Journal entry 3
Environmental Social Work: A Concept Analysis
Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy*
Griffith University, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia
*Correspondence to Jennifer Boddy, School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith
University, Gold Coast Campus, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia. E-mail:
j.boddy@griffith.edu.au
Abstract
Environmental social work and related terms have been used widely to describe an
approach to social work practice that is founded on ecological justice principles.
However, practice applications of environmental social work are scant and there are
various terms and a range of interpretations of the practice that exist. Using a con-
cept analysis framework, we identify the attributes and characteristics of environmen-
tal social work, develop an operational definition and use a case study to illustrate
the practice of environmental social work. In this way, we seek to improve clarity,
consistency and understanding of environmental social work practice among educa-
tors, practitioners and researchers. In essence, environmental social work assists hu-
manity to create and sustain a biodiverse planetary ecosystem and does this by
adapting existing social work methods to promote societal change.
Keywords: Social work, natural environment, ecological, green, sustainable, practice
framework, community
Accepted: March 2016
Introduction
The number of publications that highlight the importance of integrating the natural environment into social work practice has grown exponen- tially. Historically, many non-Western traditions have integrated the nat- ural environment into their world view (Coates and Besthorn, 2010; Gray and Coates, 2013; Mosher, 2010). Several authors (Kemp, 2011;
# The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of
The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
British Journal of Social Work (2017) 47, 68–86 doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcw078 Advance Access Publication June 22, 2016
Peeters, 2012b; Rambaree, 2013; Shaw, 2011; Smith, 2013; Zapf, 2010) assert that pioneering social work approaches of the late 1800s and early 1900s were also inherently inclusive of the environment, while others cite social memes developing from Carson’s Silent Spring (Hawkins, 2010) and ecological systems theory as placing the natural environment into social work practice (Ferreira, 2010; Ungar, 2002; Zapf, 2010). Further, international guidelines oblige social workers to take into ac- count the natural environment (International Federation of Social Workers, 2012) while professional principles of social justice and equal- ity compel social workers to address the crisis facing our natural envi- ronment (Dominelli, 2013a; Gray and Coates, 2012; Kemp, 2011; Schmitz et al., 2012).
Despite this strong case for environmental social work, many authors have noted the relative absence of social work in recent public environ- mental discourse (Besthorn, 2012; Ferreira, 2010; Kemp, 2011; Norton, 2012; Peeters, 2012b; Pulla, 2013; Weber, 2012; Zapf, 2010). A lack of environmental content in social work education is illustrated by a level of environmental literacy no better than the average population (Miller and Hayward, 2014; Shaw, 2011). This may be due to the submersion of social work in an individualistic, materialistic, anthropocentric, clinical, modernist paradigm (Besthorn, 2012; Gray and Coates, 2013; Hawkins, 2010; Mosher, 2010; Zapf, 2010). Yet publications have tripled twice in the last fifteen years, suggesting a professional change. Additionally, stu- dents want more knowledge about how to engage in environmental is- sues (Miller and Hayward, 2014; see also McKinnon, 2013; Shaw, 2011).
The mandate to be environmentally pro-active may be clear, yet appli- cation of environmental social work in practice is limited (Miller and Hayward, 2014; Norton, 2012; Shaw, 2011). Confusion or lack of clarity about what ‘environmental social work’ entails and how it is defined is likely to contribute to this gap. Different interpretations of environmen- tal social work and a variety of related terms used to describe the con- cept (see Table 1) can be confusing and impede the identification of interventions to advance environmental social work. In the absence of clarity, translation of concepts into practice is unlikely. Consequently, this paper utilises a concept analysis to define ‘environmental social work’ and identify its main elements. A common understanding can ben- efit those entering the profession and support current practitioners to in- tegrate environmental social work into practice.
Concept analysis
A concept analysis (Krathwohl, 1993) improves understanding of ab- stract constructs like ‘environmental social work’ by identifying its key attributes so that research and practice endeavours ‘find the concept
Environmental Social Work 69
clearly communicable and increasingly measurable’ (Olenick et al., 2010, p. 75).The purpose of this analysis was to (i) determine attributes and characteristics of environmental social work; (ii) develop an operational definition of environmental social work practice, and (iii) provide a case example illustrating the practice of environmental social work.
Our analysis adopted an approach described by Rodgers (1989) recog- nising relativism and using an inductive literature analysis to identify: (i) the concept of interest, (ii) alternative terms and relevant uses of the concept, (iii) the literature—or data sources—for data collection, (iv) the attributes of the concept, (v) the antecedents and consequences of the concept, (vi) related concepts and (vii) a model case. We modi- fied the approach, borrowing from Walker and Avant’s (2005) tradi- tional method, utilising the literature to construct a composite model
Table 1 Publications categorised by keyword in title
Terminology Publications
Green social work Broad (2008); Dominelli (2012a, 2013a, 2014); Lane (1997); Lucas-
Darby (2011); Marlow and Van Rooyen (2001); Shaw (2011);
Weber (2012)
Eco-feminist social work Besthorn and McMillen (2002); Stephens et al. (2010)
Spiritual and eco-spiritual
social work
Besthorn (2002a); Besthorn et al. (2010); Canda (2002); Coates
et al. (2006); Derezotes (2009); Dylan and Coates (2012); Faver
(2009); Ferreira (2010); Graham et al. (2006); Gray (2008); Gray
and Coates (2013); Hanrahan (2011); Zapf (2005, 2008)
Ecological social work Berger and Kelly (1993); Besthorn (2001, 2012a, 2013a); Besthorn
and Canda (2002); Coates and Tester (2004); Greif (2003); Jones
(2010, 2013); Maton (2000); McKinnon and Bay (2013); Rotabi
(2007); Shaw (2008); Ungar (2002a, 2003a, 2003b)
Environmental social work Alston (2013); Bartlett (2003); Besthorn (2002b); Besthorn and
Canda (2002); Besthorn and Meyer (2010); Borrell et al. (2010);
Coates (2003, 2005, 2008); Coates and Gray (2012); Colley et al.
