Alston Yan

Social work theory · Volume C: Ecological & Contextual

Community and environmental theories

Community and environmental theories explain how the places where people live, and their physical and social environments, shape wellbeing and life chances.

1. What it is

Community and environmental theories explain how the places where people live, and their physical and social environments, shape wellbeing and life chances. They hold that housing, neighbourhoods, local institutions and natural environments are causes of advantage and disadvantage in their own right, and that these are unequally distributed (Sampson, 2012). The theories draw on urban sociology, social policy, public health and environmental studies. They extend social work’s person-in-environment focus (see Person-in-environment) to include the built and natural environment, which the profession has often neglected (Kemp, 2011). For social work, they support practice that addresses place-based disadvantage, housing, exclusion and environmental harm.

Place. Place refers to a location that has meaning for the people connected to it, combining physical setting, social relationships and identity. Attachment to place supports belonging and wellbeing, and forced displacement through eviction, gentrification, disaster or colonisation disrupts it (Kemp, 2011). For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Country is central to identity, kinship, law and wellbeing, and dispossession from Country is a continuing source of harm.

Housing. Housing affects health and wellbeing through hard pathways, such as damp, overcrowding, cold and hazards, and soft pathways, such as security of tenure, affordability, stigma and the meaning of home (Shaw, 2004). Housing stress and insecurity are linked to poorer mental health, family conflict and disrupted schooling. Homelessness is the most extreme form of housing disadvantage and compounds other risks.

Neighbourhoods and neighbourhood effects. Neighbourhood effects are the influences of living in a particular area on outcomes, over and above individual and family characteristics. The Chicago School described cities as ecological systems of zones and communities (Park et al., 1925). Shaw and McKay (1942) found that delinquency rates remained high in certain areas despite changing populations, which they attributed to social disorganisation. Wilson (1987) argued that concentrated urban poverty isolated residents from jobs, institutions and role models. Sampson et al. (1997) showed that collective efficacy, defined as social cohesion combined with willingness to intervene for the common good, was associated with lower rates of violence. Researchers continue to debate how much of the apparent effect of neighbourhoods reflects the characteristics of people who move into them (Sampson, 2012).

Social exclusion. Social exclusion refers to the processes that prevent people from participating in the economic, social, political and cultural life of their society. The concept emerged in French social policy in the 1970s and became prominent in European and British policy in the 1990s (Levitas, 2005). Levitas identified three discourses: a redistributive discourse focused on poverty, a social integrationist discourse focused on paid work, and a moral underclass discourse that blames excluded people. Australian research has measured exclusion through indicators of disengagement, service exclusion and economic exclusion (Saunders et al., 2008). Vinson and Rawsthorne (2015) showed that disadvantage in Australia is concentrated and persistent in a small number of localities.

Environmental justice. Environmental justice refers to the fair distribution of environmental benefits and harms and to the participation of affected communities in environmental decisions. The movement grew from protests in the United States against the siting of hazardous waste facilities in Black and low-income communities (Bullard, 1990). It shows that pollution, heat, flooding and lack of green space fall most heavily on poor and racialised groups. Access to green space is associated with smaller health inequalities between income groups (Mitchell & Popham, 2008).

Green and eco-social work. Green social work, developed by Dominelli (2012), argues that social work must address environmental crises, including climate change, disasters and resource depletion, as matters of social justice. It links environmental degradation to industrial capitalism and inequality and calls for practice that protects both people and the planet. Related approaches include deep ecology perspectives, which place humans within the natural world (Besthorn, 2012), and broader environmental social work (Gray et al., 2013).

2. Historical development

Period Development
1880s–1920s Settlement movement links social work to neighbourhoods and housing reform
1925–1942 Chicago School urban ecology; Shaw and McKay’s social disorganisation theory
1970s–1990s Social exclusion develops in French and European social policy
1982–1990 Environmental justice movement in the United States; Bullard’s Dumping in Dixie (1990)
1987 Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged analyses concentrated poverty
1997–2012 Sampson’s research on collective efficacy and neighbourhood effects
2000s–2010s Australian research on deprivation, exclusion and locational disadvantage
2012–2013 Dominelli’s Green Social Work; Gray, Coates and Hetherington’s Environmental Social Work

These theories have several roots. Urban sociology and the Chicago School treated the city as an ecological system and studied how neighbourhoods shaped behaviour. Social policy contributed concepts of poverty, deprivation and exclusion, while public health linked housing and environment to illness (see Social determinants of health). Environmental justice grew from community activism and civil rights. They became a distinct body of explanation as researchers showed that place has effects that individual characteristics cannot fully explain (Sampson, 2012).

Social work’s attention to place dates from the settlement houses, whose workers lived in poor neighbourhoods and campaigned for housing and sanitation reform. During the twentieth century, casework drew attention away from the physical environment, and the person-in-environment perspective came to emphasise social relationships more than places (Kemp, 2011). Community development kept the focus on locality alive (Ife, 2016). From the 2000s, climate change and disasters prompted green and eco-social work to bring the natural environment back into the profession’s theory and ethics.

3. Practical guidance

Community and environmental theories direct practitioners to assess and act on the places and environments in which people live.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. These theories extend social work’s understanding of the environment to include housing, place and the natural world. They have strong empirical support from urban sociology and public health, and they explain why disadvantage clusters geographically and persists across generations. Environmental justice and green social work link the profession to urgent global concerns and reinforce its commitment to social justice (Dominelli, 2012).

Limitations. Neighbourhood effects are difficult to separate from selection, since people with fewer resources often have little choice about where they live. Concepts such as social disorganisation and social exclusion have been criticised for stigmatising areas and residents, and social exclusion can obscure poverty (Levitas, 2005). Green social work is still developing practice methods, and individual practitioners have limited influence over environmental policy. Place-based programs may also neglect structural causes that operate at national and global levels.

Overall importance. Community and environmental theories complete the ecological family by showing that the physical, social and natural environment shapes life opportunities. They support housing-focused, place-based and community practice and position social work to respond to climate change and environmental injustice. They connect closely with the social determinants of health (C2), social capital (C3) and community change approaches (F2).

5. References

See the animated explainerWork with Alston