The Self, Meaning and Sustainability

1. The Self,
Meaning &
Sustainability
“As the care of nature increasingly becomes an intellectual
concept severed from the joyful experience of the outdoors, you
have to wonder: where will future environmentalists come
from?” (Louv, p. 147)
Reid Smith
Social Sustainability 588
Portland State University
6/3/10
1

2. Introduction
In the emerging field of sustainability, many authors identify three “pillars,” or
components, which must be supported in order to achieve sustainable development. These
are the economy, ecology, and society and are referred to as the triple bottom line for
sustainability. Without all three components maintaining the ability of future generations
to access them, as it was defined in the Bruntland Report in 1987, sustainability cannot be
achieved. Just as the three pillars are needed to ensure sustainable development, I propose
that individuals too need to have all three of these aspects within their Selves in order to
feel whole. Only once a person has a whole Self can he or she begin to frame the world from
a different perspective and make more sustainable choices. Moreover, one’s personal
pursuit of wholeness, or happiness, has a ripple effect in society, which can either promote
or discourage sustainable behaviors from others. Despite the individualistic, consumer
society, it is possible for individuals to take control of their social, ecologic, and economic
Selves and have a positive effect on both sustainable development and personal happiness.
In a sustainable life, one’s personal sources of meaning come from more than just
individual desires and needs – the economic Self – and begins to derive meaning from
social and ecological Selves.
The Three Selves
In Western culture, the idea of the Self is narrow compared to the perspective from
many other human cultures around the world. According to Naess (1973), western
philosophers have described the Self as being composed of two different parts: the ego and
the social Self. The ego, or what I call the economic Self in this paper, supports an
2

3. individual’s selfish needs and desires. In highly individualized cultures like in the United
States, people tend to regard the economic Self as the whole Self, or at least the most
important part of the Self. The problem with the economic Self, is that it does not look out
for the needs of other people or the natural world. Ultimately, a life driven only by the
economic Self results in a natural and social environment that no longer supports the
economic Self.
What is frightening is that the individualistic model is quickly becoming adopted by
other parts of the world as the global economy expands. The model of a good life has
become skewed. According to Orr (1992), “We do not lack for bad role models: the
careerist, the itinerant professional vandal devoid of any sense of place, the yuppie, the
narrow specialist, the intellectual snob. In different ways, these all to common role models
of today lack the capacity to relate their autobiography to the unfolding history of their
time in a meaningful and positive way” (Orr, p.86). As society continues to put more value
on the economic Self and its endeavors, many are losing the ecological and social parts of
their Selves, which guide human values. Without the social and ecological self, where will
values be derived from? According to Alasdair MacIntyre (1981), “it is not possible to be
both modern and moral since the fully autonomous self knows no morality other than the
expression of its own desires and principles” (MacIntyre, p. 237). The economic Self that is
valued in western culture today is doing exactly that: acting in its own self interest at the
cost of other people and the planet.
The social Self, alternatively, is an individual’s role in society and is critical for
enhancing meaning and happiness in an individual’s life. We all interact with one another
in varying degrees and adhere to societal roles and obligations. People rely heavily on other
3

