Special Issue: Environmental Justice and Psychology –  Alternative Ideas on Environmental Issues

Abstracts, Implications, and APA-style Citations

Editorial
Environmental Justice is a Pressing Topic for Global Psychology
Erinn C. Cameron, Gonzalo Bacigalupe, and Luca Tateo
Published Online: April 23, 2025

APA Style Citation:
Cameron, E. C., Bacigalupe, G., & Tateo, L. (2025). Environmental justice is a pressing topic for global psychology [Editorial]. International Perspectives in Psychology, 14(2), 55-58. https://doi.org/10.1027/2157-3891/a000128

Abstract: Environmental justice has emerged as a critical concern within global psychology, demanding a thorough reconsideration of how psychological theory and practice can address the global escalating environmental crisis and social inequality. This special issue, led by the International Environmental Justice Committee (IEJC) of the APA Society of Global Psychology (Div 52), explores ecological epistemologies situated within diverse cultural frameworks and Indigenous knowledge systems. Building on the recognition that environmental injustices are exacerbated by racial capitalism, place-based disparities, and uneven access to sustainable resources, the contributions in this issue challenge hegemonic assumptions about human behavior and question traditional approaches to psychological interventions. Collectively, the contributors argue for a decolonial and relational psychology—one that acknowledges how structurally marginalized communities are disproportionately burdened by environmental harms, while also foregrounding meaningful participation and localized agency in efforts to secure equitable and sustainable futures. By integrating alternative ontologies and emphasizing the interdependence of human and more-than-human worlds, this issue advances a critical, justice-oriented paradigm at the nexus of psychology and planetary well-being.
Editorial: Over the last 5 years, the Society for Global Psychology (APA Division 52) hosted a lively transnational discussion concerning how psychological theory and practice can address pressing environmental challenges, including climate change, environmental injustice, and humanity’s relationship to the more-than-human world. This intellectual momentum led a group of scholars to establish the International Environmental Justice Committee (IEJC); the present special issue constitutes the first editorial product of our collective effort.
Psychology, traditionally conceptualized as the science of behavior prediction and control, has often emphasized short-term behavioral and emotional dimensions. Dominant theories rest on the assumption of a human subject modeled upon the urban North Atlantic ideal of citizenship – often defined as WEIRD. Within this framework, behavioral change toward environmental sustainability is envisioned primarily in terms of a specific neoliberal capitalist context – with the smallest populations having a disproportionate impact on the environment. When the issues emerging from this context are generalized as universal, both the range of observed phenomena and the potential solutions become unnecessarily constrained.
Consequently, psychology grapples with a dual challenge: On one hand, it seeks to influence cognitive and behavioral habits concerning climate change; on the other, the enormity of the climate crisis – along with its traumatic impact – demands emotional healing and a reconnection with nature. In practice, many therapeutic or intervention models propose that emotional well-being and a sense of oneness with nature are vital for cultivating a sustainable future and coping with environmental trauma.
As guest editors of this special issue, we recognize the significance of both perspectives yet observe that neither approach fully integrates the role of larger value systems, nor does it adequately attend to the growing injustices spawned by the environmental crisis. Equally important is a recognition of the alternative ontologies and ways of relating to planetary ecosystems that exist in many cultures outside the North Atlantic worldview. Therefore, the articles in this collection propose alternative epistemologies to traditional psychology, touching on crucial global issues of environmental injustice and emphasizing relationships with human and nonhuman Earth inhabitants.
Environmental Justice
The current definition of environmental justice refers to the fair and equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, along with the meaningful inclusion of all people – regardless of race, class, gender, or national origin – in environmental decision-making processes (Bullard, 1990; Schlosberg, 2007). This framework underscores that no group should disproportionately experience the adverse effects of environmental hazards, such as toxic waste disposal or industrial pollution (Agyeman et al., 2002). As the United States Environmental Protection Agency (2022) highlights, environmental justice entails not only preventing the unequal allocation of risks but also ensuring that marginalized communities have genuine opportunities to influence policies shaping their local environments. Recent scholarship has further illuminated how systemic factors such as racial capitalism (Pulido, 2016) and the interlocking forces of racism, capitalism, and state power (Pellow, 2018) perpetuate environmental inequities. Place-based analyses reveal that local contexts significantly determine how communities experience environmental injustice (Holifield et al., 2017), while research on sustainable energy practices demonstrates that clean energy solutions, such as distributed solar, can inadvertently exacerbate social inequalities if low-income and minoritized neighborhoods are bypassed (Lukanov & Krieger, 2019). By extending protections to historically underserved groups and acknowledging the complex intersections of social inequalities, this paradigm of environmental justice aims to redress systemic harms and foster sustainable, community-driven approaches to ecological stewardship (Pellow & Brulle, 2005). While the term environmental justice initially gained prominence in the United States, its core principles and concerns have increasingly