Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 1

Gestalt Therapy and Ecotherapy:

The Growing Field of Practice

A Literature Review

Lewin de la Motte-Hall

Gestalt Therapy Sydney

Supervised by Dr. Greer White

20 July 2015
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 2

STATEMENT OF SOURCES

This Literature Review contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part

from writing by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgment in the main text of this

Literature Review.

This Literature Review has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other

tertiary institution.

Name: Lewin de la Motte-Hall

Signature:
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 3
The Gestalt Therapy concept of growth includes the ability of the organism to cocreate
(together with its environment) a place where organismic needs and the resources for life
converge to provide a place of human habitation. By invoking a place of habitation or, in
some instances, rehabilitation, Gestalt Therapy offers more than mere cure. It is concerned
with healing (Levine, 2008, p. 147)

My personal motivation for this literature review has arisen from a deep felt intimacy with wild

nature. This connection has blossomed from the ground of my family’s history in conservation work

and my experiences in nature based ceremonies such as the North American Vision Fast. The first

time I experienced sitting alone for four days and nights without food in the Australian bush

irrevocably altered the course of my life. All beliefs and self concepts I held dear were stretched to

their limit and eventually dissolved, giving way to a direct meeting with wild nature which has

soaked into my bones. This experience has since ignited a deep motivation to be part of a healing

conversation between humans and the Earth. Ecotherapy is one such healing conversation that

places the health of human beings and the natural world within a reciprocal relationship of growth

(Chalquist, 2009). Ecotherapy is based upon the premise that Nature heals - “Natura sanat non

medicus” (Stoehr, 2013, p. 37). Numerous studies confirm this medieval truism, demonstrating how

our psychological, physical and social well being are enhanced through contact with nature

(Annerstedt & Währborg, 2011; Bratman, Hamilton, & Daily, 2012; Chalquist, 2009). The

integrative practice of Ecotherapy seems to me the natural evolution of my studies in Gestalt

Therapy, which I feel provide a supportive philosophical and methodological framework unto

which the various methods of Ecotherapy can be applied. It is my hope that through this literature

review I can weave together an initial academic base to grow the practice of a Gestalt oriented eco-

psychotherapy.

This literature review is divided into four sections. The first section maps the historical evolution of

Ecotherapy definitions and sets it apart from its underpinning interdisciplinary fields. It collates
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 4
existing practice based definitions of Ecotherapy. The second section reviews some of the most

common modalities of Ecotherapy that have been applied to the psychotherapy field by dividing the

literature into active and passive methods. Out of all the psychotherapeutic approaches, Gestalt

Therapy, with its emphasis on the phenomenological field and creative embodied approach, is a

fertile ground for Ecotherapy practice. Consequently, the third section introduces Gestalt Therapy. It

details how field theory (Wollants, 2012) and the phenomenological method (Bloom, 2009)

contextualise and augment the practice of Ecotherapy. The fourth section summarises the literature

review and draws conclusions by commenting on the integration of the two fields.

Ecotherapy: History and definitions

Ecotherapy refers to a myriad of practices which lead to cycles of mutual healing between humans

and nature (Chalquist, 2009). It is the practical application of Ecopsychology (Jordan, 2015; Joseph,

2014). Ecopsychology is a multidisciplinary field, a social movement, and an academic discipline

which attempts to merge the fields of Ecology and Psychology (Greenway, 2009). Theodore Roszak

was the first to posit the term Ecopsychology giving voice to the counter cultural notion that our

individual health and the health of the planet lay along a spectrum, part of the same entity (Roszak,

1992). This set the foundations for a dialogue to occur between many psychologists, scientists, and

academics as to how they would co create a more ecologically-based system (Roszak, 1992, 1995).

Since that time psychologists have been calling for a re-visioning of the human psyche (Fisher,

2013; Plotkin, 2014). The burgeoning of the Ecotherapy practice arises now in response to that call

(Frumkin, 2012). Although Ecopsychology is only a recent development in western psychology,

since the beginning of humanity nature has been revered as healer, as is evidenced by the shamanic

and medicinal cultures of Indigenous traditions the world over (Hoelterhoff, 2010). The deepest

roots of Ecotherapy draw from the wellspring of wisdom that these cultures provide (Plotkin, 2014).
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 5
At the beginning of the 20th century western psychology started to recognise the healing power of

nature as an adjunct to the treatment of a variety of psychiatric & hospital populations (Gillespie &

Rutko, 2013). It took a further 50 years until any serious research started. During the 1960’s Dr.

Robert Greenway and Art Warmoth used the term psycho-ecology to describe the processes they

underwent taking university students into the wilderness (Clare, 2014). Simultaneously scientists

began research on the human/nature relationship at the University of Michigan (Ulrich, 1979,1981).

Around this time the school Project Nature Connect, progressed into one of the first working

examples of the not yet termed Ecotherapy (Scull 2008). During the 1980’s and 1990’s as

Ecopsychology advanced its theoretical underpinnings, ecotherapists expanded their modalities to

include a vast field of approaches to human health (Aviles-Andrews, 2013). Particularly the fields

of Adventure or Wilderness Therapy (Dawson & Russell 2011), Horticultural Therapy (Linden &

Grut, 2002), and Green Exercise (Pretty, Peacock, Hine, Sellens, & South, 2007) sought to bring

people out into nature in an attempt to heal psychologically. It wasn’t until 1996 that the current

field of Ecotherapy was defined. (Selhub & Logan, 2012).

Ecotherapy as it is now understood represents an emergent field of psychology which seeks to

incorporate nature based practices and up to date evidence based methods into therapy (Hasbach,

2012). The word Ecotherapy being first coined by Clinebell (1996), relates a reciprocal form of

healing whereby personal healing is initiated through mindful immersion in nature, which in turn

empowers a person with an invigorated capacity to conserve the Earth (Clinebell, 1996). This

notion, that being immersed in a mindful contact with nature has a positive healing affect on the

whole person-environment-field, is the basis of Ecotherapy (Scott, 2014; Fisher, 2013). Today

Ecotherapy practice is supported by a vast underlying theoretical web; Ecology, deep ecology,

transpersonal psychology, Gaia theory, ecofeminism, and systems theory (Hasbach, 2012). Figure 1
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 6
reveals a vague distinction between Ecotherapy and these fields. Ecotherapy being represented on

the vertical axis, as an active expression of Ecopsychology. Ecotherapy being supported by

Ecopsychology as an embedded philosophy (Scull, 2008, p. 68).

Figure: “The position of Ecopsychology in relation to

other sub-disciplines” (Scull, 2008, p. 68)

The literature presents Ecotherapy as an umbrella term which thus far has escaped a unified

definition (Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009; Selhub & Logan, 2012). There appears as many definitions

of Ecotherapy as there are practitioners. Attempting to consolidate a core definition within the

discipline is a current focus for practitioners in the field (Aviles-Andrews, 2013; Berger, 2009). This

common definition would support an “interim conceptual framework” (Greenway, 2009, p. 78) that

could be applied directly to the mental health fields. To support such work the following pragmatic

definitions have been described. The first revealing three distinct actions of Ecotherapy:
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 7
1. Ecotherapy describes (diagnoses) the current state of dis-ease within the Human Nature

Relationship.