4. people for support, learning, love, and death and are not merely made up of selfish desires.
However, in recent years, the social Self has not been cultivated as it used to be because of
the rise of various technological and social transformations, such as the personal vehicle,
the television, and the internet. This has caused people to have fewer acquaintances as
people in the past, and more hours spent alone. David Myers (2003) explains what he calls
the American Paradox, or that despite economic gains, “since 1957, the number of
Americans who say they are “very happy” has declined from 35 to 32 percent. Meanwhile,
the divorce rate has doubled, the teen suicide rate has more than doubled, the violent crime
rate has tripled (even after the recent decline), and more people than ever (especially teens
and young adults) are depressed” (Myers, p. 206). Clearly, a highly individualized culture
like the United States that focuses heavily on the needs of the economic Self does not
produce happy people or sustainable development (see figure 1 and 2).
Also in rapid disappearance since the industrial revolution, the ecological Self, first
identified by Naess in his philosophy of deep ecology, encompasses an individual’s
relationship with the natural world. According to Naess, deep ecology seeks to develop the
ecological self by focusing on deep experience, deep questioning and deep commitment
(Naess, p. 8). These constitute an interconnected system in which each gives rise to and
supports the other in a new worldview that is “an evolving but consistent philosophy of
being, thinking and acting in the world, that embodies ecological wisdom and harmony"
(Naes, p.8). The ecological Self is one that, according to Orr, is derived from contact with
the earth, soil, wildlife, trees and animals and is the substrate that orients adult thought
and behavior to life. “Without this contact with nature, maturity is spurious, resulting in
childish adults with the world’s flimsiest identity structures” (Orr p. 16). Personal
4

5. relationships with nature may provide some insight into the way people treat the
environment. That is, disconnection from the natural world may be contributing to our
planet’s destruction and many social problems.
Like the three components of sustainability, the Self is also comprised of economic,
social, and ecological components. Just as with sustainable development, an individual
must cultivate each of the three Selves in order to lead towards a Self‐sustainability, or as
O’Brian (2005) calls it, sustainable happiness. “Sustainable happiness is the pursuit of
meaning and happiness that does not have an adverse effect on other people, the natural
world, or the economy for future generations. Sustainable happiness represents another
paradigm shift. It suggests that the human pursuit of happiness has positive and adverse
impacts, locally, and globally—in the present and far into the future” (O’Brian, p. 1). The
challenge is for the human species to take responsibility for how it pursues happiness and
for individuals to recognize the far‐reaching impact of everyday decisions and actions.
Losing Touch with the Ecological Self
The problem with western culture is not the lack of knowledge about ecosystem
processes, but a lack of direct interaction with the natural world and a detachment from
the interdependence with it. According to Richard Louv (2005), “80% of Americans live in
metropolitan areas, and many of these areas are severely lacking in park space” (Louv,
p.116). For example, only 30% of Los Angeles residents live within walking distance of a
park, according to the Trust for Public Land. Without contact with natural landscapes
people increasingly have the ability to detach from the natural world and still function in
society via technological improvements such as the computer, TV, and cars. At no other
time in human history could people work entirely from home with a computer, live thirty
5

6. miles outside of the city and commute to work, or engage in social gossip through the
television like many people do today in the developed world. Researchers at the University
of Maryland found that between 1981 and 2003, children during the typical week lost over
nine hours of discretionary time (that is hours not spent in school, child care, and so forth).
They spent less time in unstructured indoor and outdoor play; computer use doubled”
(Louv 119). Television remains the most effective thief of time, says Louv. Studies
conducted in association with the Kaiser Family Foundation, released in 2005 and 2006,
found that children between the ages of eight and eighteen years old spend an average of
nearly 6.5 hours a day plugged in electronically. That equals 45 hours a week, more time
than was once considered an adult work week (Louv, p.119).
Additionally to staying indoors, when people do venture outside, they increasingly
come into contact with man‐made elements and not natural elements. People no longer feel
the connection with the earth around them, because their senses are no longer receiving
any input from the natural world. According to Orr, “a sense of place requires more direct
contact with the natural aspects of a place with soils landscape and wildlife. This sense is
lost as we move down the continuum toward the totalized urban environment where
nature exists in tiny, isolated fragments by permission only” (Orr, p. 89). It is a “sense of
place” that fosters an individual’s care for the natural world around them because they feel
connected to the land personally. Without an orientation to a specific place, everywhere
just becomes space that is open for our use and not any better or worse than any other
space of land. According to Orr, “Intimate knowledge of our landscapes is rapidly
disappearing and can only impoverish our mental landscapes. People who do not know the
ground on which they stand miss one of the elements of good thinking, which is the
6

