Social welfare professionals’ views on addressing environmental issues in social work in Finland

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Social welfare professionals’ views on addressing environmental issues in social work in Finland © 2023 the Authors Published version Nöjd, Taija; Kannasoja, Sirpa; Niemi, Petteri; Ranta-Tyrkkö, Satu; Närhi, Kati Nöjd, T., Kannasoja, S., Niemi, P., Ranta-Tyrkkö, S., & Närhi, K. (2023). Social welfare professionals’ views on addressing environmental issues in social work in Finland. Nordic Social Work Research, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2023.2253456 2023 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rnsw20 Nordic Social Work Research ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnsw20 Social welfare professionals’ views on addressing environmental issues in social work in Finland Taija Nöjd, Sirpa Kannasoja, Petteri Niemi, Satu Ranta-Tyrkkö & Kati Närhi To cite this article: Taija Nöjd, Sirpa Kannasoja, Petteri Niemi, Satu Ranta-Tyrkkö & Kati Närhi (07 Sep 2023): Social welfare professionals’ views on addressing environmental issues in social work in Finland, Nordic Social Work Research, DOI: 10.1080/2156857X.2023.2253456 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2023.2253456 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 07 Sep 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 418 View related articles View Crossmark data Social welfare professionals’ views on addressing environmental issues in social work in Finland Taija Nöjd , Sirpa Kannasoja , Petteri Niemi , Satu Ranta-Tyrkkö and Kati Närhi Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT Global environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and overconsumption of natural resources require urgent action. Environmental crises have social consequences; hence, social work should participate in recognizing and mitigating these . This study investigated social welfare professionals’ perceptions on the relation of their work to environmental issues in Finland and the factors that influence these views. The research questions were: 1) How important do social welfare professionals perceive addressing environmental issues to be in their work? 2) What kinds of environmental issues do they perceive as having the most influence on social work clients’ wellbeing in Finland? 3) What background factors are associated with the perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work? A survey (N = 542) conducted among Finnish social welfare professionals in November 2020 showed that most respondents perceived addressing environmental issues in social work as important. Increasing concentrations of the population in certain areas, anxiety related to environmental problems, and desolated rural areas were the three most important environment-related issues marked as impairing client wellbeing. Social welfare professionals who emphasized the importance of addressing environmental issues in their personal life and those working in private or third sector organizations were more likely than public sector counterparts to value addressing environmental issues in social work. The findings suggest that social welfare professionals recognize that environment-related issues affect client wellbeing; hence, these issues should be incorporated into social work training and practice. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 June 2022 Accepted 24 August 2023 KEYWORDS Ecosocial work; environment; social work; social welfare Introduction Environmental challenges, such as biodiversity loss, the impacts of climate change, and overconsumption of natural resources require urgent action (European Environment Agency 2020). Environmental crises have social impacts, and social work should participate in solving such crises and mitigating their consequences (Matthies 2017, 28). The consequences of environmental degradation particularly affect those already in a marginalized position, which in turn renders this a justice issue (Dominelli 2013, 424–436). Here, the environment refers to the natural world and physical surroundings (Oxford English Dictionary 2022). This study recognizes the interconnected relationship between humans and the environment, and people as dependent on the resources the natural environment provides (Besthorn 2011; Haila and Dyke 2006). In this article, CONTACT Taija Nöjd [email protected] This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2023.2253456 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4. 