2. Reveals the pathologies we face as individuals as being interdependent upon the health of our

wider environment.

3. It then prescribes the methods by which healing of this human / nature split can be remedied

(Scull, 2008).

The second speaks to Ecotherapy as an applied Ecopsychology; being based on the broadening of

self to include our environmental context. It emphasises working with the clients belonging to place

through contact with nature, which in turn widens the clients sense of self to encompass the natural

world (Kenney, 2012). Another frame clarifies two types of Ecotherapy. Natural Ecotherapy which

occurs as a result of humans beings interacting with nature in a spontaneous way, and clinical

Ecotherapy which is “conducted as part of a professional practice” (Chalquist, 2013, p. 61).

Ecotherapy is consistently framed across the literature to contain a triad of factors, the subject: the

client, the provider: a human therapist and nature. (Burls, 2008; Kahn & Hasbach, 2013; Scull,

2009). Contemporary Ecotherapy expands this definition to encompass the broader macro level

which refers to the social / ecological actions which the participant becomes involved in as a direct

result of the triadic therapeutic work (Burls, 2008).

Recently historical humanistic definitions of Ecotherapy seem to be integrating a scientific lexicon

due to the birthing of the first international peer reviewed Ecopsychology journals in 2009 and 2010

(Aviles-Andrews, 2013). Both relate a growing concern for the appropriation of scientific research

methods into the ecotherapeutic approach (Joseph, 2014). Ecotherapy now being described as: “the

practical application of a bimodal approach to brain health, on one side of the Ecotherapy coin is

mindful nature interaction, on the other side is a commitment to nature through environmental
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 8
awareness” (Selhub & Logan, 2012, p. 206). Similarly as: “an umbrella term for therapeutic

practices integrating the nature-based healing practices of many native cultures in conjunction with

modern research-based methods” (Spach, 2012). After researching the definitions within

Ecotherapy literature, it has become evident that to advance the field into a more globally

recognised arena, Ecotherapy has to clarify a workable universal definition and method (Joseph,

2014).

Ecotherapy: A Growing Field of Practice

There is a diverse field of Ecotherapy modalities being used across the globe today in the treatment

of mental health (Jordan, 2015). Allied health workers including psychologists, psychiatrists and

social workers are attempting to rewild the human psyche, drawing on a number of methods:

Horticultural Therapy, (Clatworthy et al., 2013; Sempik, 2007; Wise, 2015), Equine Assisted

Therapy (Edwards, 2012; Singmaster, 2013), Wilderness / Adventure Therapy (Paquette, & Vitaro,

2014; Willis, 2011), Patient-Specific Healing Gardens, (Corazon et al., 2012; Pálsdottír, Grahn, &

Persson, 2014) Green Exercise (Marselle, Irvine, & Warber, 2014) and Green Care, (Bragg, Wood,

& Barton, 2013; Sempik, Hine, & Wilcox, 2010), Art Therapy (Brandt, 2012; Spach, 2012) & Deep

Ecology exercises (Macy & Brown, 2015; Buzzel & Chalquist, 2009). Due to its multidisciplinary

roots and its relative newness as a school of psychotherapy there is no standardised method for

Ecotherapy practice (Berger, 2009; Wahrborg, 2011). Ecotherapy courses are presented around the

globe ranging from short courses to full bachelors and postgraduate degrees in Ecopsychology

(Chiu, 2010). Writers have expressed the complexity of creating a therapeutic framework which can

encompass such a wide variety of nature based healing methods (Wahrborg, 2011). Despite this

there is a contemporary push towards a scientifically supported, concretised method of Ecotherapy

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 9
employed specifically within a psychotherapeutic context (Buzzel, 2014; Logan & Selhub, 2013;

Rust & Totton, 2012).

The vast field of Ecotherapy practice based literature can be split into those that emphasise either

active and passive participation methods (Jordan, 2015). Active methods are those which actively

immerse the therapeutic relationship in the natural world & include Wilderness Therapy and

Horticultural Therapies. Passive approaches emphasise sensual embodiment in nature and utilise

projective practices like expressive art therapies and storytelling (Jordan & Marshal, 2010).

Active Methods: Wilderness Therapy and Horticultural Therapies

Wilderness Therapy is the most widely written about and thoroughly researched application of

Ecotherapy (Gass, Gillis, & Russell, 2012; Hill, 2007). It is based on the theory that providing

adequate challenge through environmental obstacles in a wilderness setting will help participants

reorganise a healthy sense of self (Willis, 2011). The majority of Wilderness Therapy literature

focuses on specific population groups such as at risk adolescents and young males (Davies-Berman

& Berman, 2009; Whittington, 2006). Recently, practice has diversified to include populations such

as psychiatric outpatients, the terminally ill, addictions and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Russell

& Farnum 2004). The field is dominated by the treatment protocols of Cognitive Behavioural

Therapy, Transactional Analysis, and Family Therapy which measure outcomes such as self

efficacy, (Schoel et al., 1988) behavioural self control (Gass, Gillis, & Russell, 2008) & positive

change, (Harper, Russell, Cooley, & Cupples, 2007). Much of the wilderness therapy literature

emphasising counselling as an intervention focus on the interiority of the participant and the

psychopathologies they present (Moore & Russell, 2002; Russell & Hendee, 2000). Despite the

extensive volumes of Wilderness Therapy literature there is no clearly defined psychotherapeutic

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 10
actions or theoretical foundations within the discipline (Dawson & Russell, 2012; Russell &

Farnum, 2004; Wolfe & Samdahl, 2005).

Wilderness programs that emphasise a specifically psychotherapeutic approach have been gaining

popularity over the last 10 years, however are still a minority (Key & Kerr, 2011). Methods

employed include group psychotherapy processes, ceremonial work, meditations and one to one

counselling sessions (Greenway, 2009; Plotkin, 2009). Such methods support participants to process

challenges in the wilderness and make further links to patterns of behaviour beyond the program

(Dawson & Russell, 2012). Throughout the literature there appears a division between a focus on

the inner world of the participant and the unique healing affects of being outside engaged a dynamic

exchange with the wilderness (Jordan, 2015). More literature is needed which discusses the benefits

of incorporating psychotherapeutic techniques explicitly into Wilderness Therapy treatment

programs (Berger, 2009, Jordan, 2015). From the wilderness to specialised farms, ecotherapists are

breaking new ground in providing accessible mental health services.

Horticultural Therapies are another active method of Ecotherapy being used across the globe as

effective mental health treatment (Clatworthy, et al., 2013; Kamioka et al., 2014; Sempik, 2007).