7. capacity to distinguish between health and disease in natural systems and their relation to
health and disease in human ones” (Orr, p. 86). If human mental capacities are hindered
because of a lack of understanding of natural processes, it is clear that humans need to
understand nature in order to understand themselves.
With so much more time being spent indoors and less time in nature, children in
most areas of the developed world and an increasing number in the developing world are
not establishing a relationship with the natural world at all and have no sense of place.
Their ecological Selves never form. Instead of developing a healthy reciprocal relationship
in which nature can offer children a sense of wonder, complexity, and humility, they learn
to fear nature as something that could harm them, detach from it in order to deal with the
immense scope of human damage, or see it as something that humans in the past had to
deal with and is no longer important. According to Orr, “the young of our advanced society
are increasingly shaped by the shopping mall, the freeway, the television, and the
computer. They regard nature, if they see it at all, as through a rearview mirror receding in
the haze. We should not be astonished, then, to discover rates of ecological literacy in
decline, at the very time that literacy is most needed” (Orr, p. 105). Orr uses the term,
ecological literacy, to mean someone who is in touch with their ecological Self and is
therefore able to see the value of the natural world and their relation to it. “Ultimately, it
[ecological literacy] is a tradition built on a view of ourselves as finite and fallible creature
living in a world limited by natural laws” (Orr, p. 95).
Loss of Ecological Self and Health
With both the ecological and social Selves on decline in the developing world,
society today has several direct problems as a result including climate change, huge global
7

8. inequities, and human health concerns. The most pressing issue is human health. It seems
that right when people start to become disconnected from the land, nature’s curative
effects start to become apparent. Mental‐health pioneer Dr. Benjamin Rush – who was a
signer of the Declaration of Independence – declared over two hundred years ago that,
“digging in the soil has a curative effect on the mentally ill” (Louv, p. 45). Likewise,
beginning in the 1870s, the Quakers’ Friends Hospital in Pennsylvania used natural
landscape and greenhouses as part of its treatment of mental illness. During World War II,
psychiatry pioneer Carl Menninger led a horticulture therapy movement in the Veterans
Administration Hospital System. In the 1950’s, a wider movement began to emerge, one
that recognized the therapeutic benefits of gardening for people with chronic illnesses
(Louv, p. 45). During the 1990s, holistic thinkers known as ecopsychologists began
exploring the idea that contemporary industrialized urban living erodes the ecologically
connected sense of Self with which humans are born, leaving them psychologically
distressed (Roszak et al., 1995). The evidence for the therapeutic value of human
interaction with green space is persuasive.
In addition to therapy, nature could be used to combat some modern diseases, such
as obesity. Nature has seldom shown up in literature on child obesity although it has
traditionally provided hours and hours of “exercise” for children. Louv argues, “playtime –
especially unstructured, imaginative, exploratory play – is increasingly recognized as an
essential component of wholesome child development” (Louv, p. 48). Research findings on
outdoor play show that nature also has specific health benefits. According to Louv, “play in
natural settings seems to offer special benefits. For one, children are more physically active
when they are outside – a boon at a time of sedentary lifestyles and epidemic overweight”
8

