figure a

Wei-Ning Xiang is a professor of geography and earth sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA (1990—present); he is the founding editor in chief of SEPR.

1 A testimony and source of inspiration

In a 2022 autobiographical essay published in Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR), the American landscape-planning scholar and educator Frederick Steiner coins the term reflective socio-ecological practice (Steiner 2022, p. 417). Using it as an overarching theme and with competent examples from the past fifty years of his fruitful career, he illustrates how reflection on experience and improvisation—the two pillars in his conception of reflective socio-ecological practice—have not only benefitted his socio-ecological practice of land suitability assessment and plan-making but also nourished his continuous growth in creativity and wisdom as a socio-ecological scholar-practitioner (Steiner 2022). A socio-ecological scholar-practitioner is a scholar who is committed to the dual ambition of producing knowledge and advancing socio-ecological practice and dedicated to developing a scholarship that is useful to real-world practitioners and instructive to fellow scholars (Xiang 2022, p.273). His essay as such affords what readers can also find in autobiographical essays by other venerable SEPR authors, readers, reviewers, and supporters (e.g., Callicott 2020; Douglas 2020a; Forester 2017; Hoch 2017; Innes 2017): a delicate opportunity to learn about, in the words of the American sociologist C. Wright Mills (1916–1962), “how carefully accomplished thinkers treat their own minds, how closely they observe their development and organize their experience … as a source of original intellectual work.” (Mills 1959/2000, pp. 196–197; the ellipsis by myself).

To me, the essay is a piece of triple-I prose—insightful, inspirational, instructive—that confers benefits on the international community of socio-ecological practice research (the SEPR community, henceforth) in three unique ways: It shares a powerful testimony to reflective socio-ecological practice both as a way toward and as a beneficiary of ecophronesis—the virtue of ecological practical wisdom; it helps bring to light a cozy symbiosis between reflective socio-ecological practice and ecophronesis that is beneficial yet hitherto little known to the SEPR community; and it advocates and inspires the growth in ecophronesis at individual and community levels. In the following pages of this editorial, I shall elaborate on these convictions.

2 Reflective socio-ecological practice and its two pillars

What is reflective socio-ecological practice? Frederick Steiner’s essay provides but an implicit answer: If we the readers allow the essay to interpret itself, we see that it uses “reflection” and “improvise” throughout as if they were two pillars of what its author dubs “reflective socio-ecological practice” (Steiner 2022, p. 417, p. 419, p. 426, p. 428). Following this hint and drawing on literatures of ecopracticology (Xiang 2019a), education, philosophy, planning, social psychology, and social work, I conceptualize reflective socio-ecological practice as a pragmatic learning-doing process driven by interactions between two component processes of reflection on experience and improvisation.

Reflection on experience, according to the American philosophers John Dewey (1859–1952) and Donald Schön (1930–1997),Footnote 1 is a thought process in which an individual or a group of individuals makes discoveries about specific connections between two essential parts of their early experience—the actions they took and the consequences, whether positive or negative, they underwent—so that the two become logically continuous in their minds (Dewey 1916, pp. 139–140, pp. 144–145; Dewey 1933, pp. 15–16; Schön 1987a, pp. 66–67; Schön 1987b/2001, pp. 194–198). The new, usually tacit knowledge such derived can be used, along with other available knowledge and resources, to shape their immediate actions and/or added to their repertoire of existent knowledge for future use (Dewey 1916, pp. 146–150; Schön 1987a, pp. 66–67; Schön 1987b/2001, pp. 197–198, p. 203). Improvisation, as attested by Donald Schön, the American planning scholar John Forester and philosopher Martha Nussbaum, is an action process—when contextualized differently from improvisational jazz and theatrical performance where it originates—through which an individual or a group of individuals takes cut-and-try actions extemporaneously with available knowledge and resources to cope with surprises (unexpected events, facts, or pieces of news; whether positive or negative) in their concrete situations. It culminates with actions that are perceivably effective and appropriate to the here and now (Forester 1999, pp. 8–9; Nussbaum 1990, p. 94; Schön 1987b/2001, pp. 198–200).