(2012); Coulter and Noss (1988); Dylan (2013); Faver (2013);
Gray and Coates (2012); Gray et al. (2013b); Green and
McDermott (2010); Hawkins (2010); Hayward et al. (2013);
Hillman (2002); Hoff and Polack (1993); Hoff and Rogge (1996);
Jarvis (2013); Jeffery (2014); Jones (2006); Kemp (2011); Lysack
(2010, 2012, 2013); McKinnon (2008, 2013); Mertig and Dunlap
(2001); Miller et al. (2012); Muldoon (2006); N€arhi (2002);
Norton (2012); Park (1996); Pulla (2013); Rogge (1993); Rogge
and Darkwa (1996); Schmitz et al. (2013); Schmitz et al. (2012);
Schmitz et al. (2010); Shepard (2013); Soine (1987); Taylor
(2013); Van Rooyen (1999); Washington (1995); Woods (1998);
Zapf (2010)
Sustainable social work Besthorn (2012b); Blake (2009); Carrilio (2007); Mathbor (2007);
Mosher (2010); Hall (1996); Rambaree (2013); Ryan (2013);
Smith (2013)
Other; including natural,
speciesism, climate change
Berger (1995); Besthorn and McMillen (2002); Besthorn et al.
(2003); Coates and Leahy (2006); Dominelli (2011, 2012b,
2013b); Stehlik (2013); Tester (2013); Walker (2001); Wolf
(2000); Gray et al. (2013a); Hare (2004); Heinsch (2012);
Lichtblau (2010)
70 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
case, because published examples of environmental social work practice did not demonstrate all the concept attributes. We acknowledge that uti- lising antecedents and consequences implies the concept has linear causes and effects, when in fact environmental social work practices are circular and interrelated. However, it is hoped that the concept analysis presented in this paper aids the understanding of students, practitioners and researchers.
Data sources
A number of databases were searched, including Proquest, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, SAGE Journals Online, Wiley Online Library, and Taylor and Francis journals. A title search using the phrase ‘social work’ was combined with the following terms using Boolean logic: green, environ*, sustainab*, eco-spiritual, eco-feminis*, ecolog*. A total of 771 articles were located. After duplicates were deleted (n ¼391), 380 articles remained. Articles published before 2010 were then excluded to ensure that the definition developed in this article reflected current ideas. This resulted in 117 articles for consideration.
Articles were excluded if it was clear from the title that they were unrelated to the profession of social work, did not address the natural environment, were written in a language other than English, or were newspaper articles or book reviews. While other sources may provide important insight into practice, the peer review process used in scholarly publications ensures that articles are insightful and recognised as being useful to contemporary practice. Abstracts of journal articles were re- viewed and those that mentioned both social work and the natural envi- ronment were included in the review. This resulted in twenty-three articles.
Further sources were located by reviewing major social work texts in this field by Dominelli (2012a) and Gray, Coates and Hetherington (2013b), and searching for articles by authors who were referenced fre- quently including Besthorn, Coates, Dominelli and Gray. This resulted in twenty-five articles. Using the same search terms in Google Scholar, nineteen articles were located, resulting in sixty-seven articles for full review.
Data analysis
Text from the articles was extracted if it examined social work practice in the natural environment. Extracts were collated and recorded using EndNote. Findings were summarised and salient antecedents, attributes and consequences uncovered through thematic clustering, that sought
Environmental Social Work 71
both inclusiveness and utility. It is assumed that these themes reflect ideas common to environmental social work practice. The term ‘environ- mental social work’ was chosen in this analysis because it appears to be the most widely used term in the literature (see Table 1). Alternative terms were not excluded as analysis showed a large overlap between terms, suggesting a common discourse.
Antecedents, attributes and consequences
Social workers are compelled to care for the environment by higher au- thorities including professional associations (McKinnon, 2013; Pulla, 2013; Shaw, 2011), the United Nations (Hawkins, 2010; Smith, 2013) and, for some, God (Mosher, 2010). Deontological imperatives also sup- port shifting practice and theory to incorporate ecological and environ- mental justice (Besthorn et al., 2010; Dominelli, 2012a; Dylan and Coates, 2012; Gray and Coates, 2013). Antecedents that compel social workers to adopt and act environmentally include evidence about the ef- fects of climate change on marginalised people and awareness about the interrelationships between humans and the biosphere (Besthorn, 2012, 2013b; Besthorn and Meyer, 2010; Besthorn et al., 2010; Dominelli, 2014; Dylan, 2012; Dylan and Coates, 2012; Ferreira, 2010; Gray et al., 2013b; Gray and Coates, 2012; Hanrahan, 2011; Hawkins, 2010; Hetherington and Boddy, 2013; Schmitz et al., 2010; Zapf, 2010).
Four key attributes defined environmental social work. The first of these—creative application of social work skills to environmental concepts—is an overarching characteristic of environmental social work practice. The remaining three attributes include: (i) openness to different values and ways of being or doing, (ii) a change orientation and (iii) working across boundaries and in multiple spaces. Table 2 highlights the number of articles that discuss each attribute.