been recognized and adopted on a global scale. Globally, environmental justice centers on equitable access to environmental resources, robust public engagement, protection of human rights in environmental contexts, and the fair distribution of environmental risks and benefits (Boyd, 2018; United Nations, 2015). The concept of environmental justice emerged from the struggle against the structural social inequalities that unevenly distribute the access to environmental resources and the effects of environmental crisis. However, its perspective remains anthropocentric and often extractivist injustice is understood only in terms of the distribution of resources and costs. Other points of view aim at expanding the concept to embrace multispecies justice (Winter, 2022) and stress how social, environmental, and multispecies injustice is the product of the same violent regime (Pellow, 2016). This critique is also echoed in this special issue (Adolfsson et al., 2025; Karmakar & De, 2025) as it converges with the Indigenous perspective that implies caring for and giving justice to the land with its human, more-than-human, and spiritual beings, as they existed in the past and will exist in the future (Dudgeon et al., 2024). The critique cannot be hastily put away as idealistic or animistic. It touches the core of the neoliberal framework that also produced the SDGs and requires a careful consideration (Dueck & Sundararajan, 2024).
Individual and Collective: Ecological and Systemic Perspectives
In mainstream social science traditions, the individual and the collective are often conceptualized as separate, mutually exclusive phenomena: psychology focuses on individuals, whereas sociology and anthropology address collective realities. Yet, since Heinz Werner’s developmental theories and Kurt Lewin’s field theory, it has been clear that the ontological distinction between individual and collective depends largely on the unit of analysis. A human being may be viewed as an autonomous entity acting within an external environment or as a symbiotic system – composed of organs, microorganisms, and interdependent processes – collectively maintaining life. Likewise, from an ecological perspective, organisms and the environment coconstruct each other, forming part of an inseparable totality. A poignant example is the Pando tree (Populus tremuloides) in Sevier County, Utah, which has been described as the largest living organism on Earth. Such ecological frameworks challenge the meaningfulness of drawing a strict line between individual and collective, and many articles in this issue echo this perspective by proposing alternatives to the standard North Atlantic psychological models.
Rethinking Environmental Psychology
In Indigenizing Psychology, Adolfsson et al. (2025) address a key challenge within contemporary psychological theory: the integration of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and ecological epistemologies without inadvertently reproducing individualistic and universalist tendencies. Such cautionary notes foreground the risk of romanticizing or commodifying IK, thereby perpetuating new forms of othering. The authors argue that cultural psychology, with its emphasis on dialogue, context, and power relations, offers a vital pathway toward authentic learning and decolonial transformation. Central to this argument is the recognition that IK is essential for addressing the climate crisis yet must be adapted with sensitivity to local knowledge systems and without succumbing to Western paradigms.
Extending these considerations, Moss (2025), in Ubuntu and Sámi Worldviews of Nature and Responsibility, explores philosophical outlooks – namely Ubuntu and Sámi perspectives – that challenge Western anthropocentrism. By underscoring communal relationality and ecological interdependence, these worldviews introduce postgrowth or degrowth frameworks that directly contest neoliberal capitalism’s emphasis on perpetual economic expansion, resonating powerfully with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13. Similarly, Karmakar and De (2025), in Indigenous Perspectives on Environment and Its Relation With Humans, reveals how Santali folktales embody collective and compassionate approaches to conservation, thereby resisting the exploitative tendencies of resourcism and advocating more inclusive environmental stewardship.
Drazenovich and Stroink (2025) take a further step in Posthumanism and Human Rights Psychology of – Opportunities for Advancing Rights for Nonhumans, urging a decentering of the human species by positing that an expanded social identity, encompassing nonhuman entities, fosters a necessary ethical shift for mitigating ecological crises. A related argument appears in Wade Pickren’s Living Earthwise – We Have Always Been Relations Relating (2025), where he contends that the illusion of individualism – rooted in colonial modernity – has generated a polycrisis, and that reclaiming interspecies reciprocity and place-based knowledge is pivotal for planetary health. Finally, Arbuthnott (2025), in Cooperation and the Mistaken Belief in Human Nature, challenges the widely held assumption that humans are innately selfish, pointing to empirical evidence that cooperation is often our default response. Her analysis underscores the importance of psychology in dispelling destructive myths about human nature and promoting global-scale cooperative initiatives – efforts that are crucial for addressing the escalating environmental and humanitarian crises outlined by the preceding scholars.
Conclusion and Future Directions
Collectively, these contributions suggest that conventional psychological paradigms are not sufficiently equipped to tackle the scope and urgency of contemporary environmental challenges. More integrative and ecologically informed approaches – grounded in diverse epistemologies – are necessary to foreground the systemic injustices and cultural intricacies shaping environmental degradation. By engaging with alternative worldviews, decolonial frameworks, and relational ontologies, psychology can more fully address the pressing need for environmental justice worldwide.
See Editorial for Suggested Resources and Further Reading