Reflection on experience is usually embedded in improvisation, and vice versa. In this “intimate union” of thought and action (Dewey 1916, p. 140) or the enterprise of “reflection-in-action” (Schön 1987a, pp. 26–31; Schön 1987b/2001, pp. 194–204), the two distinct processes—that of learning from experience through reflection and that of doing by trial and error through bricolage and tinkering—are bound by a complementary relationship: Improvisation triggers reflection with surprises and supplies the requisite early experience; reflection nurtures improvisation and helps shape actions with both the new knowledge it yields and the existent knowledge in the repertoire abovementioned (Dewey 1916, p. 140, pp. 145–146; Dewey 1933, pp. 4–5, pp. 15–16; Fellows and Zimpher 1988, p. 18; Schön 1987a, pp. 26–31; Schön 1987b/2001, pp. 196–202; Xiang 2016, p. 57). As such, the two processes work reciprocally through what educational and social psychologists call a continuously repeated experience–reflection–action (ERA) cycle (Sicora 2017, p. 8) or loop of experiential learning (Boud et al. 1985/2005, p. 12; Kolb and Fry 1975); in a coherent way, they progress toward what Martha Nussbaum refers to as “choosing well” (Nussbaum 1990, p. 55)—finding and taking actions to achieve effective results in concrete situations (Dewey 1916, p. 140, pp. 145–146, pp. 149–150; Forester 1999, pp. 224–241; Forester 2020, pp. 117–118; Forester 2022, p. 150, p. 154; Nussbaum 1990, p. 55, p. 94; Schön 1987a, pp. 26–31; Schön 1987b/2001, pp. 196–202).Footnote 2

With improvisation and reflection on experience as two distinct yet intertwining pillars, reflective socio-ecological practice can then be described as

a sophisticated process of socio-ecological practice in which an individual or a group of individuals is engaged in a continuously repeated cycle of improvisation and reflection on experience in order to find and take actions that yield effective results in the specific socio-ecological situations they and the people they are committed to serving are in.Footnote 3

It is noteworthy that reflective socio-ecological practice defined here is by and large an epistemological process that reflects what John Forester calls Deweyan “reflective pragmatism” (Forester 1999, p. 130) or Donald Schön dubs “an epistemology of practice” (Schön 1987b/2001, p. 183, p. 186): It pursues a pragmatic effectiveness in both learning and doing that responds directly to the salient features of concrete situations. This however is only half the story. For the real-world socio-ecological practice to achieve good results, such a pragmatic learning-doing process alone is usually if not always inadequate. This is mainly (but not solely) because the two component processes—improvisation and reflection on experience—are not inherently good or bad and may themselves lead to either positive or negative results (Cunha et al. 1999, pp. 327–332; Higgins 2002, p. 93; Vera and Crossan 2005, p. 204; Tan 2020, pp. 688–690). As Frederick Steiner demonstrates cogently with examples in his 2022 essay and elsewhere (Steiner 2004, 2016, 2020; Steiner et al. 2016), in the real-world socio-ecological practice, good results are and always have to be both morally sound and pragmatically effective; to achieve good results, therefore, reflective socio-ecological practice necessarily requires its practitioners (reflective socio-ecological practitioners, henceforth) to inter alia acquire a particular moral excellence and exercise it in their practice. This requisite is the virtue of ecological wisdom (Lu and Wang 2022; Forester 2019; Steiner 2016, p. 108, p. 109; Wang 2019; Xiang 2014; Yang and Li 2016; Young 2016) or precisely, ecophronesis—ecological practical wisdom (Xiang 2016).