Creatively apply existing skills to environmental concepts
All authors stated existing social work skills are useful in addressing ef- fects and mitigating environmental degradation. Skills include empower- ment, team building, community development, management, culturally competent and anti-oppressive practice, multi-level assessments, holistic interventions and relational practices (Alston, 2013; Besthorn, 2013a; Besthorn and Meyer, 2010; Borrell et al., 2010; Dominelli, 2012a; Hawkins, 2010; Rambaree, 2013; Schmitz et al., 2012; Taylor, 2013; Weber, 2012). Social workers must be political, showing leadership in development of public values and policy, and advocating for rights and justice (Besthorn, 2013b; Dylan, 2012, 2013; Dylan and Coates, 2012;
72 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
Kemp, 2011; Lysack, 2012; Miller et al., 2012; Norton, 2012; Peeters, 2012b; Ross, 2013; Schmitz et al., 2010). Using an ethical framework, be- ing congruent, reflective and reflexive in practice are central (Dylan, 2013; Jones, 2010; Lucas-Darby, 2011). Thus, environmental social work requires creative application of existing social work skills to environmen- tal issues.
Openness to different values and ways of being or doing
Shift practice, theory and values to incorporate the natural environment
Almost all articles (99 per cent) agreed that the theoretical focus of so- cial work must change to include the natural environment. There must be awareness amongst practitioners of humans’ interrelationship within nature and humanity’s ability to disrupt natural systems (Besthorn, 2012; Dominelli, 2013b; Faver, 2013; Gray et al., 2013b; Pulla, 2013; Zapf, 2010). Recognition of nature’s innate value and a move to ecocentrism must occur (Gray et al., 2013a; Miller and Hayward, 2014; Ryan, 2013; Stephens et al., 2010). Pursuit of equality and justice necessitates envi- ronmental equality, meaning all animals including people have equal ac- cess to safe and clean environments, respect and dignity (Alston, 2013; Dylan, 2013; Dylan and Coates, 2012; Hanrahan, 2011; Ross, 2013). Responding to natural disasters has a place (Alston, 2013; Dominelli, 2012b; Stehlik, 2013), but social work must be pro-active in preventing environmental deterioration (Colley et al., 2012; Hawkins, 2010; Heinsch, 2012; Peeters, 2012a).
Table 2 Number of articles that state attributes
Themes No. of articles %
Creatively apply existing skills to environmental concepts 67 100
Openness to different values and ways of being or doing
Shift practice, theory and values to incorporate the natural environment 67 99
Learn from spirituality and indigenous cultures 28 41
Incorporate the natural environment in social work education 17 25
Appreciate the instrumental and innate value of non-human life 22 32
Adopt a renewed change orientation
Change society 60 88
Critique hegemony 58 85
Work across boundaries and in multiples spaces
Work in multidisciplinary teams 58 85
Work with communities 45 66
Work with individuals 38 56
Environmental Social Work 73
Learn from spirituality and indigenous cultures
Spirituality tended to be defined as being in one’s correct place within humanity and living well in that place (Coates and Besthorn, 2010; Jones, 2013; Lichtblau, 2010). Many articles (41 per cent) reported on learning from Aboriginal, Latino, Native American Indian and African traditions (Besthorn and Meyer, 2010; Dominelli, 2013b; Faver, 2013; Gray et al., 2013b; Mosher, 2010; Polack et al., 2010; Zapf, 2010). Additionally, Buddhism, Taoism, Romanticism, Collectivism and Jungian psychology were reported as helpful for developing environmen- tal social work frameworks (Besthorn, 2012; Gray et al., 2013b; Mosher, 2010). Many authors (including Dominelli, 2012a; Dylan, 2012; Dylan and Coates, 2012; Heinsch, 2012; Lysack, 2012; McKinnon and Bay, 2013; Miller et al., 2012; Norton, 2012; Norton et al., 2013) suggested so- cial workers could be inspired by and learn from spiritual traditions and cultural diversity.
Incorporate the natural environment in social work education
To promote change, it is essential that environmental values and prac- tices are integrated throughout the curriculum (Dominelli, 2011; Dylan and Coates, 2012; Green and McDermott, 2010; Hayward et al., 2013; Jones, 2013; Kemp, 2011; Schmitz et al., 2010)—an attribute discussed in 25 per cent of articles. ‘Simplistic conceptualizations of the environment’ (Jeffery, 2014, p. 292) should be avoided by applying a critical lens and education should occur outside of formal settings, becoming part of pro- fessional development (Coates and Besthorn, 2010; Faver, 2013; Jones, 2010; McKinnon and Bay, 2013; Shepard, 2013; Stehlik, 2013).
Appreciate the instrumental and innate value of non-human life
All articles explicitly stated or implicitly assumed the biosphere has in- nate value and plays a vital role in supporting human life. Thus, social workers should move away from anthropocentricity. Additionally, 32 per cent of articles highlighted how practice is enhanced through a connec- tion with the natural environment. For example, the natural environ- ment can improve well-being, and give purpose, confidence, fulfilment and insight (Besthorn, 2013a; Besthorn et al., 2010; Norton et al., 2013; Hanrahan, 2011; Heinsch, 2012; Lichtblau, 2010; Lysack, 2012; Miller et al., 2012; Norton, 2012; Norton et al., 2013; Ryan, 2013; Taylor, 2013). Knowledge of instrumental benefits provides social workers with justifi- cation for environmental interventions when working within anthropo- genic power structures.