Indigenizing Psychology: A Way Forward for Indigenous Knowledges in the Psy-Disciplines?
Johanna Sofia Adolfsson, Susanne Normann, Erik Nakkerud, and Christian Andres Palacios Haugestad
Published Online: April 23, 2025

APA Style Citation:
Adolfsson, J. S., Normann, S., Nakkerud, E., & Palacios Haugestad, C. A. (2025). Indigenizing psychology: A way forward for indigenous knowledges in the psy-disciplines? International Perspectives in Psychology, 14(2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1027/2157-3891/a000121

Abstract: This article examines the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating ecological epistemologies and Indigenous Knowledges (IK) within psychological science. While there is growing recognition of the value of IK in addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, there is a risk of reproducing problems associated with mainstream psychology’s individualist and universalist approaches. In acknowledging nonhegemonic approaches, it is crucial to avoid romanticizing or exploiting/extracting ecological epistemologies and IK. Such actions can lead to the othering and neocolonization of Indigenous communities, undermining their autonomy and perpetuating harmful power dynamics. As for psychological science and practice engagement with IK might lead to an essentialization, which, again, sustains hegemonic psychological norms. We suggest that Cultural Psychology’s dialogical focus and sensitivity to the meaning of the broader context and power relations provides important tools for fostering deeper learning and supporting decolonial transformation in psychological science’s turn to ecological and Indigenous Knowledges.
Impact and Implications: In this paper, we discuss the need for new ecological and Indigenous epistemologies in psychology to address the current ecological crises. We emphasize the importance of engaging with diverse knowledge systems, including Indigenous perspectives, while being cautious of romanticization and extractivism. Our research contributes to Sustainable Development Goals 13 (Climate Action), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and 11 (Sustainable Communities), by advocating for a more inclusive and holistic approach in psychological research.

Ubuntu and Sámi Worldviews of Nature and Responsibility: Avenues for Ecosystemic Theorizing in Psychology?
Sigrun Marie Moss
Published Online: April 23, 2025

APA Style Citation:
Moss, S. M. (2025). Ubuntu and Sámi worldviews of nature and responsibility: Avenues for ecosystemic theorizing in psychology? International Perspectives in Psychology, 14(2), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1027/2157-3891/a000123