3 The virtue of ecophronesis

The term ecophronesis was coined in 2016 with two words “eco-” and “phronesis” (Xiang 2016). The combining form “eco-” has an explicit meaning of “ecological”, but also connotes “habitat” from its etymological root in Late Latin oeco- and Greek oikos, both mean house or household (Merriam-Webster 2022); “phronesis” is from Greek phrónēsis and synonymous with “Aristotelian phronesis”—the virtue of practical wisdom the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) identified, defined, and promoted over two millennia ago (Xiang 2016, pp. 54–55; Xiang 2020a, pp. 121–123): It is the human ability par excellence to recognize and actualize whatever is best to human goods in the complex, ambiguous situations through well-formed and elegant actions (Rorty 1988b, pp. 272–273). With this rich etymological and intellectual heritage, ecophronesis ably represents a moral excellence that throughout the human history has helped us, Homo sapiens, to both succeed in socio-ecological practice and flourish in our lives at “our home” and “our common home” on the earth in the face of vicissitudes of nature and society [Austin 2018, p. 1009, p. 1019; Xiang 2016, pp. 55–56, pp. 58–59; the quotes are from, respectively, McHarg (1996, p. 377) and Austin (2018, p. 1009)].

The virtue was first identified under the general term ecological wisdom (Xiang 2014) with inspirations from my field visits to the 2300-year-old Dujiangyan irrigation system in Sichuan Province, China (Fig. 1) and from the classic works by philosophers Laozi (老子, 571 BC–471 BC) (Chan 2001/2013/2018), Arne Næss (1912–2009) (Næss 1973, 1989), and She Zhengrong (佘正荣) (She 1996). Two years later in 2016, it was renamed with the newly coined term ecophronesis and formally defined within the specific context of socio-ecological practice, drawing on the rich literature on Aristotelian phronesis (Xiang 2016). Like phronesis is found to be characteristic of many well-lived, fully-realized lives (Cafaro 2001, p. 16; Rorty 1988a, p.15; Rorty 1988b, p. 274), ecophronesis is found in many individuals who made a positive difference in the world through their morally sound and pragmatically effective socio-ecological practice (Xiang 2016, p. 55). Like people of phronesis are referred to as phronimoi [plural form for phronimos, see Tabachnick (2013, p. 32, p. 42)], people of ecophronesis are dubbed ecophronimoi (plural form for ecophronimos). Among ecophronimoi are the Chinese ecological planner and engineer Li Bing (李冰, see Fig. 1) and the Scottish-American landscape planner and educator Ian McHarg (1920–2001) (Steiner 2006, 2016, 2019; Xiang 2014, 2016, pp. 56–59; Xiang 2019b, c, 2021, pp. 79–84; Yang 2020; Yang and Li 2016).Footnote 4

Fig. 1
figure 1

“Fish mouth” (鱼嘴, yú zuǐ), the fish-mouth-shaped water diversion embankment at the diversion point of the Dujiangyan irrigation system (the Chinese term 鱼嘴 literally means “fish mouth”), as seen on June 9, 2013, during my first visit (my own photograph). [Note: The 2300-year-old gravity-fed irrigation system lays out an ecological infrastructure on the Chengdu Plain that grants the 6687 km2 region (roughly the size of the state of Delaware in the United States) a permanent immunity against natural liabilities of deluge and drought, and offers tens of millions of people across generations the benefits of agricultural irrigation, municipal water supply, navigation, aquatic production, ecological conservation, and tourism (Cao et al. 2010, p. 5; Li and Xu 2006, p. 291; Needham et al. 1971, p. 288; Peng 2008, p. 542). Its sustained success has been attributed largely to the ecophronetic—socio-ecologically and practically wise—principles the Chinese ecological planner and engineer Li Bing (李冰) of the Warring States period (480 BC–221 BC) improvised at the onset of the project and throughout his tenure as the general manager of Shu County (蜀郡, in modern-day Sichuan Province) where the irrigation system is situated (Peng 2008, p.540; Xiang 2014, p. 67; 2016, p. 58). These principles guided every step of the project life cycle, from the system’s planning, design, and construction to its subsequent operation, maintenance, and governance (Cao et al. 2010, p. 5; Peng 2008, pp. 539–542, p. 544; Zhang et al. 2013, p. 539). As such, the irrigation system’s longevity of conferring lasting benefits on generations of people at a minimal socio-ecological cost serves as a live testimony to the Daoist idea of “following nature’s lead” (道法自然, dào fǎ zì rán) in pursuing human interests (Peng 2008, p. 538, p. 540, p. 546; Xiang 2014, p. 65), as elaborated in the classic work Dao De Jing (《道德经》, Tao Te Ching in Wade-Giles romanization system) by Chinese philosopher Laozi (老子, 571 BC–471 BC) of the late Spring and Autumn period (Chan 2001/2013/2018).]