74 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
Adopt a renewed change orientation
Critique hegemony
The neo-liberal paradigm can be so pervasive that its values are inte- grated, without realisation, into individual and social actions (Besthorn and Meyer, 2010; Coates and Besthorn, 2010; Jones, 2010). According to 85 per cent of articles, environmental social workers need to understand and critique this paradigm (Coates, 2005; Ferreira, 2010; Gray et al., 2013a; Green and McDermott, 2010; Hanrahan, 2011; Hawkins, 2010; Hayward et al., 2013; Jones, 2010; Lysack, 2010; Miller and Hayward, 2014; Miller et al., 2012; Peeters, 2012a; Stephens et al., 2010; Zapf, 2010). Radical and anti-oppressive practices can reveal anthropocen- trism, andropocentrism, contemporalism, speciesism, somatophobia, green-washing and environmental racism (Besthorn and Meyer, 2010; Clark, 2010; Dylan, 2012; Hanrahan, 2011; Ryan, 2013; Stephens et al., 2010; Taylor, 2013; Tester, 2013). A new ecocentric narrative to counter modern and postmodern narratives must be developed (see Dylan and Coates, 2012; Jeffery, 2014; Schmitz et al., 2013).
Change society
According to 88 per cent of articles reviewed, societal change, from the micro to the macro level, must be initiated (Colley et al., 2012; McKinnon, 2013; Schmitz et al., 2013) to ensure environmentally de- structive practices are viewed as immoral. Critiquing laws, using mass media, facilitating workshops and public forums to raise consciousness, researching alternatives, informing public debate, advising decision mak- ers, lobbying and contributing to policy formulation advance this goal (Besthorn, 2013b; Coates, 2005; Hawkins, 2010; Lysack, 2012; Miller et al., 2012; Schmitz et al., 2012; Taylor, 2013; Zapf, 2010). Participation in social action, protests and civil disobedience (Dominelli, 2011; Dylan, 2012; Ferreira, 2010; Gray and Coates, 2012; Miller and Hayward, 2014; Shepard, 2013) and facilitating others to join such actions (Jarvis, 2013; Lichtblau, 2010; Norton et al., 2013) are required.
Social workers should call on government to enact and enforce envi- ronmental safe guards, argue for limits on human population growth, promote incentives for environmental activity (Dominelli, 2012a; Hayward et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2012; Shaw, 2011) and advocate for a system that shifts from continual industrial growth to a sustainable econ- omy (Besthorn, 2012; Coates and Gray, 2012; Dominelli, 2012a; Kemp, 2011; Lysack, 2012; Peeters, 2012b; Stephens et al., 2010). Promoting an alternative paradigm in which practices are amended to include nature
Environmental Social Work 75
(Jarvis, 2013; Stehlik, 2013) and non-linear problem solving is required (Dominelli, 2012a; Dylan, 2012; Mosher, 2010). Dylan (2012), Faver (2013) and Ross (2013) advise monitoring and evaluating the activities of big business, critiquing ‘green-washing’, exposing exploitative multina- tionals and holding them responsible for their environmental damage (see also Gray and Coates, 2012; Tester, 2013). Social workers should explicitly value environmental and ecological justice (Besthorn, 2012, 2013a; Dominelli, 2012a, 2013a, 2014; Hawkins, 2010; Jarvis, 2013) and engage in a change process to create a sustainable society.
Work across boundaries and in multiple spaces
Work in multidisciplinary teams
The development and maintenance of inter-disciplinary collaborations with cultural leaders, activists, community leaders, other professionals (Borrell et al., 2010; Norton, 2012; Shepard, 2013) and spiritual advisers (Lysack, 2012; Mosher, 2010) were suggested in 85 per cent of articles. Collaboration provides new insight, knowledge and skills (Dominelli, 2012a; Miller and Hayward, 2014; Schmitz et al., 2013) needed to solve current, complex problems (Faver, 2013; Green and McDermott, 2010; Hawkins, 2010; Lysack, 2010).
Work with communities
Working to develop and support communities, sharing local knowledge and resources can develop strength, resilience and overcome environ- mental problems (Jones, 2010; Lichtblau, 2010; Rambaree, 2013; Schmitz et al., 2010)—a view shared in 66 per cent of the articles. Interventions need to educate, mobilise and support community activism, establish alli- ances and help build capacity for community initiatives such as food co- operatives, combined purchase power for fuel or new technologies, co- housing, permaculture and local production (Dylan, 2012; Gray and Coates, 2013; Norton, 2012; Norton et al., 2013; Peeters, 2012a; Polack et al., 2010; Rambaree, 2013; Schmitz et al., 2012; Shepard, 2013; Weber, 2012). This will provide an antidote to the materialism and individualism of capitalism (Coates and Besthorn, 2010; Ferreira, 2010; Peeters, 2012b; Polack et al., 2010).
76 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
Work with individuals
Over half the articles (56 per cent) examined the practice of working with individuals, helping individuals gain skills that enable them to re- duce their environmental footprint and care for themselves and the envi- ronment (Besthorn, 2013a; Dominelli, 2011, 2012a, 2013a, 2013b, 2014; Dylan, 2013; Faver, 2013; Heinsch, 2012; Rambaree, 2013). Individuals need assistance to accept and reclaim their interconnection and depen- dence on the natural world (Dylan and Coates, 2012; Gray et al., 2013a; Hanrahan, 2011; Jones, 2010; McKinnon and Bay, 2013; Schmitz et al., 2010; Shaw, 2011) and language to describe environmental concepts (Gray et al., 2013b; Lysack, 2010).
Consequences
Ultimately, environmental social workers are seeking to create a society in which ecological and social justice are valued and humans live in har- mony with ecosystems. Adopting the attributes of environmental social work will create this vision, and also increase professional integrity (Besthorn et al., 2010; Dylan, 2012; Hayward et al., 2013; Lysack, 2012). It will help fulfil objectives of social justice, anti-oppression and equality, ensuring human well-being and survival (Gray and Coates, 2013; Gray et al., 2013a; Jarvis, 2013; Jones, 2013; Lysack, 2013).
