Motives for collective climate action – Community work promoting community climate commons

Abstract

Based on a systematic literature review, this article explores motives for participation in Community Climate Commons and how community work can promote their participation and mobilization. Four motives – social, ecological, economic, political – were identified and related to a community and ecosocial work framework. Motives were driven by community efforts to protect livelihoods, preserve social identity, strengthen democratic engagement, and address climate threats. Community Climate Commons thus function as arenas for participation, collective empowerment and mobilization, linking community well-being with ecosocial sustainability. The study contributes to social work research and practice by deepening understanding of civic community-based climate action.

Introduction

Marginalized communities are disproportionately affected both by the impacts of climate change and by the dominant responses designed to address it. They face greater exposure to environmental hazards and possess fewer resources to cope (Hornsey and Lewandowsky, 2022; Rambaree et al., 2019). Global responses often rely on top-down strategies, that is, technological solutions and free-market mechanisms, reinforcing, for example, carbon-tax inequalities (Lindvall et al., 2024). A wide array of community-based strategies for responding to climate-change disruption have also emerged (Hornsey and Lewandowsky, 2022), with local groups engaging in these initiatives for overlapping environmental, economic, and health-related reasons (Kolodinsky and Pelch, 1997; Noth and Tonzer, 2022). Supporting such initiatives necessitates a holistic socio-ecological perspective.

Social work, with its commitment to justice and perspectives including community work, person-in-environment, ecological systems thinking, and empowerment practice is well suited to address the interconnections between social, ecological, and economic dimensions of the climate crisis (Dominelli, 2018; Matthies and Närhi, 2016). For example, social work scholars argue that social workers have both the capacity and ethical responsibility to engage in community-based initiatives (Boetto, 2017; Gray et al., 2013; Rambaree et al., 2019). Peeters (2017) presents the ‘commons’ as a post-capitalist paradigm consistent with social work’s ethical commitments to justice, participation, and solidarity. From this perspective, social workers are encouraged to move beyond individualized practice and support collective forms of governance that strengthen communities’ capacity to respond to ecological and social crises. Powers et al. (2019) argue that to stay relevant in the climate crisis, social work must foster transformative practices based on cooperation, equity, and sustainability. Participation in commons-based initiatives is thus seen as part of the profession’s responsibility in the socio-ecological transition.

Article aim and scope

Through a systematic literature review (SLR) and drawing on the authors’ social and environmental science expertise, including social work and research on common property systems, this article explores motives for participation in so-called ‘Community Climate Commons’ (CCCs) and how community work (CW) can promote their participation and mobilization. Common property systems consist of social arrangements for the maintenance and use of natural resources and other shared services. Rights to manage these resources are held by a clearly defined community of users, who establish their own institutions to govern them (Berkes et al., 2003; Ostrom, 1990). Within such systems, members collectively organize resource management through self-imposed rules, norms, and social mechanisms adapted to the local context (Colding and Folke, 2001; Ostrom, 1990; Peeters, 2017).

The concept of CCCs was first introduced by Colding et al. (2022), who described them as community-based commons that mobilize collective climate action. Such commons rely on shared rules, cooperation, and joint decision-making for sustainable use (Ostrom, 1990), offering an alternative to private or state control (Berkes et al., 2003). In the climate context, activities of CCCs involve both climate-change ‘mitigation’ (i.e. reducing emissions) and climate-change ‘adaptation’ (i.e. strengthening capacity to respond to climate impacts and maintain socio-ecological resilience) (Colding et al., 2020).

In social science research, motives are typically defined as the reasons, needs, values, and expectations that explain why people choose to participate in a given action, group, or social process (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Lindenberg, 2001). Here, we confine the scope of analysis to broader motives for actors to engage and participate in CCCs. The cases analyzed involve, for example, energy commons, urban green commons, forest commons, and climate assemblies (Nässén et al., 2025).

Conceptual framework: Community work and ecosocial work

CW is, alongside casework and group work, a core pillar of social work internationally (Popple, 2015). It covers diverse community-level methods involving public-sector professionals, including social workers, and civil-society actors such as local associations, non-governmental organizations, and social movements. CW aims to promote socially sustainable development with local or interest-based communities (Sjöberg and Turunen, 2022). It comprises three overlapping ideal types: social planning, local development, and social mobilization (Rothman, 1995). Social planning is largely top-down, led by public-sector experts, social workers, and collaborating professionals; local development focuses on collaborative partnerships to improve community conditions; and social mobilization is bottom-up collective action driven by residents (Sjöberg and Turunen, 2022).