Full size image

In the 2016 definition, ecophronesis is described as “the master skill par excellence of moral improvisation” (Xiang 2016, p. 55). Here, “skill” is synonymous with “ability” (Ibid., p. 54); the master skill par excellence means a virtuous skill or ability that has chief authority over other and usually more specialized skills or abilities, such as the abilities to think reflectively and act extemporaneously as required in the aforementioned process of reflective socio-ecological practice (Sect. 2).Footnote 5 In other words, ecophronesis is a virtue at the heart of all other ecological or environmental virtues and serves as a sine qua non for others to work well (Austin 2018, p. 1009, p. 1013, pp. 1015–1016; Xiang 2016, p. 56, p. 58). Moral improvisation literally means improvisation motivated, informed, and guided by socio-ecological morals. Socio-ecological morals are principles and beliefs about right and wrong, good and bad in socio-ecological practice, and about tradeoffs when rights (or goods) clash with one another or if rights come into conflict with goods (or vice versa) (Forester 2019; Wang 2019; Xiang 2016). In the socio-ecological morals ecophronimoi demonstrated habitually through their exemplary socio-ecological practices and inscribed inadvertently in the lasting good results their practices led to, several overarching themes are commonplace. These include, but are not limited to, a genuine appreciation and profound reverence for Mother Nature, a wholehearted acceptance of the daunting reality of original flaw and wickedness in socio-ecological practice (Xiang 2019a, p. 8), a deep awareness of human beings’ enlightened self-interest in the community of all beings (Xiang 2016, pp. 55–56), and an unwavering commitment to the dual responsibility of upholding moral principles and attending to circumstantial particulars (Ibid., pp. 58–59).

Since ecophronesis was first defined within the specific context of socio-ecological practice and promoted in 2016, its definition has been expanded to broader, more encompassing contexts of inter alia theology (Austin 2018) and philosophy (Lu and Wang 2022); there has also been a steady growth of an international literature on the topic, primarily in the English and Chinese languages.Footnote 6 In addition, since 2019, there has been a parallel development in ecopracticology—the study of socio-ecological practice and the ensuing body of knowledge (e.g., Cooke and Birnie-Gauvin 2022; Forester 2020; Steiner 2022; Xiang 2019a, 2022, pp. 273–274). To reflect these scholarly progressions, an updated version of the 2016 definition is in order and can be given as follows:

Ecophronesis, the virtue of ecological practical wisdom, is the human ability par excellence to make and implement morally sound and pragmatically effective choices in the complex, heterogeneous situations of socio-ecological practice; motivated, informed, and guided by socio-ecological morals, this master capability of moral improvisation is developed through and beneficial to reflective socio-ecological practice.Footnote 7

4 A cozy symbiosis and ecophronetic reflective socio-ecological practice

How are the process reflective socio-ecological practice and the virtue ecophronesis interrelated with each other, if at all? Inspired by ideas in Austin (2018), Forester (2019), Steiner (2022), Wang (2019), and Young (2016), the juxtaposition in Table 1 shows that there is an intimately close and mutually beneficial relationship—a cozy symbiosis—between the two distinct constructs should they cooperate with each other and give and take mutually.

Table 1 A cozy symbiosis contingent on mutual give-and-take
Full size table

What would such a cozy symbiosis look like?