Utilising natural environments as an adjunct to mental health services has been used since the 19th

century to benefit institutionalised care, predating most psychological treatment methods (Wilson,

2008). Now in Europe psychiatrists are prescribing depressed patients Vitamin G or Greenspace

referring to time spent in nature (Groenewegen, van den Berg, de Vries, & Verheij, 2006). Over the

past 20 years research has bourgeoned indicating how the therapeutic setting is a seminal aspect of

healing (Butler & Friel, 2006; Bragg, Wood, & Barton, 2013; Maller et al., 2006). Horticultural

Therapy uses this research to its advantage and has proven itself to be beneficial in a range of

rehabilitative and community settings. (Clatworthy, et al. 2013). Defined as; “The use of plants by a
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 11
trained professional as a medium to which certain clinically defined goals can be met…” (Growth

Point, 1999, p. 4). Recent clinical research has shown it as a “significantly effective mental health

intervention” for a range of mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, major depression & dementia

(Kamioka et al., 2014, p. 943). In the UK refugees are provided care by a multidisciplinary team

where trauma can be safely re-experienced utilising gardening as a medium to physically rework

traumatic memories (Linden & Grut, 2002). While in Denmark and Sweden researchers have

created specialised healing gardens which are being used to treat patients and conduct longitudinal

effect studies (Corazon, 2012; Pálsdottír, Grahn, & Persson, 2014). Techniques are based on

incorporating acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) within Permaculture gardening principles

where occupational therapists, psychiatrists and gardeners work with clients to recover from work

related stress (Grahn et al., 2010). In parallel to Wilderness Therapy, Horticultural Therapy

demonstrates a large amount of evidence based literature concerning overall efficacy, yet there has

been no literature found linking specific methods with health outcomes (Annerstedt & Währborg,

2011, Kamioka et al., 2014, Sempik, 2008). Similarly to the group oriented active methods, a

substantial list of studies have indicated the psychological health benefits of passive exposure to

natural environments (Fuller et al., 2007; Gidlöf-Gunnarsson & Öhrström 2007 ; Maas, Verheij, de

Vries, Spreeuwenberg, Schellevis, & Groenewegen, 2009).

Passive Methods: Sense Awareness and Projective Techniques

The specific effects of passive experiencing of nature has been studied since the 1950’s, revealing

how natural light, sounds and smells induce measurable health benefits (Chalquist, 2009; Selhub &

Logan, 2012). Foundational studies showed that views from hospital beds onto nature reduced

recovery time (Ulrich, 1979, 1981), while recent research reveals how having a few pot plants

visible while studying or working reduces anxiety, depression and fatigue by 50 percent, decreases
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 12
the likelihood of sick leave by 60 percent and significantly reduces the chances of students going to

hospital (Burchett et al., 2010; Bringslimark et al., 2009; Jin-Su et al., 2008). The restorative effects

of nature are now being translated into the psychotherapy office with therapists bringing nature into

the room through nature based sense awareness practices (Burns, 1999; Adams, 2005; Scull, 2009).

Sense awareness activities and projective techniques are a more accessible means of re-sensitising

the clients dissociative relationship with nature than active approaches (Scull, 2009; Jordan, 2015).

Such practices help to address the lack of confidence many health care workers have in bringing

therapy outside (Wolsko & Hoyt, 2012). Related as “listening with the earth in mind” (Rust, 2009,

p. 39), a phenomenological lens is used to investigate the clients’ direct experience of nature and

their own bodies. In this way, ecotherapists facilitate shifts in perception through helping the client

direct their attention to the processes in the environment (Selhub & Logan, 2012). Contact with the

concrete processes of nature through the five senses is shown to lead to a reduction in feelings of

isolation to an increased tendency towards feelings of reciprocity and belonging (Berger, 2009;

Cahalan, 1995; Harris, 2009).

In the practice of one to one and couples therapy, sense awareness can be employed from the outset

via eco-diagnosis, a systemic method of discerning the environmental influences to a client’s health

(Clinebell, 2013; Buzzel, 2009; Scull, 2009). A process which expands on traditional assessment

procedures, it invites an awareness of the range of ways the client can be resourced through contact

with nature (Buzzel, 2009). Doing so clinicians have found that overwhelmingly, people find

enjoyment in nature, and ironically not in common activities like watching TV (Burns, 2009).

Similar methods such as the “Sensory Awareness Inventory” (Burns, 2009, p. 98) ask the client to

record pleasurable experiences in relationship to the five senses as a way to acknowledge their

internal positive reinforcers (Burns, 2009). Other approaches like Mindfulness in nature and
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 13
tailored sensory awareness practices exemplify a process oriented mode of perceiving the

interconnected nature of internal and external phenomenon (Coleman, 2010; Hickey, 2008). Sense

exploration is not limited to the wilderness and includes listening to buildings, natural disaster sites

and community gardens (Watkins, 2009). Sense awareness helps to "restore intentional human

connection with particular places" (Watkins, 2009, p. 233) and supports the ecopsychological notion

that mindful immersion in nature promotes pro-environmental behaviour (Kollmuss & Agyeman,

2002; Zylstra et al., 2014). The reviewed practice literature relies heavily on case studies and post

session questionnaires to illustrate methods of sensorial engagement (Buzzel & Chalquist, 2009;

Burls, 2008). Similar to Horticultural and Wilderness therapies there is a dearth of literature which

outlines a concrete empirically tested methodology via the use of an ecological sense awareness

(Clare, 2014).

A second class of passive Ecotherapy interventions are projective techniques. Art Therapy using

nature, metaphor and storytelling are projective methods which help to draw out the inner world of

the client into a sensuous embodied relationship with the living world (Berger, 2008; Rust, 2009).

The ecopsychological tenet of nature as mirror, is common across the literature. (Plotkin, 2013;

Jordan, 2015; Davis, 1998). It informs the practice of storytelling as a means to allow the seasonal

themes of birth, growth death & renewal to mirror life’s psycho-social transitions (Apathy, 2010;

Jordan & Marshall, 2010; Plotkin, 2013). Similarly creating artworks with nature utilises nature as

diverse living canvas for the assemblage of unintegrated parts of the psyche (Clinebell, 2013;

Degges-White & Davis, 2010). Eco-dreamwork is another method based upon Jungian analysis,

which is used to uncover the clients subjective feelings in relation to a broader ecological ground

(Rust, 2009; Prentice, 2003). A limited amount of research papers have been written which seek to

investigate the efficacy of projective methods of Ecotherapy (Harris, 2014; Roth, 2010). This is

partly due to the difficulty in isolating the single healing elements within the complex interrelated
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 14
approach to healing that Ecotherapy provides (McLeod, 2002). Researchers attempting to do so

have stretched the traditional usage of the term transference, describing the clients projective

relationship with nature (Harris, 2014; Jordan, 2009). The investigation of transference processes

through the research method of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, 1996), has

reframed the therapeutic environment as "a world which speaks" (Merleau-Ponty, 1996, p. 13),

enabling the client, therapist and nature to "constitute a new whole" (Merleau-Ponty, 1996, p. 13). A

development of the research into ecological transference in the practice of Ecotherapy would help

to build academic credibility in this new field.