0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. environmental issues cover a wide range of phenomena from climate change and pollution to loss of green space. While some of the phenomena considered in this study, such as population concentration in certain areas, are not necessarily caused by changes in the natural environment, they affect people’s physical living environments. An ecosocial approach in social work calls for integrating the natural environment into social work, raising awareness of the risks and injustices caused by environmental problems, and contributing to the urgently needed transition towards a more sustainable society (e.g. Boetto 2017; Nikku, Ku, and Dominelli 2018; Matthies and Närhi 2017). It is increasingly acknowledged that social work practitioners are responding to the impacts of, e.g. climate change (Boetto et al. 2020, 300). It is important to understand social work practitioners’ perspectives in order to support them in responding to the challenges presented by environmental changes such as climate change (Allen 2020). This study investigated social welfare professionals’ perceptions on the relation of their work to environmental issues in Finland, and factors which influence these views. Bearing in mind that the previous findings are from research in different social work contexts and settings, the data enable testing of the implications of previous research findings: 1) social welfare professionals consider environmental issues important in social work (Marlow and Van Rooyen 2001) and 2) personal interest in the wellbeing of the natural environment is associated with recognizing the importance of the environment and environmental issues in the social work context (Boetto 2017; McKinnon 2013). This study also explores what other background factors are linked with the perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work, and what kinds of environmental issues most influence the wellbeing of social work clients. The study context In this study, social work refers to a variety of social welfare-related work conducted by professionals from differing educational backgrounds (e.g. Lyons et al. 2012, 2; see also Rapeli 2017, 27), most often a bachelor’s degree in social services, rehabilitation or gerontology or a master’s degree in social work. To work as a licenced social worker in Finland, a master’s degree in social work from a university and a licence from the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira) are needed. Working as a licenced social services professional requires a bachelor’s degree in social services, rehabilitation, or gerontology from a university of applied sciences and a licence from Valvira. Both degrees take a general approach in providing the tools needed to work in different social welfare fields (Lähteinen et al. 2017), and both draw from social work theory. Licenced social workers most often work as social workers in social welfare or health care, or, e.g. as managers in social welfare organizations. Licenced social services professionals often work as instructors or counsellors, providing guidance and assisting individuals and families in accessing the service system and in their everyday lives (Talentia 2022.). While both professional roles include supporting clients, licenced social workers are also more often involved in administrative decision-making. In Finland, social work has traditionally mostly been public-sector driven and aimed at helping individuals and families. Finland is a relatively wealthy, sparsely populated Nordic country with plenty of open spaces and nature for people to enjoy. In the Finnish social and health care context, the natural environment has been recognized as a source of wellbeing (Soini et al. 2011). The possible threat to wellbeing caused by environmental issues has gained less attention, although the role of social work in heatwaves, addressed from a crisis management perspective, has been studied recently (Rapeli 2017; Rapeli and Mussalo-Rauhamaa 2022). Environmental issues as a social work interest This research focuses on ecosocial approach in social work. An ecosocial approach recognizes the reciprocal effects of humans and the environment and investigates the connections between social 2T. NÖJD ET AL. and environmental problems (Matthies, Närhi, and Ward 2001). In the late 1980s and 1990s consideration of the natural environment in social work was prompted by environmental justice movements and concerns about environmental degradation due to waste, pollution, and unsustainable agricultural practices, and the injustices these imposed on certain groups of people (Gray, Coates, and Hetherington 2013, 11). The relationship between social work and the environment is manifested in many conceptual frameworks other than the ecosocial, such as green social work (Dominelli 2018), environmental social work (Gray, Coates, and Hetherington 2013; Ramsay and Boddy 2017) and ecological social work (Besthorn 2015; McKinnon and Alston 2016). The overarching themes include incorporating the natural environment in social work values and practice, applying social work skills to environmental issues, and promoting societal change towards sustainability (Ramsay