Abstract: The African philosophy of human interconnectedness – often referred to as Ubuntu (but which is also referred to by many other names across many spaces and societies in Africa) – emphasizes being human through others, including through nature. Similarly, the worldviews of the Indigenous Sámi people – who reside in the arctic region of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia – connect the concepts of nature and responsibility to togetherness and communalism. Both the Ubuntu and the Sámi worldviews conceptualize human beings in reciprocal relations with nonhuman species and ecosystems – placing humans in and as nature, rather than above nature. While Ubuntu and Sámi conceptualizations of nature tie into environmental ethics, focusing on degrowth, and prioritizing communitarianism and principles of sufficiency, the social norms of capitalism are strong, as evident also in Africa and in Indigenous communities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has emphasized the need for Indigenous and local knowledge in climate adaptation. However, in practice, such forms of knowledge are frequently overlooked and marginalized in research and policy frameworks. In this paper, I discuss Ubuntu and Sámi worldviews of humanity, nature, and responsibility as relevant Indigenous approaches for climate adaptation and sustainable life. How can such approaches offer not merely a focus on less and moderation, but offer alternative representations of how to engage with nature? I conclude by exploring three specific avenues by which Ubuntu and Sámi psychological and Indigenous philosophical perspectives can inform ecosystemic theorizing in psychology.
Implications for Impact: This article explores the Ubuntu and Sámi worldviews of nature, asking if these can offer alternative ways of approaching nature. These emphasize humans as part of nature, rather than above nature, and offer degrowth alternatives to emphasis on economic growth as prioritized within neoliberal capitalism. These may be useful worldviews for leaders to adopt in striving to do good, rather than making nature-damaging decisions in the name of growth. The text is particularly relevant for United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 13 – Climate action.

Indigenous Perspectives on Environment and Its Relation With Humans: An Analysis of Santali Folktales
Swagata Karmakar and Sonali De
Published Online: April 23, 2025

APA Style Citation:
Karmakar, S., & De, S. (2025). Indigenous perspectives on environment and its relation with humans: An analysis of Santali folktales. International Perspectives in Psychology, 14(2), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1027/2157-3891/a000122

Abstract: The It’s high time to focus on the alternative insights on nature for the subsistence of mankind as hegemonic environmental practices have already proven their failure. Scholars are emphasizing the importance of exploring environmental insights prevalent in traditional societies, still depending primarily on nature for life and livelihood. Santal being a prominent tribe of India have succeeded in maintaining notability of culture, reflected in their folktales. It appeared to us that Santali folktales, enriched in local wisdom, could be an excellent source to look for the ideas surrounding nature and referred a reservoir of Santali folktales curated by P. O. Bodding from the narrations of traditional knowledge holders. Selected folktales have been analyzed thematically on the basis of social constructionism. The aim of this study was to understand values, practices, and thought patterns on nature and moreover the folktales’ stance on their nature attachment, conservation, and possible empirically derived notions on it. Revelations put forward unique nature perception consistently challenging resourcism. Outcomes can aid us in internalizing Santal’s socially constructed reality reflecting compassionate nature preservation and collective practice of resisting resourcism. While resourcism is exhausting all the natural resources, the mankind apprehending destruction is only preaching concepts of ecocentrism, EJ, and sustainability not translating into practice. Exploration of traditional society insights on nature is crucial for developing sustainable communities and assuring meaningful participation of all people irrespective of race, origin, or income. Moreover, it will grant wisdom and inspiration in our common fight for a just and sustainable future.
Impact Statement: This is an analytic work on Indigenous folktales featuring nonconventional insights on nature, community engagement with it, and core values challenging resourcism. Participation from all people irrespective of race, national origin, or income is crucial to two of the SDGs, namely sustainable cities and communities and partnership for goals. Research on third-world country marginalized communities voicing the importance of revealing principles on spirituality, land ethic, and animism buried in their traditional wisdom may aid in developing inclusive ideas in contrast to hegemonic preaches of environmental consciousness and building sustainable, environmentally just future.