Gestalt Ecotherapy in the Literature

Since the mid nineties Gestalt therapist’s and ecopsychologists alike have been calling for Gestalt’s

contribution to Ecotherapy (Roszak, 1995; Swanson, 1995; Wysong, 1995). A small number of

Gestalt practitioners have responded by publishing pragmatic works for integrating an ecological

awareness into Gestalt Therapy (Roth, 2010; Swanson, 2001; Wymore, 2006). Gestalt Therapy is a

growth oriented, phenomenological psychotherapy which aims to increase embodied awareness of

our patterns of meeting with others and our world (Levine, 2012). Contemporary Gestalt Therapy is

systemically relational, emphasising the healing potential of the interpersonal field of relationships

(Bloom, 2011; Yontef & Jacobs, 2010). Ecotherapy and Gestalt Therapy were born out of

interdisciplinary, counter cultural roots seeking to establish a foundation of holistic methods of

growth (Fisher, 2002; Rubenfeld, 2008; Wheeler & Axelsson, 2014). Gestalt presents a fertile

philosophical and methodological ground on which to plant the practice of an eco-psychotherapy

(Roth, 2010; Singmaster, 2013; Swanson, 2001). This integration is seen across the literature to fall

under two foundational tenets; field theory (Burley, 2012; Lewin, 1951; Wollants, 2012), and the

phenomenological method (Bloom, 2009; Philippson, 2012).

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 15

An Evolving Field

Field theory is the unifying philosophical web holding the practice of Gestalt eco-psychotherapy

(Cahalan, 1995; Creaven, 2009; Swanson, 2001). Lewin's field theory has been applied with Gestalt

Therapy to provide a language for understanding the complex interdependence and mutual casualty

of the client’s behaviour within a dynamic alive system (Fairfield, 2009; Wheeler & Axelsson,

2014; Wollants, 2012). Field Theory is the framework upon which Gestalt forms its ontology,

defining the self as: “organism-as-a-whole-embedded-in-environment” (Perls, Hefferline, &

Goodman, 1951, p. 5). This original contextual approach to Gestalt Therapy practice calls for the

practitioner to integrate novel methods into a revised Gestalt, greater than the sum of its parts

(Latner, 2008; Perls et al., 1951). Contemporary Gestalt Therapy theory is now being called to

synthesise the “difficult” split within Gestalt’s writings concerning field theory (O’Neill, 2010;

Yontef, 1993). There is a divide between writers who support a phenomenological field theory,

(Jacobs, 2012; McConville, 2012b), and those who prefer a holistic situational field theory (Burley,

2012a; Latner, 2008; Parlett, 2005). There is however a middle camp of literature which proposes

an integrative “Field Perspective” (O’Neill & Gaffney, 2008, p. 173) where a biological view of

Gestalt is not taken in the reductionistic sense but rather advocated in the original flavour of Gestalt

holism which can integrate multiple perspective of the one field theory (Adams, 2015; Burley,

2012b; O’Neill & Gaffney, 2008). Such an approach highlights the total biological field in which

the therapeutic relationship is found.

Gestalt Therapy theory and practice is endemically biological (Crocker & Philippson, 2005;

Madewell & Shaughnessy, 2009; O’Neill, 2013). In Gestalt Therapy human behaviour, like other

animals are seen as interlinked within patterns of contact and withdrawal in their environment in
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 16
order to maintain homeostasis (O’Neill, 2013; Russel, 2009; Yontef, 1993). Despite the biological

underpinning of Gestalt’s theory, human / nature contact is regarded as a neglected relationship in

Gestalt Therapy practice (Adams, 2015; Parlett, 1997) and in psychotherapy in general (Higley &

Milton, 2008). Original therapeutic intentions have been largely ignored: "Goodman's interest in

overcoming the false organism/environment split remains essential, but neglected” (Beaumont,

1993, p. 90). The implicitly progressive nature of field theory supports Gestalt practice to evolve to

address such splits (Bowman, 2012; Parlett, 2005): “The core idea of the field…has the capacity to

force us to rethink nearly everything we do in therapy” (Latner, 2008, p. 27). It is in the last decade

that an integrative, biologically inclusive field theory has begun to been revisited and expanded

(Burley, 2012b; O’Neill & Gaffney, 2008; Staemmler, 2006). Such a theoretical synthesis is:

“inviting of a new consideration of a phenomenologically based field theory” (Meara, 2011, p. 25)

which pays more regards to the self as a function of the whole environment (O’Neill, 2013; Parlett,

2005; Philippson, 2012). This lens views the person as part of the totality of a situational co-arising

field (McConville, 2012b; Wollants, 2012). In congruence with this integrative field perspective,

contemporary Gestalt therapists working with nature have highlighted the need to include nature

itself as a vital third in the therapeutic relationship (Cahalan, 1995; Parlett, 2005; Wymore, 2006).

An expanded biologically inclusive field theory supports the practice of eco-psychotherapy

(Adams, 2015; Russel, 2009; Singmaster, 2013). In training situations and individual therapy,

therapists are encouraged to highlight the mutual codependent interactions of the clients behaviour

within a biological field as a means to bring awareness to the global crisis of our time, climate

change (Russel, 2009; Kolmannskog, 2013; Philippson, 2012). In adolescent psychotherapy a

Gestalt field theory has been applied to Wilderness Therapy programs (de la Motte-Hall, 2014;

Roth, 2010; Rudiger, 1998), which have been noted to lack a robust theoretical framework (Berger,

2008; Willis, 2011). A Gestalt understanding of relational field dynamics as seen in the work of
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 17
(Harris, 2007; Lee, 2001; McConville, 2007), places the emergence of the adolescents fragmented

relational Self within a stable ecological ground (Creaven, 2009; Roth, 2010; Rudiger, 1998). It is

from this ecological basis that field theory contextualises the racial identity development of

adolescents on rites of passage programs (Plummer & Tukufu, 2001). This broader consideration of

a Gestalt field theory sets up the practice of an ecologically inclusive phenomenological method

(Meara, 2011).

An Eco-phenomenological Method

Gestalt’s therapeutic method is distinctly phenomenological (Bloom, 2009; Wollants, 2012). A

Gestalt phenomenological method is a system of descriptive inquiry which refines and describes

moment to moment awareness (Clarkson & Cavicchia, 2013). Gestalt adapted the writings of

phenomenologists such as Husserl (2012) and Merleau-Ponty (1968) and applied it to the

psychotherapeutic domain (Bloom, 2009). Particularly applicable to a Gestalt approach to

Ecotherapy is Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology which replaces Husserl’s ideas of a transcendental

ego with the concept of “intercorporeity, which is to say, that experience is relational, involves

reciprocity, and is always an embodied process rather than an interaction of isolated egos” (Meara,

2011, p. 20). Concurrently, Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology has played an crucial role in the

formation of Ecotherapy’s underlying logos (Abram, 1996; Fisher, 2002; Scull, 2008), yet

Ecotherapy has not articulated a sound therapeutic method for implementing this phenomenological

theory (Aviles-Andrews, 2013). Gestalt Therapy provides a refined phenomenological method that

can support a reciprocal, relationality of ecologically based awareness (Adams, 2015; Meara, 2011;

Robine, 2003).
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 18
An eco-phenomenological method increases the clients sensate, embodied aliveness (Cahalan,

1995, Creaven, 2009; Swanson, 2001). Phenomenological experiments of ecological grounding are

seen to promote embodiment by enlivening the senses (Cahalan, 1995; Roth, 2010; Swanson,

2001). The awareness of gravity or the sensation of contact while walking on the earth, the feeling

of wind on skin, or the felt sensation of the flow of life sustaining oxygen present an eco-

phenomenological method (Cahalan, 1995; Creaven, 2009). Other accessible methods for

incorporating sensual contact with nature is to bring it into the room by having an indoor plant, a

bowl of water, or even a picture of a nature scene (Russel, 2009; Spach, 2012). Phenomenologically

based homework activities are common suggestions in the literature. (Adams, 2015; Swanson,