and Boddy 2017). In the Finnish social work context, the concept ‘ecosocial’ has previously been used (e.g. Matthies and Närhi 2001, 2017). The consequences of environmental issues impair wellbeing, especially among people already in a marginalized position (Dominelli 2013, 434–436), including those in the wealthier European countries (Nesmith and Smyth 2015, 486). In Finland, for example, the health effects of heatwaves are particularly felt by older people and those with long-term illnesses (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare 2022). Those in a physically, socially or economically more challenging position have less resources to prepare for exceptional conditions, such as power outages, heatwaves, or general economic insecurity (Mayer et al. 2020, 37). Therefore, environmental issues, including not only climate change but also environmental degradation and biodiversity issues, are social justice issues and hence relevant to social work. The consequences of climate change also affect Finns. Recognized health effects of climate change include health hazards caused by heatwaves, outbreaks of water-borne diseases, vectorborne infectious diseases, accidents due to slippery winter conditions, sick building syndrome, and a growing risk of succumbing to seasonal affective disorder (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare 2022; Tuomenvirta et al. 2018). Thus far, the social consequences of climate change have not been widely recognized in Finland, although possible effects on, e.g. migration, income, and food security have been discussed (e.g. Mayer et al. 2020). Moreover, climate change impacts in other regions of the world may affect Finland’s socio-economic situation via economic worsening or the arrival of ecological refugees (Tuomenvirta et al. 2018). In Finland, the role of social welfare in adapting to climate change is to provide the social services needed by those with insufficient resources to adapt to changes brought about by climate change, and to provide knowledge on local conditions and the needs of people in the most vulnerable position. Such knowledge enables assessment of the social impacts of climate change adaptation, prediction of possible problems, and strengthening of local resilience (Meriläinen et al. 2021, 33.). Boetto (2017) has constructed a transformative ecosocial model for practice emphasizing a consistent ontological, epistemological and methodological base in social work. The model has three dimensions, each constituting a prerequisite for an ecosocial orientation. The first dimension (‘being’) refers to the identities, beliefs, and attitudes of social work practitioners: how each understands the value of nature and the strength of their emotional and practical connection to it. The second dimension (‘thinking’) refers to personal and professional knowledge and values. The third dimension (‘doing’) refers to social work practices. The model provides a theoretical framework for examining the social work relationship with the natural environment. Previous research on social work practitioners’ views on environmental issues Only a few survey studies exist on social work practitioners’ views on environmental issues (Aalto 2022, 22; Hostert 2020, 28–29). Besides its scarcity, the previous research has focused on a diversity of social work contexts and research settings, and explored social workers’ views on, e.g. ecosocial approach and environmental justice rather than environmental issues as such. NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 3 Marlow and Van Rooyen (2001, N = 113) surveyed social work practitioners’ perceptions of the importance of environmental issues in social work in the US and South Africa. 71% claimed that environmental issues were important to the social work profession, while only 43% reported that environmental issues were important in their personal practice (Marlow and Van Rooyen 2001). Shaw (2011, N = 373) found that social workers in the US were no more nor less environmentally friendly than the general population. Nevertheless, 90% agreed that issues related to social work and the natural environment should be discussed in social work education (Shaw 2011, 15). Nesmith and Smyth (2015, 485, 491–492) found in their survey among U.S. social workers (N = 373) that they tended to view environmental justice issues as important to the profession and reported that clients were exposed to environmental hazards such as food deserts, unsafe play spaces, lead poisoning, extreme weather, and air pollution. Jung (2016, N = 112), who, studied U.S. social work students’ attitudes towards the natural environment, found that 96% agreed that environmental issues affect the populations that social workers serve, and 91% disagreed that social workers do not need to know about environmental issues. Hostert (2020, N = 146) surveyed social work students and practitioners in Denmark about green social work. Only 12% had heard about green social work prior to the study, but 79% percent regarded it as important globally and 61% as important in Denmark (Hostert 2020). Allen (2020, N = 159) surveyed social workers in Alaska on their perceptions of the effects of climate change on their clients and other inhabitants. 