Environmental social work promotes human well-being, compassion and an understanding of systemic discrimination, and values the innate qualities of other animals, recognising their moral right to exist (Ryan, 2013). According to Norton et al. (2013), interaction with the natural world gives zest to life—a sense of purpose, confidence, empowerment and fulfilment. Self-insight, authenticity, sensitivity and knowledge are increased, assisting personal and professional development (Miller et al., 2012; Norton, 2012). Interaction with nature improves physical, cogni- tive, emotional and spiritual well-being (Lichtblau, 2010; Lysack, 2012). Nature gives aesthetic pleasure and a space for socialisation, social cohe- sion and the development of community (Besthorn, 2013a; Besthorn et al., 2010; Norton et al., 2013). Connecting with other animals also as- sists individuals to overcome distress and provides awareness of ecosys- tem ill-health (Hanrahan, 2011; Heinsch, 2012; Taylor, 2013).
Working across boundaries and in multiples spaces will help people individually and collectively reduce their environmental footprint, while caring for themselves (see e.g. Alston, 2013; Besthorn, 2013a; Coates and Besthorn, 2010; Dominelli, 2012a; Gray and Coates, 2013) and en- ables people to act in compassionate ways, minimising the suffering of all life forms.
Environmental Social Work 77
Concept definition and model case
Environmental social work assists humanity to create and maintain a biodiverse planetary ecosystem. Core social work values, skills and knowledge can be adapted to promote social change, helping practi- tioners to respond to and mitigate environmental degradation.
The case below fits a community approach to environmental social work practice. We expect that social workers will use professional discre- tion to apply the attributes to other situations. For example, while many workers are focused on immediate concerns related to housing, health, child protection, poverty and so on, it is important to be mindful that the magnitude of these issues is compounded by environmental degrada- tion. The health and well-being of clients can be improved by incorpo- rating the natural environment into practice. The process can begin by being open to different values and ways of being or doing—an attribute that concentrates on growing self-awareness. Practitioners can focus on learning from other cultures, appreciating the value of other life forms, being aware of the ways the natural environment supports life and mak- ing choices congruent with environmental social work in their personal lives. By critiquing the hegemony and modifying interventions, front line workers can help change society to become inclusive and sustainable.
The case provided elucidates practice that is cognisant of the natural environment and highlights the attributes of environmental social work:
Maree, a rural social worker, thought her clients were uninterested in
the natural environment. She realised, after reflecting on clients’ stories,
that they displayed aspects of biophilia—that is, an instinctive
connection between humans and other living systems. Many residents
reminisced about life before the local river was diverted by a dam.
Stories were often censored by a prevailing attitude that loss of nature
was inevitable. This prompted Maree to investigate the effect of
development on the environment and the health and well-being of
communities.
Using her interpersonal skills, Maree created a space for people to
explore their experiences, so as to validate and normalise concern for
nature. Subsequently, a small group formed to document and explore
the re-establishment of local biodiversity. Drawing from skills in group
facilitation, Maree worked with the group to promote cohesion, shared
purpose, trust and problem-solving abilities. She also assisted the group
to engage with political representatives, educate others, and interact with
traditional and online media. Members of the group became community
change champions, writing to the local paper, establishing and monitor-
ing social media accounts, and speaking at the school—actions that stim-
ulated other locals to acknowledge the importance of the environment.
Over time, Maree noticed a cultural shift in the town, as it became com-
mon for residents to express appreciation for nature. Maree also
78 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
facilitated discussion between farmers and the indigenous community
about the land, modelling respect and valuing difference, while highlight-
ing a commonality of purpose around stewardship of nature. Like many,
Maree found this growing collaboration broadened her understanding of
nature.
When the town’s green space was threatened, members of the
community challenged the proposal. Maree contacted and compiled
responses from diverse professions, and assisted individuals to draft
submissions about the proposed development impacts. As officials failed
to respond to these and other measures, including petitions and rallies,
community outrage increased. Local citizens, including Maree, decided
to occupy the green space to halt development and raise a media profile.
Maree also supported the campaigns of like-minded political candidates
at the council election, and their success led to changes in local planning
laws to protect public green space.
Maree joined a national coalition of environmental groups campaigning
to strengthen laws ensuring environmental and social impacts are
considered before federal or state governments approve developments.
Maree also began mentoring other social workers to incorporate the
natural environment into their practice and helped develop education
materials for students, including podcasts and online modules, about
environmental social work. Maree’s activism and leadership thus
influenced practice, policy and political change.
This model case illustrated a way to apply the attributes of environ- mental social work. As environmental social work emphasises respon- siveness to local need, the social worker began with openness to new ideas, adapting her practice as community needs were identified. Within a safe space, community members came to see the value of the natural environment and became more motivated to learn and care about their bioregion. The social worker supported community members to become more ecocentric. The social worker used her existing skills to build alli- ances and strengthen community action, while she continued to learn about her own cultural influences. She pursued opportunities to shape decisions at individual, community, governmental and international lev- els and the social work profession. She utilised change tools within the system, such as education, submissions and electioneering, while also promoting change through civil disobedience. Over time, the community began to shift away from the dominant neo-liberal paradigm, creating opportunities for future change towards a more sustainable way of life.
Discussion
At present, environmental social work differs from other social work be- cause, as shown in Figure 1, it places the ecosystem at the centre of
Environmental Social Work 79
practice rather than a person—an idea referred to as ecocentrism. A strong argument made throughout the literature is that sustaining eco- systems and ecocentrism must become mainstream social work practice. As highlighted in Figure 1, social workers must adapt their existing so- cial work skills to new areas of practice while remaining intellectually open and working in multiple spaces. The work will also include creating extensive social change.
