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

Figures & data

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

Table 2. Descriptive data (N = 542).

	n	%
Gender
Female	500	92.3
Male	38	7.0
Missing information	4	0.7
Age
20 ̶ 29	45	8.3
30 ̶ 39	149	27.5
40 ̶ 49	156	28.8
50 ̶ 59	134	24.7
60 ̶ 69	58	10.7
Level of education
Secondary level degree	13	2.4
Bachelor’s degree	328	60.5
Master’s degree	189	34.9
Postgraduate degree	12	2.2
Year of graduation
2011 ̶ 2020	277	51.1
2001 ̶ 2010	142	26.2
1980 ̶ 2000	123	22.7
Years of working in social welfare
<5	114	21.1
6 ̶ 15	204	37.6
16 ̶ 25	146	26.9
>25	78	14.4
Supervisory/managerial duties
Yes	92	17.0
Sometimes (e.g. fill-in)	55	10.1
No	395	72.9
Type of organization
Public	381	70.3
Private	108	19.9
Third	53	9.8
Geographical area of work
Urban	341	62.9
Rural	102	18.8
Both	99	18.3

Table 3. Environment-related phenomena observed to affect client wellbeing.

	n	%
Concentrations of the population in certain areas*	333	61.4
Anxiety related to environmental issues*	313	57.7
Desolation of rural areas*	295	54.4
Loss and monotonousness of nearby greenspace	251	46.3
Snowless winters becoming more common	235	43.4
Hot weather becoming more common	208	38.4
Harm induced by traffic, such as pollution and noise	204	37.6
Weakening air quality*	191	35.2
Environmental pollution or chemicalization*	160	29.5
Migration and/or immigration induced by climate change	160	29.5
Weakening condition of bodies of water	140	25.8
Stormy weather becoming more common	125	23.1
Decreasing availability of groceries	69	12.7
Flooding becoming more common	50	9.2
Other, please specify	27	5.0

Phenomena marked with * added by the researchers, otherwise taken from Hirvonen & Vanhatalo (2018).

Table 4. Variables and p-values in Mann-Whitney U-tests, Kruskal-Wallis-tests, and Pearson correlation.

Variable	Mann-Whitney U p-value	Kruskal-Wallis p-value
Gender	.021*
Age		.485
Level of education		.645
Bachelor’s degree in social services	.039*
Master’s degree in social work	.441
Year of graduation		.741
Years of working in social welfare		.121
Supervisory/managerial duties		.922
Type of organization		.005*
Working in urban or rural areas		.081
Environmental policy in organization		.009*
Variable	Pearson correlation R	p-value
Personal importance of natural environment and taking action	.506	<.001**
Significance of natural environment for wellbeing and leisure	.251	<.001**
Personal actions to promote wellbeing of natural environment	.501	<.001**

Statistically significant variables are marked with * (p < .05) or ** (p < .001).

Table 5. Variables associated with perceived importance of addressing environmental issues in social work (logistic regression analysis).

Explanatory variable	Coefficient B	OR	P	95% CI
Type of organization
Public sector		1	<.001
Private sector	.814	2.258	.002	1.363  ̶̶ 3.739
Third sector	.933	2.541	.008	1.269  ̶ 5.090
Personal importance of the natural environment and taking action
Less than highly important		1
Highly important	1.561	4.765	<.001	2.169  ̶ 10.465
Personal actions to promote wellbeing of natural environment
Rarely		1	<.001
Sometimes	1.078	2.938	<.001	1.742  ̶ 4.954
Often	2.225	9.251	<.001	5.062  ̶ 16.907

R2 = .207 (Cox and Snell) and .276 (Nagelkerke); Hosmer and Lemeshow test (p = .965).

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.

 Google Scholar