Research shows that effective CW ideally should be place-based, with practitioners consistently present in residents’ daily environments (Healy, 2022; Popple, 2015). Such presence enables dialogue, trust, relationship-building, and identification of key actors. A core task is to build social capital through networks and broad collaborations within the community, promoting shared norms, collective identity, and belonging (Rubin and Rubin, 2008). For CW, the aim is to strengthen activation, motivation, participation, and democratic influence among affected groups. Ultimately, CW seeks to build capacity and resources so communities can become their own drivers of sustainable development (Popple, 2015).

Within the field of social work, a perspective of growing importance in times of climate crisis is ecosocial work (ESW). The ecosocial approach addresses socio-ecological crises and societal transition toward sustainability and started to emerge in the 1970s (Matthies et al., 2000), recognizing that humans, communities, and ecosystems are part of one interdependent system (Matthies and Närhi, 2016; Ranta-Tyrkkö and Närhi, 2021). The interrelation between social and ecological perspectives has later been conceptualized within international social work as green social work, environmental social work, ecological social work, and ESW (Dominelli, 2018; Gray et al., 2013; Krings et al., 2020; Närhi and Matthies, 2018; Stamm et al., 2023).

In recent years, publications on ESW have increased, highlighting the interdependency between social work and the natural environment in relation to sustainable development (Boetto, 2017; Krings et al., 2020; Närhi and Matthies, 2018). ESW promotes sustainable development by integrating social, ecological, cultural, and economic aspects to enhance collective well-being and address the socioeconomic and political structures that produce inequality and vulnerability (Matthies and Närhi, 2016). From this perspective, social and ecological sustainability are inseparable, as systems of overconsumption and neoliberalism exploit both people and the planet (Coates, 2003).

Ecosocial work and community climate commons

ESW can operate at many levels but is most effective in community settings, where collective, place-based action addresses complex sustainability challenges (Norton, 2011; Stamm et al., 2023). CW may target marginalized groups without addressing ecological issues, which makes certain forms of CW and ESW particularly relevant for CCCs. Earlier research has examined their convergence (Närhi and Matthies, 2018; Phillips and Pittman, 2009), and Rambaree et al. (2019) introduced ‘ecosocial community work’. Ecosocial community work integrates ESW and CW approaches, emphasizing the interdependence of social and environmental well-being (Chang et al., 2025). Social workers and civil-society actors can play a key role by incorporating socio-ecological perspectives into community practice. It offers a holistic, participatory way to address ecological and social crises.

CCCs hold potential for local communities affected by adverse climate-change impacts since they are place-based, collectively driven and managed and they strengthen civic engagement, social capital, shared norms, and collective identity (Colding et al., 2022; Nässén et al., 2025). Research shows that CCCs benefit from internal features such as democratic organization, small group size, clear boundaries, and flexible, collectively agreed rules (Nässén et al., 2025), consistent with Ostrom’s (1990) design principles. However, when external support aligns with local norms, values, identities and informal institutions (North, 1990), it can contribute to the long-term success of CCCs (Berkes et al., 2003; Nässén et al., 2025). This alignment requires skills central to CW, such as trust-building, facilitation, and contextual sensitivity (Popple, 2015). Social workers have a critical role to play in the planning and management by supporting civic engagement and participation, collective identity, and locally based self-organization, acting as bridges and mediators between CCCs and external governmental actors. By engaging social workers and other community actors, ecosocial community work can foster the development of CCCs, which in turn can help meet accelerating environmental and social challenges and advance socio-ecological sustainability.

Method

The SLR followed the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021), ensuring a structured and transparent approach to data collection and analysis. The process was carried out in two phases: (1) selecting and collecting data and (2) conducting a structured thematic analysis. The SLR uses the same set of peer-reviewed articles as a previous study by the same authors. The two studies, however, differ clearly in both scope and research aim. This article focuses on motives to participate in CCCs, whereas the previous one focused on what characterizes CCCs and identified features linked to their success.