71% reported that climate change is a large threat to people in Alaska, and 36.5% saw it as a threat to their local community. They also reported health threats such as food insecurity, mental health challenges such as anxiety, and impacts on community infrastructure, e.g. electricity outages (Allen 2020.). The personal dimension of how we understand and relate to the natural environment is central in the transformative model of the eco-social approach (Boetto 2017, 51–52). In her qualitative study among pro-environmental social workers, McKinnon (2013, N = 20) found that while social workers showed a high level of awareness of the relevance of environmental issues for social work practice, professional and organizational constraints prevented them from integrating environmental concerns in their professional practice (McKinnon 2013). Nevertheless, being ecologically mindful enables practitioners to identify opportunities to enact environmental awareness in social work (Boetto et al. 2020). Previous studies conducted in Finland It has been pointed out (Aalto 2022; Ranta-Tyrkkö and Närhi 2021) that only a few studies have addressed Finnish social work practitioners’ attitudes towards the environment. Finnish ecosocial research has focused on the possibilities to prevent social marginalization by promoting the ecosocial approach (Matthies and Närhi 2017) and what enables or impedes applying the ecosocial approach in social work (Närhi 2022). Aalto (2022, N = 47) found that whereas social work master’s degree students valued both the natural environment and addressing environmental issues in their private lives, the link between social work and ecological issues was not self-evident. Previous studies on the ecosocial approach have found that it is unfamiliar among Finnish social work practitioners (Ranta-Tyrkkö and Närhi 2021). However, both social workers (Boetto, Närhi, and Bowles 2022, N = 10; Rainerma 2020, N = 12) and social work students (Aalto 2022; Ranta-Tyrkkö and Närhi 2021, N = 49) saw opportunities for integrating nature and sustainability in social work. Previous studies on social work practitioners’ perspectives on the natural environment and environmental issues are scarce and have been conducted in different social work contexts and research settings. Previous findings indicate that social work practitioners consider environmental issues important for both the social work profession in general and their clients. Hence, focusing on professionals’ views on the environment and environmental issues is needed. The aim of the study was to explore the significance of the natural environment and environmental issues in social work. This study also explored whether the 4T. NÖJD ET AL. importance accorded to the environment on the personal level might also be reflected, even if not integrated, into the level of professional practice. Thus, this study investigated Finnish social welfare professionals’ views on environmental issues in both their personal and professional lives. The research questions were: 1) How important do social welfare professionals perceive addressing environmental issues to be in their work? 2) What kinds of environmental issues do they perceive as having the most influence on client wellbeing in Finland? 3) What background factors are associated with the perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work? Methods Data collection This study is a part of a larger survey exploring ecosocial approach in social work in Finland. The study applied Boetto’s 2017 transformative ecosocial model as a meta-level theoretical framework. The model provided a basis for the survey questionnaire. This study explores the first two dimensions of the model, i.e. personal beliefs and professional knowledge and values in social work. The survey questionnaire explored respondents’ views on the importance of the natural environment and environmental issues in both their private and professional lives, and on the relationship between social work and the natural environment, environmental action and ecosocial work. Background information, such as gender, age, and level of education, was collected. The survey questionnaire and measures used were created for this study, as social work-specific standardized measures were not available. The questionnaire was designed by the authors in co-operation with the Talentia Board of Professional Ethics, which is the main body deliberating and formulating the ethical guidelines for social work in Finland. The