2001; Wymore, 2006) Activities like watching a sunset with a partner, or going to a favourite place

in nature to spend time listening, brings the client into an awareness of enlivening support nature

provides (Swanson, 2001). A practitioner notes a clients response: “Sensing my feet touching the

ground for the first time makes me feel like I’m in kindergarten at age 34. But feeling my feet and

legs wake up sure feels good. I’m coming alive” (Adams, 2015, p. 35). Gestalt authors working

with adolescents and children note a sensuous embodied connection with the living ground of Earth

is vital for the development of autonomy and self care (Creaven, 2009; Roth, 2010). Nature

provides a mirror for projective identifications by using natural objects and experiential contact

with animals to reconfigure the discordant shards of the child’s forming sense of Self (Oaklander,

2006; Singmaster, 2013; Spach, 2012). Across the literature all methods of eco-phenomenological

inquiry promote embodiment, which in effect enhances capacity for compassionate action for the

more than human community (Adams, 2015; Cahalan 1998; Creaven, 2009).
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 19
Summary and Conclusions

This literature review was an attempt to apprentice myself to a practice that I felt unaccustomed:

taking psychotherapy outdoors. The first section laid out the varieties of definitions of Ecotherapy,

presenting it as a distinct application of Ecopsychology. Finding a unified definition of Ecotherapy

was challenging due to a number of reasons; the vastness and newness of the field, lack of defined

therapeutic goals, and lastly the counter cultural roots of Ecopsychology which resist systematic

definition. The reviewed literature suggests a convergence of definitions by acknowledging

Ecotherapy as a triadic relationship that includes nature not merely as a passive backdrop for

psychotherapy but as a vital third in the therapeutic relationship. It is clear that a workable,

universal definition of Ecotherapy and clear therapeutic goals could advance the field.

In the second section I consolidated the applications of Ecotherapy. Over the past 20 years the

literature promoting Ecotherapy practice has bourgeoned, providing mostly qualitative case

examples in academic journals and edited books. The therapeutic effects of mindful immersion in

nature via active approaches has been demonstrated thoroughly, although more evidence based

literature is needed to determine the efficacy of specific eco-psychotherapy methods. The works of

Bratman, Hamilton, & Daily (2012), Corazon (2012) & Kamioka et al. (2014), provide the basis for

further research into this area. A wealth of empirical research similarly supports the health benefits

of passive exposure to nature, justifying the practice of taking psychotherapy outdoors. However,

more literature is needed that outlines specific Ecotherapy techniques counsellors can use in

everyday practice. Eco-psychotherapist Sarah Conn (1998) points out, “I believe that many

psychotherapists are highly concerned about the human-Earth connection and would bring it into

their work if they only knew how” (p. 160). The “how” of Gestalt Therapy here presents a uniquely

suited method for bringing nature into psychotherapy.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 20

The third section posits Gestalt Therapy as an integrative holistic framework on which the practice

of Ecotherapy can grow. Gestalt Therapy resides at a seminal juncture between the emergent field

of Ecotherapy and mental health. It is from this fertile void that therapists are being called to

assimilate foundational wisdom into new perspectives (Levine, 2012; Staemmler, 2009; Mistler &

Brownell, 2015). In response to this call only a handful of Gestalt therapists have written

informative, pragmatic reflections on eco-psychotherapy (Cahalan, 1995; Swanson, 2001; Wymore,

2006). Theoretically a field perspective provides a sound framework to contextualise the methods

of Ecotherapy and reinstate Gestalt as a biologically-rooted therapy seeking to reunite organism and

environment (Adams, 2015; Levine, 2008; Meara, 2011). Practically, an eco-phenomenological

method in some form or other reverberates through all of the Eco-Gestalt literature. Divergently

from how it is described in Ecotherapy discourse, in Gestalt Ecotherapy sensory awareness is not a

passive process, but rather an embodied intercorporeality. As such, an eco-phenomenological

method supports the central task of Gestalt Therapy: to heighten awareness through an embodied

engagement with phenomenological processes at the contact boundary between self, other,

environment (Adams, 2015; Levine, 2012). The reviewed literature demonstrated that a sensual

phenomenological awareness of the natural world promotes feelings of compassion and reciprocity

(Adams, 2015; Creaven, 2009).

To conclude, both Ecotherapy and Gestalt Therapy are united by a shared horizon: healing through

homecoming. The practice of a field-sensitive phenomenological approach to Ecotherapy presents

therapists with a means to heal illusory body/mind/nature splits and return to a sense of belonging

to this Earth that sustains us. This is how Gestalt Therapy can make a difference on a radically

deteriorating planet.
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 21

Reference List

Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous. New York, NY: Vintage.

Adams, W. W. (2015). Healing our dissociation from body and nature: Gestalt, Levinas, and

hearing earth’s ethical call. British Gestalt Journal, 24(1), 35.

Adams, W. W. (2014). Intimate responsivity as essence-calling-path-fruition: Eco (psycho)

logical ethics via Zen Buddhist phenomenology. In D. Vakoch & F. Castrillón (Eds.).

Ecopsychology, phenomenology, and the environment (pp. 65-87). New York, NY:

Springer.

Annerstedt, M., & Währborg, P. (2011). Nature-assisted therapy: Systematic review of controlled

and observational studies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 39, 371-388.

Apathy, M. (2010). Beneath our feet: An exploration of the ways psychotherapists think about the

human-nature relationship, and the clinical implications of this in Aotearoa-New Zealand

(Doctoral dissertation), Auckland, NZ: University of Technology. Retrieved from: https://

aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/1218.

Aviles-Andrews, R. (2013). Ecopsychology: The last 21 years: A literature review of humanities

and scientific research. Saratoga Springs, New York: SUNY Empire State College.

Retrieved from: http://www.rebeccagraceandrews.com/research.html

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 22
Berger, R. (2008). Building a home in nature: An innovative framework for practice. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 48(2), 264-279.

Berger, R. (2009). Nature therapy: Developing a framework for practice (Doctoral dissertation),

University of Abertay, Dundee, Scotland.

Bloom, D. (2009). The phenomenological method of Gestalt Therapy: Revisiting Husserl to

discover the “essence” of Gestalt Therapy. Gestalt Review, 13(2), 277-295.

Bloom, D. (2011). One good turn deserves another, and another, and another: Personal reflections.

Gestalt Review, 15(3), 296-311.

Bloom, D., & Brownell, P. (Eds.). (2011). Continuity and change: Gestalt Therapy now: the 10th

biennial conference of the Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy.

Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bowman, C. (2012). Reconsidering holism in Gestalt Therapy: A bridge too far? In T. Levine

(Ed.) Gestalt Therapy: Advances in theory and practice. (pp. 27-35) London,

England: Routledge.

Brandt, E. A. (2012). Integrating Ecotherapy and art therapy to foster professional identity

formation. (Doctoral dissertation). Belmont, CA, Notre Dame de Namur University.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 23
Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on

human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences, 1249(1), 118-136.

Brownell, P. (2010). Gestalt Therapy: A guide to contemporary practice. New York, NY: Springer

Publishing Company.