Despite common themes in the literature, highlighted in Figure 1, there is some divergence. In particular, some authors focus more on the innate value of non-human life while others focus on its instrumental value. Such a difference should be expected, because both cognitive and social change tend to be evolutionary processes (Gray and Coates, 2013; Green and McDermott, 2010; Miller, Hayward and Shaw, 2012). The lit- erature moves from anthropocentric, instrumental views of nature, to the awareness and practice of reciprocal ecocentrism.
There are also a number of gaps in the literature. For example, there are few examples about how environmental social work practice has been implemented other than in social work education. It will be impor- tant for practitioners to develop their practice, test methods developed by other professions, and begin establishing a robust research, theory and practice base in this area. This will involve both the development of
Figure 1 Environmental social work practice
80 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
content knowledge, such as knowledge of ecology, and process knowl- edge, such as the use of social media and information technology.
Creating change will be challenged by difficulties in prioritising envi- ronmental issues, the demoralisation of social workers in many parts of the world and the dominance of neo-liberalism. Finding a balance be- tween the obligation to create widespread social and environmental change and social work’s commitment to protecting minority groups, while also respecting the right of individual self-determination, will be difficult. Such dilemmas are not new, but they require dedicated detailed critical analysis that is mindful of social work values and the intercon- nected nature of human health and well-being with the natural environ- ment. While more work needs to be undertaken to clarify how workers can negotiate such issues, social workers must avoid accepting the status quo and instead think creatively about addressing environmental chal- lenges. For example, social workers could undertake aspirational thought experiments, such as striving to emulate the unconditional love displayed by some animals (Hanrahan, 2011), implementing non-human animal rights (Ryan, 2013; Taylor, 2013), or engaging in activism against capital- ism (Dylan and Coates, 2012).
It is likely that those advocating for the type of systemic change envis- aged by environmental social work may find themselves in vulnerable, isolated situations. Professional bodies should offer support to members in such situations. Social workers may also draw on nature itself (Heinsch, 2012; Lichtblau, 2010), allies from other disciplines (Lysack, 2012) and experiences of past pioneers, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, peace activists and progressive labour unions, to help maintain morale for promoting a sustainable, ecocentric world.
Another challenge for social workers will entail maintaining momen- tum and grassroots support for interventions when trying to operate within bureaucratic systems. Bureaucracy can be particularly slow when implementing innovations (Weber, 2012). It will be important for social workers to maintain connections within and outside the discipline to support innovation, while sustaining social change. Social workers may do this, in part, by drawing from social media and online communities.
The profession’s tradition of borrowing from other disciplines should be maintained (Brekke, 2012; Jarvis, 2013; Jeffery, 2014; Miller and Hayward, 2014) while expanding the fields referenced to include knowl- edge and practices informed by environmental sciences such as biology, climatology, geology and ecology. Being informed by a variety of per- spectives is a strength when addressing complex issues such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, food security and access to fresh water that environmental social work will face. A clear definition of environmental social work will allow social workers to recognise the aspects of other disciplines that would further the goals of environmental social work,
Environmental Social Work 81
such as counselling (Greenleaf et al., 2014), teaching (Lysack, 2009), pol- itics (Litfin, 2013) and business (Vickers and Lyon, 2012).
Limitations
Though extensive, the literature review did not include all publications, such as those in languages other than English, so important ideas may have been omitted. This review also favours academic knowledge—an approach justified by the modern positivist paradigm which has been cri- tiqued for its exclusion and oppression of many groups including women, children, non-human animals and the natural world (Gray and Coates, 2012). The concept analysis was biased to the views of authors with mul- tiple publications and, as the authors were unable to give feedback on the summarised themes, we made subjective assessments on the most important themes that the authors of the original publications may not agree with.
Conclusion
This paper identified and explained the key attributes of environmental social work, and then used these attributes to illustrate what the practice of environmental social work is through a case study. Environmental so- cial work is focused on helping humanity create and maintain a biodi- verse planetary ecosystem which includes humans. A clear definition of environmental social work will solidify the foundations of this approach and encourage practical implementation of the attributes and values. It can help social workers to broaden and strengthen practices by knowing which ideas to incorporate from other academic disciplines and other forms of knowledge.
References
Alston, M. (2013) ‘Environmental social work: Accounting for gender in climate di-
sasters’, Australian Social Work, 66(2), pp. 218–33.
Besthorn, F. H. (2012) ‘Deep ecology’s contributions to social work: A ten-year retro-
spective’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp. 248–59.
Besthorn, F. H. (2013a) ‘Radical equalitarian ecological justice’, in Gray, M., Coates,
J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Evironmental Social Work, Oxon, Routledge, pp.
31–45.
Besthorn, F. H. (2013b) ‘Vertical farming: Social work and sustainable urban agricul-
ture in an age of global food crises’, Australian Social Work, 66(2), pp. 187–203.
82 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
Besthorn, F. H. and Meyer, E. E. (2010) ‘Environmentally displaced persons:
Broadening social work’s helping imperative’, Critical Social Work, 11(3), pp.
123–38.
Besthorn, F. H., Wulff, D. and St George, S. (2010) ‘Eco-spiritual helping and post-
modern therapy: A deeper ecological framework’, Ecopsychology, 2(1), pp. 23–32.
Borrell, J., Lane, S. and Fraser, S. (2010) ‘Integrating environmental issues into social
work practice: Lessons learnt from domestic energy auditing’, Australian Social
Work, 63(3), pp. 315–28.