9. (Louv, p.48). Increased time outdoors inevitably increases the amount of time kids are
swinging on trees, running through fields, or swimming in a lake, which lead to healthier
adults.
In addition to helping child obesity, nature is also shown to help children with some
mental diseases, such as anxiety, depression and ADHD. “New evidence suggests that the
need for medication is intensified by children’s disconnection from nature. Nature
experiences can relieve some of the everyday pressures that may lead to childhood
depression” (Louv, p. 50). If it is true that nature therapy reduces the symptoms of
depression and ADHD, then the converse may also be true: ADHD may be a set of
symptoms aggravated by lack of exposure to nature. Many children may benefit from
medication, but the real disorder is less in the child than it is in the artificial, man‐made
environment they grew up in. As Louv suggests, “to take nature and natural play away from
children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen” (Louv, p. 109). Clearly, children need
time for natural play and exploration in order to enhance their relationship with nature.
Nature and Meaning
In addition to childhood mental disorders, nature may also help adults with
debilitating lifestyle choices derived from a lack of meaning. Because the ecological Self is
an integral pillar to one’s whole Self, enhancing a personal connection with nature also
enhances a person’s whole Self. An individual who is whole is more capable of making
sustainable choices because he or she does not have to rely on any outside systems – which
could be unsustainable – to find meaning. For example, people cling to consumer culture
because it is a reliable source of meaning and happiness, despite its unsustainable social
and ecological implications. According to Juliet Schor, people get locked into a consumer
9

10. culture because of the demands of individuals to keep up with escalating consumption
norms of society. “The average American now finds it harder to achieve a satisfying
standard of living than 25 years ago. Work requires longer hours, jobs are less secure, and
pressures to spend more intense. Consumption‐induced environmental damage remains
pervasive, and we are in the midst of widespread failures of public provision” (Schor, p. 2).
Keeping up with the necessities of such inflated standards of living are causing people to
live beyond their means and focus more of their time trying to make money to buy more
things. Schor suggests that the economic boom has subdued consumers’ fears for the
moment, but that many still have long‐term worries about meeting the needs of themselves
and their families in the future (Schor). Due to preoccupation with the economic Self,
people do not have enough time to cultivate the ecological and social Selves.
A primary cause for consumer behavior may be an individual’s effort to replace the
long‐lost ecological and social Selves as sources of meaning. A highly developed ecological
Self within a whole Self can be an abundant source of meaning for people throughout their
lives. According to Louv, “Through nature, the species is introduced to transcendence, in
the sense that there is something more going on than the individual. Most people are either
awaked to or are strengthened in their spiritual journey by experiences in the natural
world” (Louv, p. 302). Clearly, becoming more ecologically literate will help us to live more
personally meaningful lives.
Victor Frankl’s meaning‐centered philosophy offers a good framework for
understanding how the personal search for meaning leads to a certain perception of the
Self, which dictates our choices and behaviors. Frankl (1959) proposed that people make
the choices they make because they are searching for meaning in their lives, and not
10

11. searching for pleasure as Freud suggested, or for power as Nietzsche proposed. Frankl
argued that the neurosis of the present generation is meaninglessness. “Ever more people
today have the means to live, but no meaning to live for” (Frankl, p. 133). Frankl noted that
the modern person has almost too much freedom and is no longer guided through nature
instinct or cultural tradition. This “existential vacuum” is compensated with “the urge for
money, sex, entertainment, even violence” (Frankl, p. 135). The emptiness humans feel,
because of our disconnection from nature and cultural tradition, results in a stronger
emphasis on the economic Self as a source of meaning. Humans are not open to various
sources of meaning and it is this search for meaning that dictates our decisions.
Filling the Meaning Bucket
A useful metaphor for the fulfillment of the Self is something that I call the meaning
bucket. Picture the Self as a bucket and that the goal of this Self‐bucket is to be filled with
meaning, happiness and a full life. If the bucket is full of meaning, the individual feels
satisfied and whole. If the bucket is not full, like it is at the beginning of each day, we have
to fill our buckets with meaning. Throughout human history and in other human cultures
around, people filled their Self‐buckets with meaning derived from the natural world, their
social networks and interactions, and the individual pursuit of one’s own desires. However,
as the ecological and social Selves have deteriorated and become detached from the
modern world, people are no longer able to derive any meaning from those sources. The
resulting effect is that people now have to fill their entire bucket with meaning from the
economic Self. In pursuit of meaning, because we have limited our sources of meaning to
only economic pursuits, we highly exploit our own selfish desires. Consumerism and other
social neuroses have become common‐place because people need more and more of their
11

