Content uploaded by Kai Niebert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kai Niebert on Apr 04, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Martin Schwichow
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Schwichow on Apr 02, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Kranz, J.; Schwichow, M.;
Breitenmoser, P.; Niebert, K. The
(Un)political Perspective on Climate
Change in Education—A Systematic
Review. Sustainability 2022,14, 4194.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074194
Academic Editors: Ute Harms
and Hanno Michel
Received: 28 February 2022
Accepted: 25 March 2022
Published: 1 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Systematic Review
The (Un)political Perspective on Climate Change in
Education—A Systematic Review
Johanna Kranz 1, * , Martin Schwichow 2, Petra Breitenmoser 3,4 and Kai Niebert 4, *
1Center of Excellence for Climate Change Impacts, Research Institute of Forest Ecology and Forestry
Rhineland-Palatinate, 67705 Trippstadt, Germany
2Department of Physics Education, University of Education Freiburg, 79117 Freiburg, Germany;
martin.schwichow@ph-freiburg.de
3Department of Primary Education, Zurich University of Teacher Education, 8090 Zurich, Switzerland;
petra.breitenmoser@phzh.ch
4Institute of Education, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland
*Correspondence: johanna.kranz@klimawandel-rlp.de (J.K.); kai.niebert@uzh.ch (K.N.)
Abstract:
Mitigating and adapting to climate change requires foundational changes in societies,
politics, and economies. Greater effectiveness has been attributed to actions in the public sphere than
to the actions of individuals. However, little is known about how climate literacy programs address
the political aspects of mitigation and adaptation. The aim of this systematic literature review is
to fill this gap and analyze how public-sphere actions on mitigation and adaptation are discussed
in climate literacy programs in schools. Based on database searches following PRISMA guidelines
we identified 75 empirical studies that met our inclusion criteria. We found that central aspects of
climate policy such as the 1.5-degree limit, the IPCC reports, or climate justice are rarely addressed.
Whilst responsibility for emissions is attributed to the public sphere, the debate about mitigation
usually focuses on the private sphere. Climate change education does not, therefore, correspond
to the climate research discourse. We show that effective mitigation and adaptation are based on
public-sphere actions and thus conclude that effective climate education should discuss those public
actions if it is to be effective. Hence, we propose that climate education should incorporate political
literacy to educate climate-literate citizens.
Keywords:
climate change education; climate literacy; climate change; sustainability education;
political education; literature review; private and public-sphere action; mitigation; adaptation;
climate justice
1. Introduction
The global climate crisis is probably the greatest social challenge of the 21st century
and dealing with it is the most important task for our societies and economies. An essential
step towards mastering this global challenge is meeting the agreements of the 2015 Paris
Climate Conference to limit global warming to 1.5
◦
C [
1
]. This requires prompt and
extensive efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change. Besides
mitigation measures, actions to adapt to climate change are crucial to make societies and
infrastructure as resilient as possible to both the existing and foreseeable consequences of
climate change. In this regard, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
provides regular scientific assessments on climate change and its implications as well as
mitigation and adaptation options. These overviews represent the state of knowledge
concerning climate change and are the key basis for international negotiations.
In IPCC reports (e.g., [
2
–
5
]) and political documents [
6
–
8
] on climate change, education
is considered to be of great importance for making societies and economies carbon-neutral
and resilient to the consequences of climate change. Education is seen as a key for changing
individual behaviors and for generating public support for—or at least an understanding
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074194 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 2 of 44
of—political measures taken to mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, little is
known about the extent to which climate education incorporates current debates around
the adaptation and mitigation strategies discussed, for example, by the IPCC, or whether
the role of international agreements (e.g., limiting global warming at 1.5
◦
C) are covered. In
this review, we fill this gap and analyze how climate change is taught as a “socioscientific
issue” [
9
–
12
] in different educational interventions for elementary and secondary school
students. Our goal is to find out how the “socio” and the “scientific” are connected in
current programs. To this end, we use a coding frame based on research findings on
environmental policy and political education to investigate how the political perspective of
climate mitigation and adaptation is currently addressed in climate change education.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Current State of the Climate Change Debate
The Earth’s climate was first physically modeled in the 1970s. This groundbreaking
scientific achievement allowed scientists to quantify variability in the climate and predict
the influence of human-induced greenhouse emissions on global warming (among [
13
]).