Burchett, M. D. (2010). Greening the great indoors for human health and wellbeing (Project

NY06021). Sydney, Australia: Horticulture Australia.

Burley, T., & Bloom, D. (2008). Phenomenological method. In P. Brownell (Ed.), Handbook for

theory, research, and practice in Gestalt Therapy (p. 160). Newcastle, England: Cambridge

Scholars Publishing.

Burley, T. (2012a). A phenomenologically based theory of personality. Gestalt Review, 16(1), .

Burley, T., (2012b). Holism in gestalt theory: A response to Jacobs and McConville. Gestalt

Review, 16(1), 44-52.

Burls, A. P. (2008). Seeking nature: A contemporary therapeutic environment. International Journal

of Therapeutic Communities, 29(3), 228-244.

Burls, A., & Caan, W. (2004). Social exclusion and embracement: A helpful concept? Primary

Health Care Research and Development, 5(03), 191-192.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 24

Buzzell, L. (2009). Asking different questions: Therapy for the human animal. In L. Buzzell &

C. Chalquist (Eds.), Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. (p. 46-54). San Francisco,

CA: Sierra Club Books.

Buzzell, L. (2014). Ecotherapy. In D. A. Leeming, K. Madden, & S. Marlan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

psychology and religion (pp. 570-572). New York, NY: Springer.

Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C. (2009). Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Francisco, CA:

Sierra Club Books.

Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J. (2013) Ecominds effects on mental wellbeing: An evaluation for

Mind. London, England: Mind Publications. Retrieved From: http://www.mind.org.uk/

media/354166/ Ecominds-effects-on-mental-wellbeing-evaluation-report.pdf.

Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G. G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A

critical review of the experimental literature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4),

422-433.

Cahalan, W. (1995). The Earth is our real body: Cultivating ecological groundedness in Gestalt

therapy. Gestalt Journal, 18(1) 87-113.

Cahalan, W. (1998). Remembering earth: From armoured spectator to sensuous

participant. British Gestalt Journal, 7(2), 99-105.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 25
Chalquist, C. (2009). A look at the Ecotherapy research evidence. Ecopsychology, 1(2), 64-74.

Chalquist, C. (2013). Review of Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the technological species.

Ecopsychology, 5(1), 61.

Chiu, A. (2010). The practical application of Ecopsychology. (Doctoral dissertation). San Francisco

Bay: Alliant International University, United States. Retrieved from PsycINFO.

(2011-99140-566.)

Clare, S. (2014). The eco-friendly therapist: An interpretative literature review of obstacles and

solutions to practicing Ecotherapy. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Technology,

Auckland, New Zealand.

Clarkson, P. (1990). A multiplicity of psychotherapeutic relationships. British Journal of

Psychotherapy, 7(2), 148-163.

Clarkson, P., & Cavicchia, S. (Eds.). (2013). Gestalt counselling in action (4th ed.). London,

England: Sage.

Clatworthy, J., Hinds, J., & M. Camic, P. (2013). Gardening as a mental health intervention: A

review. Mental Health Review Journal, 18(4), 214-225.

Clinebell, H. (2013). Ecotherapy: Healing ourselves, healing the earth. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

Press.
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 26
Coleman, M. (2010). Awake in the wild: Mindfulness in nature as a path of self-discovery. San

Francisco, CA:

Conn, S. (1998). Living in the Earth: Ecopsychology, health, and psychotherapy. The Humanistic

Psychologist, 26(1), 179-199.

Corazon, S. S. (2012). Stress, nature & therapy. Frederiksberg: Forest & Landscape, University of

Copenhagen. (Forest & Landscape Research / Forest & Landscape; No. 49/2012).

Creaven, S. (2009). Embodying confidence: Ecological awareness in adolescents.

International Gestalt Journal, 32(2), 59-73.

Crocker, S. F., & Philippson, P. (2005). Phenomenology, existentialism, and eastern thought in

Gestalt Therapy. In A. L. Woldt & S. M. Toman (Eds.). Gestalt Therapy: History,

theory, and practice, (65-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Csordas, T. (2008) Intersubjectivity and intercorporeality. Subjectivity, 22(1), 110-121.

Davis, J. (1998). The transpersonal dimensions of Ecopsychology: Nature, nonduality, and

spiritual practice. The Humanistic Psychologist, 26(1-3), 60-100. doi:

10.1080/08873267.1998.9976967.

Dawson, C. P., & Russell, K. C. (2011). Wilderness experience programs: A state-of-the-

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 27
knowledge summary. In: D. N. Cole, comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in

research and management. Misoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

de la Motte-Hall, L. (2014). A critical analysis of therapeutic processes with adolescents in

Wilderness Therapy programs. (Unpublished masters thesis). Sydney, Australia:

Gestalt Therapy Sydney.

Edwards, S. D. (2012). Harnessing the Power of Equine Assisted Counseling: Adding

Animal Assisted Therapy to Your Practice, New York: Routledge.

Fairfield, M. (2009). Dialogue in complex systems: The hermeneutical attitude. In L. Jacobs &

R. Hycner (Eds.), Relational approaches in Gestalt Therapy (pp. 193-220). New

York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Fisher, A. (2002). Radical Ecopsychology: Psychology in the service of life. Albany, NY: SUNY

Press.

Fisher, A. (2013). Ecopsychology at the crossroads: Contesting the nature of a field. Ecopsychology,

5(3), 167-176.

Frumkin, H. (2012). Building the science base: Ecopsychology meets clinical epidemiology.

In H. Kahn, H. Kahn, Jr., & P. H. Hasbach, (Eds.). Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the

technological species (pp. 141-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 28
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007).

Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390–

394. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149.

Gass, M. A., Gillis, H. L., Russell, K. C. (2008). The effectiveness of project adventure’s

behaviour management program for male offenders in residential treatment. Residential

Treatment for Children and Youth, 25(3), 227-247.

Gass, M. A., Gillis, L., & Russell, K. C. (2012). Adventure therapy: Theory, research, and

practice. London, England: Routledge.

Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A., & Öhrström, E. (2007). Noise and well-being in urban residential

environments: The potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape

and Urban Planning, 83(2–3), 115–126. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.003

Greenway, R. (2009). Defining EP, Part 2. Gatherings: Journal of the International Community for

Ecopsychology, 4(1), 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.Ecopsychology.org/gatherings/

ecology-psychology-defining-ep/.

Groenewegen, P. P., van den Berg, A. E., de Vries, S., & Verheij, R. A. (2006). Vitamin g: Effects

of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health, 6(1). doi:

10.1186/1471-2458-6-149

Growth Point, (1999). Your future starts here: Practitioners determine the way ahead. Growth Point,

79, 4-5.
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 29

Harper, N. J., Russell, K. C.; Cooley, R. & Cupples, J. (2007). Catherine Freer: Wilderness Therapy

expeditions: An exploratory case study of adolescent wilderness therapy, family

functioning, and the maintenance of change. Child Youth Care Forum, 36, 111-129.

Harris, N. P. (2007). Renegotiating the life space. Counseling Children and Young People, 16(1)

13-16. Retrieved from: www.ccyp.co.uk/journal_pdf/ccyp_summer07b.pdf

Harris, A. (2014). What impact - if any - does working outdoors have on the therapeutic

relationship? (Unpublished master's thesis). London, England: Roehampton University.