questionnaire was piloted by social workers and lecturers in social work (n = 3), after which some response options were redefined. The survey invitation provided information on the purpose of the study, the survey questionnaire, and secure handling of the data, and emphasized that responding to the survey was voluntary. The data were collected via an electronic survey. The survey invitation and link were sent by the Finnish Talentia Union of Professional Social Workers to its 12 000 members working in social welfare. Talentia promotes and protects the professional and wage interests of over 26 000 highly educated professionals in social welfare and early childhood education. Sending the survey invitation via the professional trade union enabled reaching the largest possible amount of social welfare professionals. The survey was not delivered to student or retiree members or to professionals working in early childhood education. The survey was conducted via an open link using the Webropol survey and reporting tool provided by the University of Jyväskylä. The online questionnaire was available for three weeks in November 2020. Responses were received from 542 professionals (response rate 4.5%). According to Talentia, this response rate is typical for surveys forwarded by the union. The survey data can not be considered as representative, as the non-response rate was high, and as voluntary sampling often causes bias (Moore, McCabe, and Craig 2017, 190). In addition, the survey was administered in Finnish only, instead of, for example, Finnish and Swedish, which is the native language of approximately 5.3% Finns (Institute for the Languages in Finland 2022). The survey did not collect any personally identifiable information, and hence the researchers were blinded to the identities and email addresses of the respondents. Some variables, e.g. age, in the data were categorized to further ensure anonymity. The chair and secretary of the ethics committee of the University of Jyväskylä stated that the study did not need to be reviewed, as it did not, e.g. deviate from the principle of informed consent or present a risk of mental harm to the participants or threaten their safety. NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 5 Measurements The survey questionnaire comprised items, including in the form of claims, with a Likert response scale ranging from 1 (fully disagree or never) to 5 (fully agree or constantly), and multiple-choice questions. To explore which environment-related issues were considered relevant to social work, the questionnaire listed 14 such issues and asked the respondents to mark all those that they had observed to have a negative effect on client wellbeing. Some of the issues were drawn from a survey on environmental attitudes and habits conducted by the cities of Helsinki and Vantaa in 2018 (Hirvonen and Vanhatalo 2018), and the remainder based on the authors’ experience of ecosocial work and recent developments in Finland. For example, eco-anxiety, which has been increasingly acknowledged recently (e.g. Pihkala 2020), was included in the list. Respondents were also given the opportunity to include unlisted issues. These were categorized and described in the results. Sum scores for the perceived importance of the natural environment and for environmental issues were calculated, and the internal consistency of these measures was assessed and tested for reliability. Cronbach’s alpha (α) indicated adequate internal consistency for all measures. The measurements were then used as variables in the analysis. Continuous measurements were transformed into categorical variables for clearer interpretation. These variables and their Cronbach’s alpha values are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Scores (mean, SD, n, %, α) and cut-off values for the measures of the importance of the natural environment and environmental issues. Mean SD Perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work (α = .77) 3.84 .830 It is important that social welfare professionals engage in action to address environmental problems. 4.02 .892 It is important that social welfare professionals engage in action to address climate change. 4.04 .946 It is a responsibility of professionals in fields other than social work to consider the wellbeing of natural environment. 3.45 1.162 As a categorized response variable n % Less than important (1.00–3.99) 252 46.5 Important (4.00–5.00) 290 53.5 Mean SD Personal importance of natural environment and taking action (α = .79) 4.77 .413 The wellbeing of the natural environment is personally important to me. 4.83 .434 It is important to reduce problems that impact the natural environment. 4.87 .430 It is important to take action on climate change. 