In this study, we used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) method, 'photovoice', to engage eighteen residents living in public housing in an examination of person-in-environment factors perceived to facilitate or hinder health and well-being. Five socio-environmental constructs emerged as key factors that contribute to the health and well-being of public-housing community environments: (i) place attachment, (ii) collective efficacy, (iii) social capital, (iv) community development and (v) collective action. Our findings provide a grounded person-inenvironment theory for developing community-level interventions for promoting healthy community environments. Implications are discussed in terms of pathways for researchers and social work practitioners to develop and evaluate efforts aimed at enhancing health and wellbeing through community-level change.

This special issue entitled, "Ecosocial Work and Social Change in Community Practice," focuses on an array of contexts, policies, practices, and challenges as well as successes related to an emerging vision for ecosocial work. Ecosocial work is social work, with all its depth and breadth, but it approaches the analysis of social problems, issues, and concerns with an ecosocial paradigm or lens, rather than an anthropocentric lens (Matthies & Närhi, 2016). Thus, ecosocial work is not a specialty within social work, rather all social work can, and we argue should, be ecosocial work. The ecosocial lens recognizes the interconnectedness of all life in our ecosystem, and thus, the fair and sustainable use of resources to promote these relationships and the well-being of all. This lens requires us to critically examine and question modern societal structures, values, beliefs, practices, and ways of life that lead to social and ecological injustices through over-consumerism, materialism, anthropocentrism, oppression, and exploitation of people and planet (Boetto, 2017; Coates, 2003; Matthies, Närhi, & Ward, 2001). From this perspective, ecosocial work is inclusive of structural social work in addressing the social structures causing social problems. It, therefore, pays particular attention to the socioeconomic and political structures of a society/community; and, above all, it highlights how neo-liberalization increases inequality and vulnerability in certain communities (Matthies & Närhi, 2016). Ecosocial work encompasses green social work, interprofessional green care practices that bring people into contact with nature, and degrowth perspectives (

This article reports on Participatory Action Research with social work practitioners who collaboratively explored the effects on professional practice when practitioners raise their awareness of an ecosocial work approach. Although contemporary research in the profession has contributed to the ongoing development of ecosocial work, there is a notable lack of collaboration with social work practitioners. Using a transformative ecosocial work model of practice, researchers together with social workers from a range of practice contexts met as co‐inquirers to plan, implement and evaluate ecosocial work interventions. As part of a larger international study, this article reports on research outcomes within the Australian context. Overall, results indicate that practitioners incorporated interventions across personal, individual, group and organisational levels of practice, but were constrained by structural elements at broader levels. Continuing the development of ecosocial work requires further collaborative exploration with practitioners, which takes into consideration communities and broader social and political systems. Key Practitioner Messages: • This research endeavours to contribute to the evidence‐base for progressing transformative ecosocial work in professional practice; • Using Participatory Action Research (PAR), this research was done in collaboration with social work practitioners as co‐inquirers to develop ecosocial work interventions; • A range of ecosocial work interventions were implemented at the personal, individual, group and organisational levels.

Historically, and in modern times, social workers have been culpable in perpetuating the very systems of oppression that we seek to eliminate. This happens as we are part of cultures and economies that operate out of the growth ideology. Acting in accordance with the growth ideology does not lead to the outcomes that we strive for as professional social workers. Rather, the growth ideology results in growing social inequalities and increasing ecological injustices around the world. Social work can, instead, embrace an ecosocial lens and promote degrowth approaches for transformational alternatives. Rather than reinforcing the existing systems of injustice and oppression, radical social work can take an activist role and bring about urgent and radical changes to promote ecological justice through social and ecological well-being. Examples from radical social work in local and international communities demonstrate the possibility of degrowth for transformational alternatives as radical social work practice.

the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.