Hasbach, P. H. (2012) Ecotherapy. In. P. H. Kahn, Jr., & P. H. Hasbach (Ed.). Ecopsychology:

Science, totems, and the technological species (pp. 114-139). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hickey, B. (2008). Lothlorien community: A holistic approach to recovery from mental health

problems. Therapeutic Communities, 29(3), 261-273.

Hill, N. R. (2007). Wilderness therapy as a treatment modality for at-risk youth: A primer for mental

health counsellors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 29(4), 338-349.

Hoelterhoff, Mark. (2010). Advice from a sceptic: There is room for naturalism in Ecopsychology.

European Journal of Ecopsychology, (1), 52-63. Retrieved from http://eje.wyrdwise.com/

ojs/index.php/EJE/article/view/13/6
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 30
Husserl, E., Moran, D., & Gibson, W. R. B. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure

phenomenology. London, England: Routledge.

Jacobs, L. (2012). Whither meaningfulness? Gestalt Review, 16(1), 28-33.

Jacobs. L. & Hycner, R. (Eds.) (2009). Relational approaches in Gestalt Therapy. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Jin-Su, S., Hyoung-Deug, K., & Ki-Cheol, S. (2008). Effects of interior plantscapes on indoor

environments and stress level of high school students. Journal of the Japanese Society for

Horticultural Science, 77(4), 447-454.

Jordan, M. (2009). Back to nature. Therapy Today, 20(3), 28.

Jordan, M. (2009). Nature and self: An ambivalent attachment? Ecopsychology, 1(1), 26-31.

Jordan, (2015) Nature and therapy: Understanding counseling and therapy in outdoor spaces.

London, England: Routledge.

Jordan, M., & Marshall, H. (2010). Taking counselling and psychotherapy outside: Destruction or

enrichment of the therapeutic frame? European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling,

12(4), 345-359.

Joseph, J. A. (2014). A critical appraisal of the uniqueness of Ecopsychology as a field of study.

European Journal of Ecopsychology, 5(1), 54-63.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 31

Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Hasbach, P. H. (2013). Becoming and being: A response to Chalquist's review of

Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the technological species. Ecopsychology, 5(1), 65-67.

Kamioka, H., Tsutani, K., Yamada, M., Park, H., Okuizumi, H., Honda, T., & Mutoh, Y. (2014).

Effectiveness of horticultural therapy: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 22(5), 930-943.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what

are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education, 8(3), 239–260.

Kenney, K. (2012). What's that? Huh? You do what? International Association for Ecotherapy.

Retrieved from: www.Ecotherapyheals.com/summerissuefinal_Layout%201.pdf.

Latner, J. (2008). Commentary I. Relativistic quantum field theory: Implications for Gestalt

therapy (or, The speed of light revisited). Gestalt Review, 12(1), 24-31.

Lee, R. G. (2001). Shame and support: Understanding an adolescent’s family field. In

M. McConville & Wheeler, G. (2001). The heart of development: Gestalt approaches to

working with children, adolescents and their worlds. Cambridge, MA: GestaltPress.

Levin, J. (2010). Gestalt Therapy: Now and for Tomorrow. Gestalt Review, 14(2). 147-170.

Levine, T. B. Y. (Ed.). (2012). Gestalt Therapy: Advances in theory and practice. New York, NY:

Routledge.
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 32

Li, Q., Morimoto, K., Kobayashi, M., Inagaki, H., Katsumata, M., Hirata, Y., Hirata, K., Suzuki,

H.; Li, Y. J., Wakayama, Y., Kawada, T., Park, B. J., Ohira, T., Matsui, N., Kagawa, T.,

Miyazaki, Y., Krensky, A. M. (2008). Visiting a forest, but not a city, increases human

natural killer activity and expression of anti-cancer proteins. International Journal of

Immunopathology and Pharmacology, 21(1), 117–127.

Linden, S., & Grut, J. (2002). The healing fields: Working with psychotherapy and nature to rebuild

shattered lives. London, England: Frances Lincoln.

Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., & Groenewegen, P. P.

(2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health, 63(12), 967–973. doi:10.1136/jech.2008.079038.

Macy, J. R., & Brown, M. Y. (2015). Coming back to life: The updated guide to the work that

reconnects. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Madewell, J., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (2009). An interview with John Wymore: current practice of

Gestalt Therapy. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 429.

Maller, C., Townsend M., Pryor, A.; Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature healthy

people: ‘‘Contact with nature’’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for

populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1), 45-54. doi:10.1093/heapro/dai032

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 33
Marselle, M. R., Irvine, K. N., & Warber, S. L. (2014). Examining group walks in nature and

multiple aspects of well-being: A large-scale study. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 134-147.

McConville, M. (2007). Relational modes and the evolving field of parent–child contact: A

contribution to a Gestalt theory of development. British Gestalt Journal, 16(2), 5–12.

McConville, M. (2012a). The illusion of technique: Some structures of psychotherapy with the

adolescent client. Gestalt Journal of Australia and New Zealand, 8(2), 7-20.

McConville, M. (2012b). Phenomenology, or not? Reflections on burley’s proposed theory of

personality. Gestalt Review, 16(1), 34-43.

Melnick, J., Nevis, S. M., & Shub, N. (2005). Gestalt Therapy methodology. In A. Wold & S.

Toman (Eds.), Gestalt Therapy, history, theory, and practice (pp. 101–115). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

McLeod, J. (2002). Qualitative research in counseling and psychotherapy. London, England: Sage.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible, followed by working Notes (A.

Lingis, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Original work published

1962).

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1996). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London, England:

Routledge. (Original work published 1945).

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 34
.

Mistler, B., & Brownell, P. (Eds.). (2015). Global Perspectives on research, theory, and practice:

A decade of gestalt!. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

O'Neill, B. (2010). Being present to the emergent creation of the field: Wordsworth, Buber, and

Gestalt Therapy. Gestalt Review, 14(2), 171-186.

O’Neill, B. (2013). The Tao of Gestalt : Poetry, creativity and the rediscovery of the child.

Peregian Beach, QLD, Australia: Ravenwood Press.

O'Neill, B., & Gaffney, S. (2008). The application of a field perspective methodology. In P.

Brownell (Ed.), Handbook for theory, research, and practice in Gestalt Therapy (pp.

228-256). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Pálsdóttir, A. M., Grahn, P., & Persson D. (2014). Perceived value of everyday occupations after

nature-based vocational rehabilitation. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21

(1), 58-68.

Paquette, J., & Vitaro, F. (2014). Wilderness therapy, interpersonal skills and accomplishment

motivation: Impact analysis on antisocial behavior and socio-professional status.

Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 31(3), 230-252.

Parlett, M. (2005). Contemporary Gestalt Therapy: Field theory. In A. Woldt & S. Toman

(Eds.), Gestalt Therapy: History, theory and practice (pp. 41-65). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 35

Perls, F., Hefferline, R. F., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and growth in the

human personality. London, England: Souvenir Press.

Philippson, P. (2012). Gestalt Therapy: Roots and branches-collected papers. London, England:

Karnac Books.