12. own desires to replace the lost intrinsic meaning that was once derived from close social
groups and nature. Maiteny (2002) suggests that modern humans appear to have a
predisposition towards consumerism that is deeply rooted in our psyches. Furthermore,
Maiteny suggests that the relentless pursuit of material wealth and goods may well be a
response to the anxiety often experienced in pursuit of well‐being, or happiness.
The Self and Panarchy
A useful tool for understanding how a limited scope of individual sources of
meaning is the cause for meaninglessness and unsustainability is through the concept of
panarchy. Just as cycles of collapse and regeneration occur in ecological and social systems,
the Self can also be understood in the panarchy model. According to C. S. Holling (2001),
“adequate performance of ecosystem function depends on having all the necessary
functional groups present. The persistence of ecosystem function over time (the resilience
of ecosystem function) depends on the diversity of species within the functional group”
(Holling, p.401). Applied to the Self, a variety of personal sources of meaning is more
resilient than an individual that relies on just one of the Selves for all of their meaning. For
example, in the recent economic downturn, an individual who knows how to derive
meaning from their economic, ecological, and social Selves is more able to maintain a
meaningful life than those individuals who relied entirely on their economic Selves and
now have lost all purpose and direction in life. People with strong ecological and social
Selves are less troubled by the downturn because economic troubles only cultivate one
aspect of their whole Self. In fact, the economic downturn has been a blessing for the
ecological and social Selves because now people have no choice but to use less and help
each other out more.
12

13. In addition to the ecologic and social Selves providing a variety of sources of
meaning, the panarchy model is a good template to understand how the Self relates to
larger and more complex structures that govern human lives. The individual Self is at a low
level, or quick adaptive cycle in the panarchy model compared to larger, slower cycle
adaptive cycles. Because of the ability of lower level adaptive cycles to affect larger cycles,
individual pursuits of meaning and happiness have both positive and negative
consequences on the rest of the levels of the adaptive cycle. “In a globalized world, policies
and behaviors have repercussions on distant lands and people. Some impacts are
immediate and short‐term while some have enduring effects” (O’brian, p. 2). Conversely,
decisions made at larger levels can have an impact on lower levels, or the Self. Clearly, it is
important for individuals to understand their place in relation to larger and more complex
cycles because individuals are impacted by and can have an impact on larger systems by
changing individual behavior. Therefore, an understanding of the whole Self is critical for
understand how to change larger cycles, such as global economic policies and climate
change. According to Holling, “with large threats such as climate change, water shortage,
and terrorism, societies can become more resilient to such threats. Human systems with
foresight that stabilize variability and exploit opportunity can avoid collapse within the
panarchy model” (Holling, p. 403). It is possible for individuals and society to incorporate
sustainability principles to move towards a sustainable society. To begin to shift towards a
more resilient society, it is critical that people become responsible for their behaviors by
developing a new appreciation for all three Selves.
Other Human Cultures and the Self
13

14. Despite how most modern, urban people have forgotten how to derive meaning
from ecological and social sources, people can learn how to cultivate all three Selves once
again. Luckily, there are many examples of human cultures on the earth today that have
lived sustainably for thousands of years and have strongly incorporated the natural and
social systems into their cultures and ideas of the Self. These cultures offer tips for our
culture about how to live sustainably. From Orr’s perspective, “the study of other cultures
offers a tantalizing glimpse of how culture can be linked to nature through ritual, myth, and
social organization. Our alienation from the natural world is unprecedented. Healing this
division is a large part of the difference between survival and extinction” (Orr, p. 17). The
level of an individual’s environmental and social concern is directly related to the degree
with which individuals see themselves as a part of the natural world. According to
Elizabeth Nisbet, John Zelenski, and Steven Murphy, an ecological identity that includes the
economic Self, the human community, and the planet’s ecosystems will lead people to view
damage to the planet as damage to the Self (Nisbet et al., p.17). This ties into many other
human cultures that treat the world with care and teach their children not to separate
themselves from nature.
For example, in Okanagan Native American culture, they regard the individual as
only able to actualize his or her full human potential only as the result of physical,
emotional, intellectual, and spiritual well‐being. According to Jeannette Armstrong (2005),
“each person is one element of a trans‐generational organism known as a family. Through
this organism flows the powerful lifeblood of cultural transference designed to secure the
highest probability of well‐being for each generation” (Armstrong, p. 13). The idea of
community in Okanagan culture encompassed a complex holistic view of
14