4.80 .540 it is important that environmental wellbeing can be considered at work. 4.58 .663 As a categorized explanatory variable n % Less than highly important (1.50–4.49) 64 11.8 Highly important (4.50–5.00) 478 88.2 Mean SD Personal importance of natural environment for wellbeing and leisure (α = .88) 4.22 .749 I look to the natural environment for improving my wellbeing. 4.20 .780 Nature is an important part of my everyday life, e.g. outdoor exercise. 4.23 .803 As a categorized explanatory variable n % Less than important (1.00–3.99) 105 19.4 Important (4.00–5.00) 437 80.6 Mean SD Personal actions to promote the wellbeing of the natural environment (α = .83) 3.50 .726 I follow news and discussion on the natural environment and climate change. 3.62 .824 I am a member of or support an environmental organization, e.g. make donations. 2.16 1.236 I recycle. 4.65 .612 I make environmentally friendly choices regarding transport. 3.41 1.220 I make environmentally friendly consumer choices. 3.57 1.092 I pay more for environmentally friendly products to protect the wellbeing of the natural environment. 3.44 .984 The wellbeing of the natural environment is crucial when I choose who to vote for in elections. 3.66 1.101 As a categorized explanatory variable n % Rarely (1.00–2.99) 123 22.7 Sometimes (3.00–3.99) 257 47.4 Often (4.00–5.00) 162 29.9 Category cut-off values in parentheses 6T. NÖJD ET AL. Other variables used in the analysis included the following background factors: gender, age, level of education, master’s degree in social work, bachelor’s degree in social services, year of graduation, years of working in social welfare, supervision/management, type of organization, and geographical area of work. Moreover, one variable on whether there is an organizational policy or guidelines in the respondent’s organization (no/maybe/yes), was included. Analysis The first two research questions were descriptively analysed. The third research question was addressed using explanatory regression analysis to ascertain which variables were associated with the perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work. Before the regression analysis, the means of the categorical variables were compared between groups to explore which variables were associated with the perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work. Because the variables were not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were used: the Mann-Whitney U-test for comparisons of two groups and Kruskal-Wallis test for comparisons of more than two groups. Pearson’s correlation was used to explore the associations between the continuous variables and the response variable. Correlations were pre-examined visually using scatterplots. Statistical significance was set at ≤ .05. Data were analysed using SPSS version 28.0. Finally, using a forward-stepwise method, binary logistic regression analysis was applied to explore which of the variables that had proved significant in the preliminary analysis best predicted the variation in the perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work. The response variable in the binary logistic regression model was divided into two categories: less than important (1.00  3.99) and important (4.00  5.00). Membership of the latter category indicated that the respondent considered the natural environment and addressing environmental issues important in social work. 53.5% of cases were in this category (n = 288). Binary logistic regression computes the likelihood or odds ratio of belonging to the category of interest. The final model’s overall ability to classify cases correctly was 69.1%. Owing to missing data, the regression analysis was conducted for 538 cases. Results Participants The data are described in Table 2. The respondents worked in various fields ranging from social services for different client groups, health care, education, and youth work. Approximately 30% of the survey respondents had a social work qualification (n = 170), and 69% (n = 376) had a bachelor’s degree in social services, gerontology, or rehabilitation. 48 of bachelor’s degree holders had also acquired a master’s degree in social work. Of the 542 respondents, 44 (8.1%) had some other educational qualification. The survey respondents were broadly representative of the Talentia membership in their background characteristics: 93% of Talentia members are women and 70% of members are employed by municipalities. The biggest member groups are social services professionals, social workers, and students. Educationally, 67% have a bachelor’s degree and 20% a master’s degree (Talentia 2022.). Talentia is the only trade union established specifically for social welfare professionals with higher education in Finland, where the trade union membership rate is high. In 2017, for example, the overall membership rate, excluding, e.g. entrepreneur, student and retiree members, was 59.4% (Ahtiainen 2019). Perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work Social work involvement in reducing environmental problems was generally perceived as important by the survey respondents. 