Posthumanism and Human Rights Psychology – Opportunities for Advancing Rights for Nonhumans
George Drazenovich and Mirella Stroink
Published Online: April 23, 2025

APA Style Citation:
Drazenovich, G., & Stroink, M. (2025). Posthumanism and human rights psychology – Opportunities for advancing rights for nonhumans. International Perspectives in Psychology, 14(2), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1027/2157-3891/a000108
Abstract: The planet’s ecological and environmental crisis is a pressing global challenge. We argue that the dual objectives of human rights and well-being for humans and rights for nonhumans involving prioritizing the natural ecological space, need not be seen as separate goals. Both can be achieved by building on a rights-based approach informed by the tradition of human rights. Rights for nonhumans are an extension of, and not a displacement for, the significant strides made in human rights since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Humans and nonhumans alike comprise a single ecosystem. However, advancing rights for nonhumans requires rethinking the humanist heritage that gave rise to both psychology and the modern human rights project. Building on our previous research, this paper engages psychological science with contemporary posthuman trends concerning rights for nonhumans, including nonsentient beings such as rivers, streams, and other natural entities. We explore alternative ways to consider the well-winnowed humanist concept of agency in psychological science within a posthuman cultural context and examine measurements of people’s sense of identity relative to the natural world. We propose innovative research pathways for psychological scientists to contribute meaningfully to rights for nonhumans and support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) related to planetary health and well-being.
Impact and Implications: We propose that a preferred way to address the planet’s environmental and ecological crisis is through a rights-based approach, building on and expanding the universal human rights project begun in 1948. This paper explores how psychological scientists can adopt a singular, posthuman, overarching rights-based paradigm for both humans and nonhumans, including seemingly nonsentient beings such as rivers, streams, and other aspects of our natural environment. We propose innovative research pathways for psychological scientists to make a meaningful contribution to rights for nonhumans and, importantly, to align with and support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) related to planetary health and well-being.

Living Earthwise – We Have Always Been Relations Relating
Wade E. Pickren
Published Online: April 23, 2025

APA Style Citation:
Pickren, W. E. (2025). Living earthwise – We have always been relations relating. International Perspectives in Psychology, 14(2), 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1027/2157-3891/a000114

Abstract: In this brief article, my goal is to help us realize our deep connection with all life on this planet. Developing such awareness is key to learning how to live Earthwise. This means that we reimagine ourselves to be fully relational beings rather than understanding ourselves only as individuals. We are, I argue, much more than individuals, we are relations relating to other humans and with all life on Earth. This means we live in reciprocity with others, in cooperation rather competition, and seek to create a new commons that allows us to find our true home as members of the planet. Because this all has implications for planetary health, I outline the trap of separateness that humans in much of the world have fallen into over the last several centuries and articulate decolonial paths and practices that will help spring the trap by learning how to live Earthwise.
Impact and Implications: This article addresses the need to overcome the sense of separation from the natural processes of life on Earth. Such separation has led to a sense of human exceptionalism that has resulted in human degradation of the planet. The author argues for rediscovering our sense of relatedness to all life on the planet. The article is relevant to Sustainable Development Goals 13, 14, and 15.

Cooperation and the Mistaken Belief of Human Nature
Katherine D. Arbuthnott
Published Online: April 23, 2025

APA Style Citation:
Arbuthnott, K. D. (2025). Cooperation and the mistaken belief of human nature. International Perspectives in Psychology, 14(2), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1027/2157-3891/a000115

Abstract: To deal with global environmental and humanitarian crises, humanity needs cooperation at all levels from local to international. One significant barrier to cooperation is widespread distrust of other people, institutions, and nations, which is founded on a mistaken belief that human nature is fundamentally selfish. To achieve the UN Sustainability Goals (SDGs) in time to preserve a livable planet for future generations, innate human cooperation needs to be unshackled. Research, both real-world and experimental, consistently shows that most people are motivated by concern for others, disconfirming the theory of essential human selfishness. This evidence is not widely known, even among psychologists. The discipline of psychology could play a vital role in environmental action by widely disseminating this evidence to correct our mistaken view of human nature. To that end, this paper describes a sample of the evidence showing intuitive altruism and discusses factors such as wealth and distrust that suppress cooperation.
Impact and Implications: The belief that human nature is fundamentally selfish causes widespread distrust, significantly hampering the global cooperation necessary to achieve the UN Sustainability Development Goals, especially # 17, Partnerships for the Goals. This belief is mistaken; research consistently shows that most people are cooperative. Empowering the cooperative majority increases both collective wellbeing and intergenerational sustainability. Thus, psychologists can significantly contribute to sustainability efforts by correcting this mistaken belief about our own nature.