Phase 1: Selection criteria and collection of data

The SLR drew on sources from Web of Science and Scopus, using the search terms ‘commons’, ‘community’, and ‘climate action’ to identify scholarly work on community-based climate efforts. The search, conducted in February 2022 without restrictions on publication year, applied filters for peer-reviewed, open-access articles in English to reduce translation distortion. The search yielded 414 articles (159 from Scopus and 255 from Web of Science). After removing 85 duplicates in Mendeley Reference Manager, 329 articles remained and were imported into ATLAS.ti 22 for analysis.

Screening began with a manual abstract review to identify cases aligned with the definition of CCCs. Articles that did not clearly address commons, community, or climate were excluded. This included 69 articles using ‘commons’ in unrelated ways, 58 referring to ‘community’ only as a vague backdrop or general context, and 48 addressing environmental issues without engaging climate change or climate action. This resulted in 154 articles. A full-text review then excluded 72 articles relying solely on quantitative data without qualitative insights relevant to motivational dynamics, and 29 that did not examine motives for participation in collective climate action. In total, 53 peer-reviewed articles were included in the final qualitative synthesis. The PRISMA identification, screening, and inclusion steps are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the identification and screening process for studies included in the systematic literature review.

Phase 2: Structured thematic analysis

The first and fourth authors conducted the thematic analysis in collaboration with the other authors, using ATLAS.ti 22 and the structured approach developed by Braun and Clarke (2006). To explore motives for participation in CCCs, we first familiarized ourselves with the material through in-depth reading. We then conducted initial coding, systematically identifying references to motivations or conditions for participation. Next, we grouped the codes into broader categories by identifying patterns and relationships. The emerging themes were reviewed and refined through repeated comparison and consolidation of overlapping categories, ensuring coherence and clear distinctions. This process resulted in four overarching themes: social, ecological, economic, and political. Although previous research notes other motives, such as health, education, and social well-being (Soga et al., 2017; Van Den Berg and Custers, 2011), these did not explicitly appear in the studies identified in our search.

After identifying the themes, we applied the conceptual framework of CW and ESW to deepen the analysis. This highlighted the importance of situating motives within a social work context and showed how CW and ESW can promote motivation, participation, and mobilization in CCCs. This step was necessary because most studies identified in Web of Science and Scopus came from natural sciences, environmental governance, or urban studies and did not explicitly engage with social work theory. By examining links between individual and collective motives and the structural, social, and ecological dimensions of the conceptual framework, we moved beyond categorization to explore how these motives relate to ecosocial and community-based work in CCCs.

Results and analysis

In this section, the results from the thematic analysis are presented under the respective theme in relation to the theoretical framework of CW and ESW. References to articles included in the systematic literature review are indicated as (1, 3, 7), corresponding to the document ID numbers in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Numbered overview of included studies (n = 53), showing method, type of collective practice being studied, and geographical location.

Social motives

Social motives were recurring reasons for participation in collective climate action (28, 31, 42, 53), particularly in the Global South (3, 5, 23, 37). This theme captures how motives for participation in CCCs are shaped by people’s wish to protect, express, or recreate shared social identities, a key component of successful CW (Rubin and Rubin, 2008). The review showed that people were more likely to engage in CCCs when climate change threatened their cultural heritage and everyday practices (7, 20, 28, 48). Such threats involved disruptions to traditional and ecological knowledge vital for survival and collective identity (2, 4, 9, 20, 45, 52). One study described an Indigenous group in Nepal that, facing recurrent flooding, established a CCCs to preserve cultural heritage and their nature-based identity (10). This illustrates how climate-related threats to livelihoods and cultural foundations drive collective action to protect identity, traditions, and place (4, 20, 37, 52). Besthorn (2002, 2011) describes the ecological self as recognizing the intrinsic value of nature and human–environment interdependence. The Nepal case reflects this ESW perspective, as protecting land and culture expressed a sense of belonging within an ecological and social system. It also exemplifies social mobilization in CW: the community organized demonstrations, prompting government action to protect the village (15). This highlights how mobilization – such as demonstrations and petitions – often underpins the emergence of CCCs (14, 29).