Brekke, J. S. (2012) ‘Shaping a science of social work’, Research on Social Work
Practice, 22(5), pp. 455–64.
Clark, C. (2010) ‘Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place’,
International Social Work, 53(6), pp. 844–5.
Coates, J. (2005) ‘The environmental crisis: Implications for social work’, Journal of
Progressive Human Services, 16(1), pp. 25–49.
Coates, J. and Besthorn, F. H. (2010) ‘Building bridges and crossing boundaries:
Dialogues in professional helping’, Critical Social Work, 11(3), pp. 1–7.
Coates, J. and Gray, M. (2012) ‘The environment and social work: An overview and
introduction’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp. 230–8.
Colley, T., Burgin, S., Webb, T. and Bassett, H. (2012) ‘Defining eco-social capacity
building and its evaluation: A case study in environmental community engagement
in western Sydney’, Third Sector Review, 18(1), p. 29.
Dominelli, L. (2011) ‘Climate change: Social workers’ roles and contributions to pol-
icy debates and interventions’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 20(4), pp.
430–8.
Dominelli, L. (2012a) Green Social Work: From Environmental Crises to
Environmental Justice, Cambridge, Polity.
Dominelli, L. (2012b) ‘Mind the gap: Built infrastructures, sustainable caring rela-
tions, and resilient communities in extreme weather events’, Australian Social
Work, 66(2), pp. 204–17.
Dominelli, L. (2013a) ‘Environmental justice at the heart of social work practice:
Greening the profession’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 22(4), pp. 431–9.
Dominelli, L. (2013b) ‘Social work education for disaster relief work’, in Gray, M.,
Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon,
Routledge.
Dominelli, L. (2014) ‘Promoting environmental justice through green social work
practice: A key challenge for practitioners and educators’, International Social
Work, 57(4), pp. 338–45.
Dylan, A. (2012) ‘Rethinking sustainability on planet Earth: A time for new fram-
ings’, Electronic Green Journal, 1(34), pp. 1–16.
Dylan, A. (2013) ‘Environmental sustainability, sustainable development and social
work’, in Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social
Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Dylan, A. and Coates, J. (2012) ‘The spirituality of justice: Bringing together the eco
and the social’, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought,
31(1–2), pp. 128–49.
Faver, C. A. (2013) ‘Environmental beliefs and concern about animal welfare:
Exploring the connections’, Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 40(4), p. 149.
Ferreira, S. B. (2010) ‘Eco-spiritual social work as a precondition for social develop-
ment’, Ethics and Social Welfare, 4(1), pp. 3–23.
Environmental Social Work 83
Gray, M. and Coates, J. (2012) ‘Environmental ethics for social work: Social work’s
responsibility to the non-human world’, International Journal of Social Welfare,
21(3), pp. 239–47.
Gray, M. and Coates, J. (2013) ‘Changing values and valuing change: Toward an eco-
spiritual perspective in social work’, International Social Work, 56(3), pp. 356–68.
Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (2013a) ‘Conclusion’, in Gray, M., Coates,
J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (2013b) ‘Overview of the last ten years
and typology of ESW’, in Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds),
Environmental Social Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Green, D. and McDermott, F. (2010) ‘Social work from inside and between complex
systems: Perspectives on person-in-environment for today’s social work’, British
Journal of Social Work, 40(8), pp. 2414–30.
Greenleaf, A. T., Bryant, R. M. and Pollock, J. B. (2014) ‘Nature-based counseling:
Integrating the healing benefits of nature into practice’, International Journal for
the Advancement of Counselling, 36(2), pp. 162–74.
Hanrahan, C. (2011) ‘Challenging anthropocentricism in social work through ethics
and spirituality: Lessons from studies in human–animal bonds’, Journal of Religion
& Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 30(3), pp. 272–93.
Hawkins, C. (2010) ‘Sustainability, human rights, and environmental justice: Critical
connections for contemporary social work’, Critical Social Work, 11(3), pp. 68–81.
Hayward, R. A., Miller, S. E. and Shaw, T. V. (2013) ‘Social work education on the
environment in contemporary curricula in the USA’, in Gray, M., Coates, J. and
Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Heinsch, M. (2012) ‘Getting down to earth: Finding a place for nature in social work
practice’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp. 309–18.
Hetherington, T. and Boddy, J. (2013) ‘Ecosocial work with marginalized popula-
tions’, in Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social
Work, Oxon, Routledge.
International Federation of Social Workers (2012) Policy on Globalisation and the
Environment, available online at http://ifsw.org/policies/globalisation-and-the-envi
ronment/.
Jarvis, D. (2013) ‘Environmental justice and social work: A call to expand the social
work profession to include environmental justice’, Columbia Social Work Review,
4(1), pp. 26–45.
Jeffery, D. (2014) ‘Environmentalism in social work: What shall we teach?’, Affilia,
29(4), pp. 492–8.
Jones, P. (2010) ‘Responding to the ecological crisis: Transformative pathways for so-
cial work education’, Journal of Social Work Education, 46(1), pp. 67–84.
Jones, P. (2013) ‘Transforming the curriculum: Social work education and ecological
consciousness’, in Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental
Social Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Kemp, S. P. (2011) ‘Recentring environment in social work practice: Necessity, op-
portunity, challenge’, British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), pp. 1198–210.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1993) Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An
Integrated Approach, Boston, Longman/Addison Wesley Longman.
Lichtblau, D. (2010) ‘Learning from the fields: Reflection on experience in the out-
doors as professional development’, Critical Social Work, 11(3), pp. 9–28.
84 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
Litfin, K. (2013) ‘From me to we to thee: Ecovillages and the transition to integral
community’, Social Sciences Directory, 2(5), pp. 154–69.
