary. Because much of the dominant Western culture saw humans as separate from nature, practitioners did not consider the individual’s ecological experience as a factor in their well-being. We did not recognize the potential therapeutic benefits of a reciprocal relationship between humans and the natural world. Similarly, global environmental concerns were not thought to impact the mental health of the individual. But today, with an increased awareness of the impacts of climate-related anxiety and trauma, and mounting evidence that interactions with nature have powerful psychological and emotional benefits, there is a growing interest in the field of ecopsychology and the practice of ecotherapy.
Our understanding of human behavior is reflected in the development of psychology’s 200-year history. We think of modern psychology and psychotherapy as beginning with Freud, Jung, Adler, and their contemporaries in the early 1900s. Their writings and theoretical development focused on the intrapsychic processes within the individual. Though many of these early theories have been updated or refuted, they laid the initial foundation for understanding the complexity of the human experience. These theorists were also interested in how intrapsychic phenomena influenced the individual’s interpersonal relationships – especially with early caregivers and intimate partners.
In the 1950s, systems theory was introduced into psychotherapy, marking a shift away from intrapsychic analysis to a focus on how reciprocal influences between individuals in relationships occurred. The deep influence of the family of origin and the current family structure on the client began to be more fully appreciated. Through the lens of systems theory, clinicians began to understand the individual within the context of the family system.
Out of systems theory grew a greater appreciation for the impact of societal norms and roles on the individual, as well as the deep influence of cultural worldviews. Systems theory broadens our clinical focus and considers how the larger outer world shapes the individual. The 1960s and 70s brought awareness of the power of cultural “isms” – racism, sexism, ageism, etc. – and their influence on each person. Societal influences such as workplace stress, educational environment, and health care access began to find their way into the therapy room.
But until the introduction of ecopsychology in the 1990s, most traditional psychology theory and psychotherapy practice stopped at the urban boundary. Until recently, we did not consider the impact of the ecological system out of which the individual grew or in which they lived. The relationship between the individual and the natural environment was not a topic in most clinicians’ training. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, used in the United States to diagnose mental health issues, does not mention any relationship to the environment, except noting seasonal influence on major depression disorder. Similarly, clients rarely voiced concerns for the environment in the context of therapy because they did not expect those concerns to be a focus of the therapeutic process. Without expanding our therapeutic lens to include the ecological system, clinicians risk missing the opportunity to fully grasp the client’s experience of nature and their concerns for it.
Adding the ecological system to our scope of treatment focus provides a more holistic view of the individual’s experience in the world and their relationship with nature. As issues related to our rapidly changing environment show up in the nightly news, and as more people are directly impacted by increasingly frequent and severe climate-related weather events, more clients are presenting with climate-related concerns and acute trauma. Expanding our clinical lens to include the natural environment in which we are all embedded opens profound topics and rich resources for the therapeutic process.
Note: This post contains excerpts from my forthcoming book, Prescribing Nature: A Clinician’s Guide to Ecotherapy, published by W.W. Norton.