Another recurring finding was that motives stemmed from social values and cultural beliefs shaping people’s relationship to nature (8, 18, 14, 30, 42). Several papers noted that acceptance of climate change depended on social context (9, 20, 52). This aligns with ESW scholarship showing that willingness to engage in collective climate action is influenced by worldviews and understandings of human–nature relations (Besthorn, 2011; Coates, 2003, 2005). Coates (2003) argues that Western societies often separate humans from nature, weakening collective responsibility, while Indigenous and rural societies emphasize interdependence. The review reflected this: participants in rural areas, mainly in the Global South, reported stronger connections to nature (6, 20), and collectivist cultures showed higher engagement in CCCs (38, 53). Shared rituals, place-based knowledge, and culturally grounded urban projects – such as community gardens linked to traditional food practices – also supported continued participation (8, 12, 29, 31, 45). In line with ESW, these findings indicate that when climate action aligns with collective identity and everyday life, it strengthens long-term commitment.

The results also showed that CCCs can become spaces where participants create new social norms and shared meanings (2, 10, 12, 36). Belonging to a CCCs could override other social norms, as participation fostered a sense of collective identity and purpose that motivated continued involvement (2, 10, 32). Cultural diversity was seen as a strength, enriching learning and expanding collective capacity for action (13, 34, 36). This corresponds with CW research emphasizing that sustainable and democratic collaboration depends on inclusion, dialogue, and recognition of cultural difference (Närhi and Matthies, 2018).

Ecological motives

Ecological motives formed another major theme in the review (11, 27, 44, 45). These included both mitigation efforts, such as reducing emissions or waste, and adaptation actions, such as protecting ecosystems or preparing for floods and heatwaves. A pattern emerged: in the Global North, participation was primarily linked to mitigation, while in the Global South, it was driven by adaptation and livelihood protection in response to ecological threats like flooding and deforestation (10, 11, 29, 35). Motives also shifted over time as people encountered new environmental pressures or socioeconomic and political changes.

This is consistent with ESW and Dominelli’s (2018) observation that climate action is intertwined with social and economic concerns. One study showed that ecological motives became central only after a renewable energy initiative had mobilized and secured funding (27). Still, the North–South distinction was not absolute; impacts varied with regional climate vulnerability (12, 20, 26, 45). For example, in India and Mexico, CCCs pursued mitigation through community energy transitions and forest governance (7, 24, 25, 32), while in the UK and Italy, several initiatives focused on adaptation, such as housing design improvements and water-sensitive management (15, 22, 47). Thus, engagement in CCCs often developed either as immediate responses to environmental disasters or as preventive measures, making them new arenas for environmental activism (11, 29). Several studies also emphasized that collective action depended on a shared belief that such efforts could make a meaningful difference (29, 44), a key aspect of CW (Fook, 2022).

Ecological motives were also shaped by institutional and political contexts. In Northern settings, CCCs often emerged within supportive policy frameworks prioritizing mitigation (26, 30, 34, 53). In the Global South, initiatives were more commonly community-led, relying on social networks and shared resource management rather than formal governance (3, 10, 35). From a CW perspective, this reflects the prevalence of top-down social planning in the North and bottom-up social mobilization in the South (Sjöberg and Turunen, 2022). Across all contexts, people concerned about environmental degradation were more inclined to act collectively than individually (9, 28, 46). These findings indicate that effective environmental action is context-specific and depends on the interplay between institutional structures and community agency. This dual dynamic mirrors core principles of CW, which emphasize collaboration between public-sector and civil-society actors for sustainable local development (Craig, 2002). Such cooperation links formal and informal systems, enabling CCCs to develop as places where ecological responsibility is collectively shared and continuously renewed (Norton and Steinemann, 2001).

Economic motives

Economic development was another recurring motive for community climate action (12, 20, 40, 52), indicating that economic benefits often influenced participation in CCCs (45). This reflects the three pillars of sustainable development: social, ecological, and economic. The review, however, distinguished between economic motives linked to survival and those tied to profit, noting that participation in CCCs within market contexts rarely stemmed from financial gain (12, 16). Instead, CCCs often served as strategies to address ecological problems while improving socioeconomic conditions (12, 16, 39, 51). In several cases, participation functioned as a collective response to material precarity, with environmental projects – such as cooperative farming, repair economies, and renewable energy collectives – providing both income and autonomy from unstable markets (19, 29, 43). One study showed how marginalized groups, including women and Indigenous farmers, gained access to local markets and resources through such initiatives (21).