15. interconnectedness that demanded humans to be responsible for everything they are
connected to, including the natural world, and the generations that come before and after.
In keeping with the wisdom of many other human cultures, many deep ecologists
and other ecological and social philosophers are starting to integrate the idea that there is
no distinction between the Self and the rest of the natural world. According to Orr, “we can
make no absolute distinctions between the self and the world. Treating others as we would
have them treat us isn’t just good for them, it’s also in our own self‐interest. Goodness,
mercy, justice and ecological prudence have both survival value and spiritual rewards.”
(Orr, p. 38). The value of seeing the Self as part of everything is that it causes people to see
themselves as part of the web of life and not above it with the power to control it. This
humility is integral for development of the ecological Self and is integrated into many other
human cultures. For example, according to Malcome Margolin (2005),
Built into California Indians’ traditional teaching methods, and indeed their
overall philosophy, is something that I find heartbreakingly beautiful – a
sense of humility: a sense that the world is far bigger, more complex, and
more mysterious than the human mind can ever encompass, and that to be a
full human being you need to learn to live with ambiguity and tolerance for
the unknown. The alternative is to live with brittle delusions of certainty.
(Margolin, p. 75)
Nature opens the Self up to the vast complexities of the universe, which is both a humbling
and nurturing process at the same time. There is a system more powerful and complex than
any human can understand; but that this system takes care of us and we are a part.
The Ecological Self and the Impact on Sustainable Development
Given that nature provides humans with the ability to fulfill their whole Selves, it is
critically important for local and national developers to understand the value of nature in
planning. As more and more people move to cities, the development of sustainable cities is
15

16. central to moving humanity towards sustainability. Preserving islands of wild land – parks
and preserves – in urban areas is not enough. According to Louv,
A healthy urban environment requires natural corridors for movement and
genetic diversity. One can imagine such theory applied to entire urban
regions, with natural corridors for wildlife extending deep into urban
territory and the urban psyche, creating an entirely different environment in
which children would grow up and adults could grow old where the nature
deficit is replaced by natural abundance. (Louv, p. 247)
This type of development is possible if all members of society begin to see the value in first‐
hand interaction with nature once again.
In addition to enhancing only the ecological Self, parks and other urban green
spaces generally build social cohesion. According to The Trust for Public Land, “access to
public parks and recreational facilities has been strongly linked to reduction in crime and
in particular to reduced juvenile delinquency” (Louv, p. 179). Community gardeners also
routinely site that one of the major benefits of being a part of the garden is that it provides
social interaction, which is a key attribute in building or re‐building a community (Vogl,
2003). In a study that aimed to connect how close people are with nature with
environmental behavior found that “nature‐related (NR) people reported spending more
time outdoors and in the natural environment. Those higher in NR reported more
environmental concern and endorsement of pro‐environmental attitudes as well as more
self‐reported environmental behavior” (Nisbet, p.20). Therefore, higher levels of personal
contact with nature were predictive of ecological perspective, as well as strong views about
the seriousness of ecological problems and human treatment of the environment. If cities
and governments are serious about environmental concerns such as global warming and
species extinction, getting people in closer contact with nature could be the best way to
gain support.
16