77.5% (n = 420) fully or to some extent agreed that it is important that NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 7 Allen, M. D. 2020. “Climate Change in Alaska: Social workers’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Experiences.” International Journal of Social Welfare 29 (4): 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12443 . Besthorn, F. H. 2011. “Deep Ecology’s Contributions to Social Work: A ten-Year Retrospective.” International Journal of Social Welfare 21 (3): 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00850.x. Besthorn, F. H. 2015. “Ecological Social Work: Shifting Paradigms in Environmental Practice”. In Elsevier International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 871–877. 2nd ed. https://doi.org/10.1016/B9780-08-097086-8.28027-6. Boetto, H. 2017. “A Transformative Eco-Social Model: Challenging Modernist Assumptions in Social Work.” British Journal of Social Work 47 (1): 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw149. Boetto, H., W. Bowles, K. Närhi, and M. Powers. 2020. “Raising Awareness of Transformative Ecosocial Work: Participatory Action Research with Australian Practitioners.” International Journal of Social Welfare 29 (4): 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12445 . Boetto, H., K. Närhi, and W. Bowles. 2022. “Creating ‘Communities of Practice’ to Enhance Ecosocial Work: A Comparison Between Finland and Australia.” British Journal of Social Work 52 (8): 4815–4835. ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac092. Dominelli, L. 2013. “Environmental Justice at the Heart of Social Work Practice: Greening the Profession.” International Journal of Social Welfare 22 (4): 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12024 . European Environment Agency. 2020. “European Environment — State and Outlook 2020.” (seen April 25, 2022) https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2020/ . Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. 2022. “Climate Change.” (seen October 26, 2022). https://thl.fi/en/web/ environmental-health/climate-and-weather/climate-change . Gray, M., J. Coates, and T. Hetherington, eds. 2013. Environmental Social Work. London, UK/New York, US: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203095300 . Haila, Y., and C. Dyke. 2006. How Nature Speaks. The Dynamics of the Human Ecological Condition. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw1ng . Hirvonen, J., and M. Vanhatalo 2018. “Ympäristöasenteet ja kaupunkikehitys Helsingissä ja Vantaalla [Environmental attitudes and urban development in Helsinki and Vantaa].” City of Helsinki, Research Series. 1. (seen March 22, 2022). https://www.hel.fi/hel2/tietokeskus/julkaisut/pdf/18_02_02_Tutkimuksia_1_Hirvonen_ Vanhatalo.pdf . Hostert, A. 2020. “The view of green social work among Danish social work students and practitioners.” Master’s thesis, University of Aalborg. (seen Novemer 7, 2022).https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/334149313/Anke_ Hostert___Master_Thesis___Noswel.pdf . Institute for the Languages in Finland. 2022. “Languages of Finland.” (seen May 9, 2022). https://www.kotus.fi/en/ on_language/languages_of_finland . Jung, C. 2016. “Social work students’ attitudes toward the natural environment.” Master’s thesis, University of Arizona. (seen November 7, 2022). https://www.proquest.com/openview/2e707cfd75ff2ca99356a69bc76e1b7d/1? pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 . Lähteinen, S., S. Raitakari, K. Hänninen, A. Kaittila, T. Kekoni, S. Krok, and P. Skaffari. 2017. “Social Work Education in Finland: Courses for Competency.” In SOSNET Publications, Vol. 8, Rovaniemi, Finland: SOSNET. https:// www.sosnet.fi/loader.aspx?id=a10e5eeb-3e9f-47dc-9cae-6576b58a4a6e . Lyons, K., T. Hokenstad, M. Pawar, N. Huegler, and N. Hall, eds. 2012. The SAGE Handbook of International Social Work. London: Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247594. Marlow, C., and C. Van Rooyen. 2001. “How Green is the Environment in Social Work?” International Social Work 44 (2): 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/002087280104400208 . Matthies, A.-L. 2017. “The Conceptualization of Ecosocial Transition.” In The Ecosocial Transition of Societies: The Contribution of Social Work and Social Policy, edited by A.-L. Matthies and K. Närhi, 17–35. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315615912. Matthies, A.-L., and K. Närhi. 2017. “The Contribution of Social Work and Social Policy in Ecosocial Transition of Society.” In Ecosocial Transition of Societies: Contribution of Social Work and Social Policy, edited by A.- L. Matthies and K. Närhi, 319–326. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315615912. Matthies, A.-L., K. Närhi, and D. Ward (eds.). 