Economic motives also varied across geographical and social contexts. Livelihood protection and poverty reduction appeared more frequently in studies from the Global South (5, 17, 35, 41), where economic security intersected with social and ecological goals. In these cases, CCCs became practical arenas for ESW, promoting ecological, social, and economic sustainability simultaneously. This aligns with debates in ESW arguing that sustainable development requires integrating ecological and economic dimensions (Powers et al., 2019). The reviewed studies reflected this by showing that local economic participation could strengthen environmental stewardship when embedded in collective, rather than profit-driven, structures (21, 39, 43). Teixeira et al. (2019) noted that locally driven initiatives enhancing community well-being can model ecosocial transformation when economic empowerment is linked to environmental care. Similarly, Powers et al. (2019) emphasized that sustainability requires addressing inequality and transforming economic systems, not merely mitigating ecological harm. From this perspective, economic motives in CCCs appear not as contradictions but as integral elements of ecosocial community work and local community development.

Political motives

The review showed that many CCCs were driven by democratic motives, with participants seeking to strengthen community participation in local governance (19, 26, 27, 34, 37). These initiatives often emerged where formal political processes provided limited opportunities for engagement. Some studies argued that community mobilization can enhance democratic governance within communities (19, 26). For example, one local climate group mobilized residents to influence municipal planning and pushed for stronger climate measures (26), while another study on urban gardening in the United States showed how environmental projects became platforms for dialogue and negotiation over land use (19). From an ecosocial community work perspective, these examples indicate that social mobilization can promote CCCs by offering practical avenues for citizen participation in local governance and climate-related decision-making. Colding and Barthel (2013) describe such collaborations as ‘civic ecology’, where communities co-manage urban environments through participatory stewardship (13). In this sense, CCCs can operate as arenas for democratic experimentation, reshaping relationships between communities and institutions. Peeters (2017) interprets this as part of a broader reclaiming of the public sphere, where local initiatives form new expressions of political agency. Through such practices, CCCs extend beyond environmental management, enabling participants to ‘work for the common good’ and redefine democracy as an ongoing participatory process rooted in everyday community life.

Another set of studies identified political motives centred on struggles for autonomy, land rights, and environmental justice (11, 12, 32, 41). In several cases, collective action emerged in response to institutional neglect or exploitative resource management (11, 12). For example, communities in Nigeria mobilized against severe environmental degradation caused by industrial activity and prolonged governmental neglect, developing adaptation plans and demanding recognition from local authorities. Their struggle for environmental repair became a broader claim for justice and self-determination (11). From an ESW perspective, Ross (2019) interprets such initiatives as expressions of eco-justice – forms of mobilization that expose how environmental degradation and social inequality are interconnected. She argues that resistance involves not only opposition but also the creation of ‘alternative social relations’ that reconnect people, place, and ecology through collective care. Thus, ecosocial community work that manages shared resources becomes both a political and ecological act that challenges unequal power relations.

The review further showed how CCCs can foster collective empowerment. Local environmental engagement often expanded into broader community participation, building social capital and trust essential for community-led governance (3, 8, 38, 49). Through these processes, participants developed the capacity to identify common goals, take collective action, and influence decision-making, reflecting empowerment-oriented stages of CW (Rambaree et al., 2019). In this way, CCCs can be understood as political commons supported by ecosocial community work, linking ecological action with democratic renewal. Whether through grassroots mobilization or participatory governance, CCCs appear as places where communities negotiate power, challenge inequality, and co-produce socially and ecologically sustainable futures.

Ecosocial community work promoting participation and mobilization of CCCs: implications for social work practice and social care policy

The review identified four overarching motives for participation in CCCs: social, ecological, economic, and political. Social motives were evident when climate change threatened cultural heritage and everyday social life. Groups with collectivist values also showed stronger motivation to participate. These findings align with ESW research showing that social belonging and collective identity shape community responses to ecological disruption (Matthies and Närhi, 2016; Ross, 2019). They suggest that social work should support Indigenous-led and community-based responses rooted in ecological and traditional knowledge rather than externally imposed models. The review further indicated that community engagement builds social capital, collective identity, and trust – key components of local development (Fook, 2022; Popple, 2015). Participation often stemmed from a desire for belonging, with CCCs serving as spaces where shared culture and social ties were strengthened. For social work, this highlights the value of locality-based, culturally grounded, participatory CW to reinforce ecosocial practices. Dominelli (2014b) argues that communities should shape their own responses through empowering, reciprocal, and context-sensitive partnerships. We therefore stress the need for social work to support locally embedded practices that foster sustainable forms of belonging and collective agency, integrating cultural identity with ecological responsibility.