On the one hand, reflective socio-ecological practice facilitates the growth in ecophronesis. In his 2018 essay “The virtue of ecophronesis: an ecological adaptation of practical wisdom”, the British theologist Nicholas Austin indicates that there is a specific requisite to be met for the growth in ecophronesis: “Since the ‘cause’ of phronesis involves reflection on experience, growth in ecophronesis will require a combination of appropriate ecological experience and reflection.” (Austin 2018, p. 1018; italics by myself) Reflective socio-ecological practice, as defined in Sect. 2 of this essay, can meet this requirement ably. As shown in Table 1, it can afford reflective socio-ecological practitioners a continuously repeated cycle of improvisation and reflection on experience through which they can exercise and thus grow in ecophronesis under the guidance of socio-ecological morals. As such, it can help those who mindfully and persistently carry out reflective socio-ecological practice to become (more) ecophronetic—socio-ecologically and practically wise (wiser) and be well on their way to becoming ecophronimoi.

On the other hand, ecophronesis enables the transformation of reflective socio-ecological practice. As shown in Table 1, the virtue of ecophronesis, as defined in Sect. 3 of this essay, can inject the much needed socio-ecological morals into the process of reflective socio-ecological practice to inspire and guide reflective socio-ecological practitioners in pursuit of good results—results that are not only pragmatically effective but also morally sound. With that, the virtue enables the pragmatic learning-doing process to advance to an elevated moral state at which instead of aiming solely at “making it work” pragmatically in the specific socio-ecological situations, the goal is “making it work well” both pragmatically and morally. By empowering such an upward progression, the virtue of ecophronesis helps transform reflective socio-ecological practice from a pragmatic process into an ecophronetic process, and effective results into good results.

The ecophronetic process reflective socio-ecological practice transforms into is an emergent from the cozy symbiosis. It possesses two features that do not exist when the process of reflective socio-ecological practice and the virtue of ecophronesis are separate: a continuously repeated cycle of moral improvisation and reflection on experience; achievement of good results. This process thus distinguishes itself from that of reflective socio-ecological practice and can be referred to as ecophronetic reflective socio-ecological practice with the following definition (italics highlight the two new features not found in reflective socio-ecological practice defined in Sect. 2 of this essay):

Ecophronetic reflective socio-ecological practice is a sophisticated process of socio-ecological practice in which an individual or a group of individuals is engaged in a continuously repeated cycle of moral improvisation and reflection on experience in order to find and take actions that yield good results—results that are not only pragmatically effective but also morally sound—in the specific socio-ecological situations they and the people they are committed to serving are in.

5 A powerful testimony to ecophronetic reflective socio-ecological practice

Now as I read Frederick Steiner’s 2022 essay again and reexamine the competent examples in the essay through a lens of ecophronetic reflective socio-ecological practice, I have little if any doubt that the essay is a powerful testimony to ecophronetic reflective socio-ecological practice. In almost all the examples, I can readily identify the two defining features in the above definition—a continuously repeated cycle of moral improvisation and reflection on experience; achievement of good results. These testimonial examples include helping relocate the proposed Austin-Bergstram International Airport, Texas, USA (Steiner 2022, p. 420); the research and development of two useful and acclaimed professional tools for land suitability assessment (Ibid., pp. 420–422, p. 425, p. 427)—the United States Department of Agriculture’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System (i.e., the LESA system, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-concerns/land/evaluation-and-assessment; Steiner et al. 1994) and Green Business Certification Inc.’s SITES Rating System (https://www.sustainablesites.org/; Steiner 2020); and university campus planning and design at the University of Texas, Austin and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Steiner 2022, pp. 425–426).

I would then rephrase what I stated at the beginning of this essay: In his 2022 essay, Frederick Steiner illustrates with competent examples from the past fifty years of his fruitful career how ecophronetic reflective socio-ecological practice has not only benefitted his socio-ecological practice of land suitability assessment and plan-making but also nourished his continuous growth in creativity and ecophronesis as a socio-ecological scholar-practitioner.

6 Learning to be ecophronetic by doing four ecophronetic things

How can we, the members of the SEPR community, learn to be ecophronetic—socio-ecologically and practically wise—in our professional and/or academic practices?