Plotkin, B. (2010). Soulcraft: Crossing into the mysteries of nature and psyche. San Franciso, CA:

New World Library.

Plotkin, B. (2013). Wild mind: A field guide to the human psyche. San Franciso, CA: New

World Library.

Plotkin, B. (2014). Rewilding psychology. Ecopsychology, 6(1), 2-4.

Plummer, D., & Tukufu, D. (2001). Enlarging the field: African-American adolescents in a

Gestalt context. In M. McConville & G. Wheeler (Eds.), The heart of development: Gestalt

approaches to working with children, adolescents, and their worlds. Volume II:

Adolescence (pp. 54-71). Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Prentice, H. (2003). Cosmic walk: Awakening the ecological self. Psychotherapy and Politics

International, 1(1), 32–46. doi:10.1002/ppi.50.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 36
Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N., & Griffin, M. (2007). Green exercise in the

UK countryside: Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy

and planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2), 211–231. doi:

10.1080/09640560601156466.

Robine, J. M. (2003). Intentionality in flesh and blood: Toward a psychopathology of fore-

contacting. International Gestalt Journal, 14(2), 85–110.

Roth, A. (2010). A Gestalt oriented phenomenological and participatory study of the transformative

process of adolescent participants following wilderness centered rites of passage. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from PsycINFO. (2010-99230-053).

Roszak, T. (1992). The voice of the earth: An exploration of Ecopsychology. New York, NY:

Simon and Schuster.

Roszak, T. (1995). The greening of psychology: exploring the ecological unconscious, The Gestalt

Journal, 18(1), 9-46.

Rubenfeld, F. (2008) Expanding the field: Gestalt Therapy and the evolutionary process. Gestalt

Review, 12(3), 295-304.

Rudiger, G. (1998). Gestalt and adventure therapy: Parallels and perspectives. In Exploring the

Boundaries of Adventure Therapy: International Perspectives. Proceedings of the

International Adventure Therapy Conference. Washington, DC: US Department of

Education. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED424057.pdf.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 37

Russell, K. C., & Farnum, J. (2004). A concurrent model of the wilderness therapy process. Journal

of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 4(1), 39-55.

Russell, G. (2009). The greening of psychotherapy: rethinking our professional practice in the

age of climate change. Gestalt Journal of Australia and New Zealand, 5(2), 48-59.

Rust, M. J. (2009). Why and how do therapists become ecotherapists? In L. Buzzell, & C.

Chalquist, (Eds.), Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind (p. 39). San Franciso, CA:

Sierra Club Books.

Rust, M. J., & Totton, N. (Eds.). (2012). Vital signs: Psychological responses to ecological crisis.

London. England: Karnac Books.

Rutko, E. A., & Gillespie, J. (2013). Where’s the wilderness in wilderness therapy? Journal of

Experiential Education, 36(3), 218-232.

Scull, J. (2009). Tailoring nature therapy to the client. InL. Buzzell, L. & C. Chalquist (Eds.),

Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind (pp. 140-148). San Franciso, CA: Sierra Club

Books.

Selhub, E., & Logan, A. C. (2012). Your brain on nature: The science of nature's influence on your

health, happiness and vitality. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley and Sons Canada, Ltd.
Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 38
Sempik J. (2007). Researching social and therapeutic horticulture for people with mental ill-health:

A study of methodology. Thrive in association with the Centre for Child and Family

Research, Loughborough University. Leicestershire, England. Retrieved from:

www.britsoc.co.uk/media/25588/ExploringNatureandHealth.doc.

Sempik, J. (2008). Green care: A natural resource for therapeutic communities. Therapeutic

Communities, 29(3), 221-227.

Sempik, J., Hine, R., & Wilcox, D. (2010). Green care: A conceptual framework, a report of the

working group on the health benefits of green care, COST Action 866, Green Care in

Agriculture, Loughborough: Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough

University. Leicestershire, England. Retrieved from: www.esec.pt/cdi/ebooks/docs/

Sempik_Green_care.

Scott, B. A., Amel, E. L., & Manning, C. M. (2014). In and of the wilderness: Ecological

connection through participation in nature. Ecopsychology, 6(2), 81-91.

Scull, J. (2008). Ecopsychology: Where does it fit in psychology in 2009? Trumpeter, 24(3), 68-85.

Siddons-Heginworth, I. (2009). Environmental arts therapy and the tree of life. UK, Exeter: Spirits

Rest Books.

Singmaster, C. G. (2013). Equine-assisted sandtray therapy: A proposed model incorporating

Gestalt sandtray play therapy techniques. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pacifica

Graduate Institute. California, United States.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 39

Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative

phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and health, 11(2), 261-271.

Spach, D.L. (2012). The coyote therapist: Nature connection and gestalt play therapy.

(Unpublished master's thesis). Pacifica Graduate Institute. California, United States.

Staemmler, F.-M. (2007). On Macaque monkeys, players, and clairvoyants: Some new ideas for a

Gestalt therapeutic concept of empathy. Studies in Gestalt Therapy: Dialogical Bridges,

1(2), 43-63.

Stoehr, T. (2013). Crazy hope and finite experience: Final essays of Paul Goodman. London: Taylor

& Francis.

Swanson, J. (1995). The call for Gestalt's contribution to Ecopsychology: Figuring in the

environmental field. The Gestalt Journal, 18(1), 47-85.

Swanson, J. L. (2001). Communing with nature: A guidebook for enhancing your relationship with

the living earth. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research,

4(1), 17-23.

Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes some psychophysiological effects. Journal of

Environment and behaviour, 13(5), 523-556.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 40

Wheeler, G. (2005). Culture, self, and field: A Gestalt guide to the age of complexity. Gestalt

Review, 9(1), 91–128.

Wheeler, G. & Axelsson, L. (2014). Gestalt Therapy. American Psychological Association.

[Kindle version]. Retrieved from: http://www.amazon.com/Gestalt-Therapy-Theories

Psychotherapy-Wheeler-ebook.

Willis, A. (2011). Re-storying wilderness and adventure therapies: healing places and selves in an

era of environmental crises. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 11(2),

91-108.

Wise, J. (2015). Digging for victory: Horticultural therapy for veterans for post-traumatic

growth. London, England: Karnac Books.

Wollants, G. (2012). Gestalt Therapy: Therapy of the situation. London, England: SAGE.

Wymore, J. (2006). Gestalt Therapy and human nature: Evolutionary psychology applied.

Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Wysong, J. (1995). From the editor. The Gestalt Journal, 18(1), 5-7.

Yontef, G. (1993). Awareness, dialogue and process: Essays of Gestalt Therapy. New York, NY:

The Gestalt Journal Press.

Lewin de la Motte-Hall GESTALT THERAPY AND ECOTHERAPY 41
Yontef, G., & Jacobs, L. (2010). Gestalt Therapy. In R. Corsini & D. Wedding (Eds.),

Current Psychotherapies (9th ed., pp. 342-382). Belmont, CA: Brooks/ColeThompson

Learning.

Zinker, J. (1977). Creative process in Gestalt Therapy. New York, NY: Random House.

Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., & Le Grange, L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core

conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice.

Springer Science Reviews, 2(1-2), 119-143.