The ecological motives theme revealed that motives varied by context: mitigation dominated in the Global North, while adaptation and livelihood protection were more common in the Global South, though often overlapping. Scholars have noted similar patterns (Marquardt et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2023), with higher-emitting countries prioritizing mitigation and more vulnerable, less-emitting countries focusing on adaptation due to weaker institutional frameworks. In the Global North mitigation cases, decision-making tended to remain top-down, limiting community participation. Nyahunda and Ncube (2025) observed that in the Global South, social workers – traditionally engaged in welfare and therapeutic roles – are increasingly called upon to contribute to climate and disaster resilience. These results point to a need for social work to engage more directly with ecological realities and community-based responses, consistent with the ESW approach (Peeters, 2017). One way to support this development could be to strengthen North–South academic collaborations focused on documenting and synthesizing knowledge through action research, case documentation, and structured knowledge management processes. Dominelli (2014a) argues that addressing structural inequalities underlying social and environmental injustice must be central to social work practice. This includes supporting communities in mobilizing around environmental protection, co-producing knowledge with local actors, and ensuring meaningful participation in environmental decision-making – all of which are core elements of CW (Fook, 2022).

Within the theme of economic motives, participation in CCCs was primarily driven by livelihood protection and socioeconomic improvement rather than profit. This positions social workers not only as facilitators of welfare but also as contributors to shaping equitable and sustainable local economies (Teixeira et al., 2019). The results showed that participation often aimed to maintain economic stability within ecological limits, aligning with Powers et al. (2019), who argue that social work should move beyond growth-oriented models and support community initiatives prioritizing social equity and environmental balance over economic expansion. In this way, CCCs promoted by ecosocial community work can challenge dominant economic paradigms by demonstrating that communities can manage shared resources effectively without privatization, shifting from individualism toward collectivism. For social care policy, this underscores the importance – highlighted by Matthies and Närhi (2016) – of supporting community-based economic initiatives that reduce precarity, strengthen livelihoods, and integrate environmental responsibility into everyday welfare practice.

Political motives in CCCs centred on aspirations for democratic participation, empowerment, and struggles for autonomy and environmental justice. These initiatives functioned as political commons that linked ecological engagement with democratic renewal and socio-ecological transformation. If, as Peeters (2017) argues, the commons can renew democracy through everyday participation, social workers have a key role in strengthening these processes. Within the CW framework, social planning tends to operate within existing political structures, while social mobilization emphasizes bottom-up collective empowerment to challenge inequalities in power and resource distribution (Rothman, 1995). This aligns closely with motives for participating in CCCs and with ecosocial community work, which promotes engagement in climate action while addressing social inequality. As Fook (2022) emphasize, CW relies on trust-building, dialogue, and collaboration between community members, civil-society, and public-sector actors such as social workers. In this sense, social workers can act as intermediaries connecting local initiatives with supportive institutional frameworks. This highlights the need for policies that recognize and sustain community-based democratic practices, enabling communities to co-govern shared resources and contribute to socially and ecologically sustainable local development.

Conclusion

CCCs are community-based commons that serve as basis for mobilization and collective action against ongoing climate change. This review has shown that the motives for participating in CCCs are diverse, shaped by varying social, ecological, economic, and political contexts. While climate change is a shared global challenge, the reasons people engage in community climate action are rooted in their specific circumstances, ranging from preserving cultural identity and gaining political voice to improving livelihoods or responding to local environmental risks. These challenges underline the need for transdisciplinary and participatory research that integrates ecosocial perspectives, strengthening both theoretical and practical understanding of context-sensitive approaches to ecosocial community work and the development of CCCs. This includes the need for stronger North–South academic collaborations in developing new knowledge that reflects different climate realities and community practices. We therefore acknowledge CCCs not only as platforms for collective climate action but as social places where multiple motives intersect. The study contributes to social work practice by deepening understanding of how community-led climate initiatives embody ecosocial community work principles of motives, participation, collective empowerment, and social mobilization, offering practical pathways for engaging with ecological crises. This also points to social workers acting as intermediaries between local initiatives and larger institutional structures, linking community efforts with policy processes and support systems that respect democratic, community-based practices. For social care policy and planning, the findings highlight the importance of supporting community-based, collective initiatives that address socio-ecological challenges and strengthen community resilience in welfare and development strategies.