17. If embracing the connection to nature makes an individual’s life richer and more
meaningful, becoming more in touch with the ecological Self may make humans happier. As
individuals become more related to nature, they may feel more positive emotions. This
sense of well‐being they experience could then result in more pro‐environmental
behaviors. Nisbet et al. argues, “if people feel good about their natural environment, value
and care about it, they might behave in ways that respect and protect it (Nisbet et al., p. 22).
If people fully understand their connection to nature they may develop more empathy for
all living creatures and the planet. As humans strive to find the solutions to environmental
problems, we may find that in healing the planet, we may also be able to restore or improve
human mental health and vice versa. According to Nisbet et al., “A self‐concept that includes
the natural world, a biospheric orientation, may provide a motivational force toward
nature protection and preservation.” (Nisbet et al., p. 23). Protection of nature protects the
valuable sources that humans rely on, which benefits all people and societies.
Conclusion
The ecological and social crises that plague the world today are in large part a
perceptual crisis. Ordinary human beings simply do not see that they are part of a delicate
web of life and that their own actions are destructive. According to Ophuls, “any viable
solution to this crisis will require them [humans] to see that they are part of the web of
life.” (Ophuls p. 222) Therefore, in order to achieve sustainability, humans will require a
psychological shift in thinking about one’s place on the earth. This will fundamentally
17

18. reshape people’s worldviews, motivators, and metrics. Because human behavior is the
primary source of ecological damage, it is time that psychological and human philosophical
experts start contributing to the sustainable development discussion. If tomorrow’s leaders
are better educated about human behavior, the needs of the Self, and the pursuit for
meaning, the ultimate benefit will be to the Earth and all of its inhabitants.
Figures
Figure 1: (Myers)
18

19.
Figure 2: (Myers)
Sources
1. Alasdair MacIntyre. (1981). After Virtue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University.
19

20.
2. Armstrong, Jeannette. (2005). En’owkin: Decision‐Making as if Sustainability Mattered.
In Michael Stone & Zenobia Barlow. Ecological Literacy. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
3. Frankl, Victor. (1959). Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.
p. 133.
4. Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social
systems. Ecosystems. 4: 390‐405.
5. Howard, G. S. (1997). Ecological psychology: Creating a more earth­friendly human nature.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
6. Louv, Richard. (2005). Last Child in the Woods. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Algonquin
Books.
7. Maiteny, P.T. (2002). Mind in the Gap: summary of research exploring ‘inner’ influences
on pro‐sustainability learning and behavior. Environmental Education Research, 8:3.
8. Margolin, Malcolm. (2005) Indian Pedagogy: A Look at Traditional California Indian
Teaching Techniques. In Michael Stone & Zenobia Barlow. Ecological Literacy. San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
9. Myers, David. (2003). The Social Psychology of Sustainability. World Futures, 59:3, 201‐
211.
10. Naess, A. (1973) The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range Ecology Movements. Inquiry.
16:95, 100.
11. Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A. (2008). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking
Individuals' Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior.
Environment and Behavior, 41; 715
12. O’Brien, C. (2005). Planning for Sustainable Happiness: Harmonizing Our Internal
and External Landscapes. Prepared for Rethinking Development: 2nd International
Conference on Gross National Happiness, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada.
13. Orr, David. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a
Postmodern World. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
14. Ophuls, W. (1977). Ecology and the politics of scarcity: Prologue to a political theory
of the steady state. San Francisco: Freeman Press.
15. Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.). (1995). Ecopsychology: Restoring the
earth, healing the mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
20

21. 16. Sipos, Yona, Bryce Battisti, Kurt Grimm. (2006). Achieving transformative sustainability
learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, vol. 9, No. 1, 68‐86.
17. Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections
with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31‐42.
18. Vogl, Christian R., Paul Axmann, and Brigitte Vogl‐Lukasser. 2003. Urban organic
farming in Austria with the concept of selbsternte (`self‐harvest'): Anagronomic and socio‐
economic analysis. Renewable Agriculture and food Systems. 19: 67‐69.
21