If we asked those whose ideas and/or deeds inspired and shaped the conceptualization of ecophronesis—Aristotle, Arne Næss, Laozi, Li Bing, Ian McHarg, She Zhengrong (Sect. 3), and nameless ecophronimoi throughout the human history (footnote 4), a most likely piece of prudent advice we could receive would be “People learn to be ecophronetic by simply doing ecophronetic things in their professional and/or academic practices” [the quote is adapted from Xiang (2016, p. 55)]. Although we could almost be certain that John Dewey and Donald Schön (Sect. 2) would concur in this evidently pragmatist aphorism, it is in Frederick Steiner’s (2022) essay where we find ample examples that help substantiate its underlying learning-by-doing approach. Specifically, with competent examples, the essay illuminates precisely what some of the “ecophronetic things” are and demonstrates vividly how people can learn to be and actually become ecophronetic by literally doing those “ecophronetic things” mindfully and persistently. As such and in its own right, the essay presents us an instructive and inspirational case for ecophronesis without even using the term—what it is, why we need it, what the growth in ecophronesis requires, and how we can learn to be ecophronetic.

Journal writing is one of the four “ecophronetic things” the essay highlights along with moral improvisation, reflection on experience, and emulation of ecophronimoi [e.g., in this case, following in Ian McHarg’s footsteps (Steiner 2022, p. 419)]. As the practice of writing and reflecting on one’s thoughts, feelings and work-life experiences (English and Gillen 2001, p. 2), journal writing is closely connected to reflection and reflective practice (Boud 2001; Daudelin 1996, p. 42; Hiemstra 2001).Footnote 8 Within the context of socio-ecological practice and ecopracticology (Xiang 2019a), Frederick Steiner contends that “[w]riting (journals) is a form of reflection that can help capture what is learned from the experience, in essence, (it is) a type of ‘(socio-ecological) practice research.’” (Steiner 2022, p. 417; parentheses by myself) In fact, as a prolific writer, he has been writing reflectively over the past five decades and particularly in the last twenty-some years (e.g., Steiner 2004, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2022; Steiner et al. 1994, 2016); his literary corpus itself is a compelling testimony by an ecophronetic socio-ecological scholar-practitioner to the inclusion of journal writing on what we may call “the ecophronetic things to-do list”.

A pragmatic question then arises: Where can people publish their pieces of journal writing on socio-ecological practice and/or socio-ecological practice research? The answer is, the international transdisciplinary journal Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR). Why? Besides its fitting aims and scope, SEPR has one of its eleven article types specifically designed for journals. The article type reflective essays and intellectual (auto)biographies has been used favorably by SEPR authors (e.g., Cooke 2019; Douglas 2020a, 2020b; Forester 2022; Gagnon et al. 2022; Hu 2020; Ryan 2022; Steiner 2022; Zheng 2020) and journal writing pieces it conveyed have been well received by SEPR readers—measured by the sheer number of article downloads and citations. For more information, prospective authors can go to the journal’s website https://www.springer.com/journal/42532 or read the inaugural editorial “Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR): what does the journal have to offer?” (Xiang 2019d; https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-018-0001-y). A helpful editorial (Xiang 2020b) that explains why SEPR publishes people’s COVID-19 experience, observations, and reflections can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00066-z.

7 Making the process and the virtue meet

Finally, above all the convictions, what is my biggest takeaway from reading Frederick Steiner’s essay?

When the process socio-ecological practice and the virtue ecophronesis meet, the SEPR community receives benefits; But the source of benefits—the cozy symbiosis between the process and the virtue—does not form automatically; It takes cooperation and mutual give-and-take between the two (Sect. 4 and Table 1). We the members of the SEPR community, therefore, need to act proactively and mindfully to make that happen. How should we act? Do those four ecophronetic things in professional and/or academic practices—moral improvisation, reflection on experience, emulation of ecophronimoi, and journal writing—individually and/or collectively; and yes, publish with SEPR!