Lucas-Darby, E. T. (2011) ‘The new color is green: Social work practice and service-
learning’, Advances in Social Work, 12(1), pp. 113–25.
Lysack, M. (2009) ‘The teach in on golbal warming solutions and Vygotski: Fostering
ecological action and environmental citizenship’, McGill Journal of Education
(Online), 44(1), pp. 119–34.
Lysack, M. (2010) ‘Environmental decline, loss, and biophilia: Fostering commitment
in environmental citizenship’, Critical Social Work, 11(3), pp. 48–66.
Lysack, M. (2012) ‘Building capacity for environmental engagement and leadership:
An ecosocial work perspective’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp.
260–9.
Lysack, M. (2013) ‘Emotion, ethic and fostering committed environmental citizen-
ship’, in Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social
Work, Oxon, Routledge.
McKinnon, J. (2013) ‘The environment: A private concern or a professional practice
issue for Australian social workers?’, Australian Social Work, 66(2), pp. 156–70.
McKinnon, J. and Bay, U. (2013) ‘Social work enabling sustainable ecological living’,
Australian Social Work, 66(2), pp. 153–5.
Miller, S. E. and Hayward, R. A. (2014) ‘Social work education’s role in addressing
people and a planet at risk’, Social Work Education, 33(3), pp. 280–95.
Miller, S. E., Hayward, R. A. and Shaw, T. V. (2012) ‘Environmental shifts for social
work: A principles approach’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp.
270–7.
Mosher, C. R. (2010) ‘A wholistic paradigm for sustainability: Are social workers ex-
perts or partners’, Critical Social Work, 11(3), pp. 102–21.
Norton, C. L. (2012) ‘Social work and the environment: An ecosocial approach’,
International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp. 299–308.
Norton, C. L., Holguin, B. and Manos, J. (2013) ‘Restoration not incarceration’, in
Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work,
Oxon, Routledge.
Olenick, M., Allen, L. R. and Smego, R. A. Jr (2010) ‘Interprofessional education: A
concept analysis’, Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 1, pp. 75–84.
Peeters, J. (2012a) ‘A comment on “Climate change: Social workers’ roles and contri-
butions to policy debates and interventions”’, International Journal of Social
Welfare, 21(1), pp. 105–7.
Peeters, J. (2012b) ‘The place of social work in sustainable development: Towards
ecosocial practice’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp. 287–98.
Polack, R., Wood, S. and Smith, K. (2010) ‘An analysis of fossil-fuel dependence in
the United States with implications for community social work’, Critical Social
Work, 11(3), pp. 359–75.
Pulla, V. (2013) ‘Critical essay: Environmentalism and social work’, Rural Society,
22(3), pp. 263–8.
Rambaree, K. (2013) ‘Social work and sustainable development: Local voices from
Mauritius’, Australian Social Work, 66(2), pp. 261–76.
Rodgers, B. L. (1989) ‘Concepts, analysis and the development of nursing knowledge:
The evolutionary cycle’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14(4), pp. 330–5.
Environmental Social Work 85
Ross, D. (2013) ‘Social work and the struggle for coporate social responsibility’, in
Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work,
Oxon, Routledge.
Ryan, T. (2013) ‘Social work, animals, and the natural world’, in Gray, M., Coates, J.
and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Schmitz, C. L., Maty�ok, T., James, C. D. and Sloan, L. M. (2013) ‘Environmental sus-
tainability: Educating social workers for interdisplinary practice’, in Gray, M.,
Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon,
Routledge.
Schmitz, C. L., Maty�ok, T., Sloan, L. M. and James, C. D. (2012) ‘The relationship
between social work and environmental sustainability: Implications for interdisci-
plinary practice’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), pp. 278–86.
Schmitz, C. L., Stinson, C. H. and James, C. D. (2010) ‘Community and environmen-
tal sustainability: Collaboration and interdisciplinary education’, Critical Social
Work, 11(3), pp. 83–100.
Shaw, T. V. (2011) ‘Is social work a green profession? An examination of environ-
mental beliefs’, Journal of Social Work, 13(1), pp. 3–29.
Shepard, B. (2013) ‘Community gardens, creative, community organizing and environ-
mental activism’, in Gray, M., Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds),
Environmental Social Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Smith, R. J. (2013) ‘A social worker’s report from the united nations conference on
sustainable development (Rio þ 20)’, Social Work, 58(4), pp. 369–72.
Stehlik, D. (2013) ‘Social work practice with drought affected families’, in Gray, M.,
Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon,
Routledge.
Stephens, A., Jacobson, C. and King, C. (2010) ‘Towards a feminist-systems theory’,
Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(5), pp. 371–86.
Taylor, S. (2013) ‘Social science research in ocean environments’, in Gray, M.,
Coates, J. and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon,
Routledge.
Tester, F. (2013) ‘Climate change as a human rights issue’, in Gray, M., Coates, J.
and Hetherington, T. (eds), Environmental Social Work, Oxon, Routledge.
Ungar, M. (2002) ‘A deeper, more social ecological social work practice’, Social
Service Review, 76(3), pp. 480–97.
Vickers, I. and Lyon, F. (2012) ‘Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of
environmentally-motivated social enterprises’, International Small Business
Journal, 31, pp. 1–22.
Walker, L. O. and Avant, K. C. (2005) Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Weber, B. A. (2012) ‘Social work and the challenges of the green economy’,
Advances in Social Work, 13(2), pp. 391–407.
Zapf, M. K. (2010) ‘Social work and the environment: Understanding people and
place’, Critical Social Work, 11(3), pp. 30–46.
86 Sylvia Ramsay and Jennifer Boddy
Copyright of British Journal of Social Work is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.