2001. The Eco-Social Approach in Social Work. Jyväskylä:, Finland SoPhi. Mayer, M., S. Manu, K. Siltanen, M. Nurminen, J. Talvitie, S. Haanpää, and C. Smith 2020. “Ilmastonmuutos ja sosiaalija terveyssektori [Climate change and the social and health sector].” Helsinki. SOSTE Finnish Federation for Social Affairs and Health. (seen March 24, 2022). https://www.soste.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/SOSTEjulkaisu-2020-Ilmastonmuutos-ja-sosiaali-ja-terveyssektori.pdf . McKinnon, J. 2013. “The Environment: A Private Concern or a Professional Practice Issue for Australian Social Workers?” Australian Social Work 66 (2): 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2013.782558 . McKinnon, J., and M. Alston, eds. 2016. Ecological Social Work: Towards Sustainability. London: Palgrave. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-40136-6. 14 T. NÖJD ET AL. Meriläinen, P., M. Paunio, V. Kollanus, J. Halonen, T. Tuomisto, S. Virtanen, S. Karvonen, et al. 2021. “Ilmastonmuutos sosiaalija terveyssektorilla  Sosiaalija terveysministeriön ilmastonmuutokseen sopeutumisen suunnitelma (2021–2031) [Climate change in the healthcare and social welfare sector – Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan (2021–2031)].” Publication by the Ministry for Social Affairs and Health. 20. (seen October 25, 2022). http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-5410-6 . Moore, D. S., G. P. McCabe, and B. A. Craig. 2017. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. 9th ed. New York: Macmillan Education. Närhi, K. 2022. “Ekososiaalisen Työn Reunaehtoja [Preconditions of Ecosocial Work].” Tutkiva sosiaalityö. Talentia Union of Professional Social Workers and The Finnish Society of Social Work Research. 8–18. (seen November 6, 2022). https://talentia.lukusali.fi/#/reader/8f2be39a-2373-11ed-b4bc-00155d64030a . Nesmith, A., and N. Smyth. 2015. “Environmental Justice and Social Work Education: Social Workers’ Professional Perspectives.” Social Work Education 34 (5): 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1063600 . Nikku, B. R., H. B. Ku, and L. Dominelli, eds. 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Green Social Work. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315183213. Oxford English Dictionary 2022. “Environment.” (seen November 7, 2022). https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/63089? rskey=WQclEA&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid . Pihkala, P. 2020. “Anxiety and the Ecological Crisis: An Analysis of Eco-Anxiety and Climate Anxiety.” Sustainability 12 (19): 7836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836. Rainerma, E. 2020. “Ekososiaalisen työorientaation mahdollisuudet suomalaisessa aikuissosiaalityössä [Possibilities of ecosocial work orientation in Finnish adult social work].” Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskyläṁ. (seen April 21, 2022). http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202201311325 . Ramsay, S., and J. Boddy. 2017. “Environmental Social Work – a Concept Analysis.” British Journal of Social Work 47 (1): 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw078. Ranta-Tyrkkö, S., and K. Närhi. 2021. “Striving to Strengthen the Ecosocial Framework in Social Work in Finland.” Community Development Journal 56 (4): 608–625. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsab030 . Rapeli, M. 2017. “The Role of Social Work in Disaster Management in Finland.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä. Doctoral dissertation. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-7227-1 . Rapeli, M., and H. Mussalo-Rauhamaa. 2022. “Intensive and Residential Elderly Care Services Responding to Heat Wave – Case Finland.” Nordic Social Work Research 1–12. ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2022. 2047767. Shaw, T. V. 2011. “Is Social Work a Green Profession? An Examination of Environmental Beliefs.” Journal of Social Work 13 (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017311407555. Soini, K., K. Ilmarinen, A. Yli-Viikari, and A. Kirveennummi. 2011. “Green care sosiaalisena innovaationa suomalaisessa palvelujärjestelmässä [Green care as a social innovation in the Finnish service system].” Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 76 (3): 320  331. https://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/102903 . Talentia 2022. “Jäsenistö [Membership].” (seen March 22, 2022). https://www.talentia.fi/talentia/jasenisto/ . Tuomenvirta, H., R. Haavisto, M. Hildén, T. Lanki, S. Luhtala, P. Meriläinen, K. Mäkinen, et al. 2018. “Sääja ilmastoriskit Suomessa – Kansallinen arvio [Weather and Climate Risks in Finland - National Assessment].” Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities. 43. (seen March 22, 2022). http:// urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-601-0. NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 15