Despite over fifty years of evidence of anthropogenic climate change and its effects, the
global mean temperature has so far risen by 1.1
◦
C (
±
0.1
◦
C) compared to the pre-industrial
era [
14
]. An important step towards mastering this global crisis, set at the Paris Climate
Conference 2015, is to limit global warming to 1.5
◦
C until the end of the century in compar-
ison to the pre-industrial era. However, the recently published IPCC Report demonstrates
that to achieve this goal, climate neutrality, in terms of reaching net zero carbon emissions,
would have to be reached between 2030 and 2050 [
4
]. Despite these ambitious goals, climate
change research predicts that further increases in global temperatures are highly likely
until 2050, regardless of all the climate protection scenarios that have been considered [
4
,
5
].
This finding reflects the urgency in developing further measures to cope with and stop
global warming.
2.2. Mitigating Climate Change
Nevertheless, according to current scientific knowledge, drastic and irreversible cli-
mate changes can be prevented if we succeed in limiting the temperature rise to 1.5
◦
C
through mitigation measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [
4
,
8
]. These
mitigation measures must be implemented in all sectors of the economy (e.g., energy supply,
transportation, buildings, industry, agriculture, forestry, and waste management). One of
the greatest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by reducing energy-related carbon
dioxide emissions, mainly caused by burning fossil fuels. To do so, it is necessary to switch
to renewable energy sources instead of using coal and oil [15].
2.3. Adapting to Climate Change
As stated before, climate change is not just a challenge for the future. Due to the global
warming that already has taken place, the effects of climate change (such as the retreat
of glaciers and loss of ice, warming of the oceans, sea level rise, climate zones migrating
poleward, and increasing weather and climate extremes) are already tangible, with different
manifestations depending on the geographic location, infrastructure, demographics, and
numerous other factors, and will become even more apparent in the future [
5
]. Climate
scientists are increasingly able to attribute events such as heavy rain, heat waves, and
droughts to human caused climate change (e.g., [
16
–
18
]). These events have an enormous
impact on our ecosystems and their respective interactions and, hence, on humankind.
In a recent study Callaghan et al. report that almost 85% of the global population has
already experienced weather events enhanced by climate change. These weather extremes
lead, for example, to low ground water, flooding, erosion, agricultural damage, forest loss,
insufficient water supply, biodiversity loss, and human health issues including breathing
problems, mental illness, insect-borne diseases, and heatstrokes [
19
]. In particular, the
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 3 of 44
findings of a study by Vicedo-Cabrera et al. revealed that 37% of all heat deaths in the last
three decades would not have occurred without anthropogenic climate change [20].
Measures to adapt to the unavoidable consequences of climate change are necessary
to maintain our quality of life and to ensure sustainable risk management and provision for
the public. If adaptation measures are not taken in time there may be considerable negative
social, ecological, and economic consequences [
4
,
21
]. Adaptation strategies can take place
in many different domains (such as human health, soil, finances, industry and commerce,
transport, agriculture, and biodiversity). Some examples of adaptation measures are forest
rejuvenation, unsealing of surfaces, heat action plans, development of urban greenery,
cradle-to-cradle economy approaches, and disaster mitigation plans (e.g., [22]).
2.4. Climate Justice
The global climate crisis is not only a scientific issue but is also an issue of equity and
justice as it affects different social groups on different magnitudes [
23
]. Climate justice is
a normative concept that views anthropogenic climate change as an ethical and political
problem, rather than merely an environmental and technical challenge [
24
–
26
]. For the
purpose of this review, we describe climate justice along two central normative perspectives
(for a general review see Newell et al. [
23
]): (1) Intersectional inequity. Climate justice aims to
ensure that today’s unequal distribution of the consequences of global warming is balanced,
taking, for example, into account the “polluter pays” principle [
4
,
27
], since populations
that contribute least to climate change often suffer its consequences most severely and are
least prepared [
7
,
28
]. This is also described with the term MAPA, meaning “Most Affected
People and Areas”, which describes areas and regions that are the least responsible for the
climate crisis, but are the ones who suffer the most from its consequences. Furthermore,
climate justice includes not only allocating the greenhouse gas emissions, leading to global
warming proportionately among all people worldwide, but also taking historical emissions
as well as recent emissions per capita into account [
29
]. (2) Intergenerational inequality. If
the planet continues to warm on its current trajectory, the average 6-year old will live
through roughly three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents. They will see
twice as many wildfires, 1.7 times as many tropical cyclones, 3.4 times more river floods,
2.5 times more crop failures, and 2.3 times as many droughts as someone born in 1960.
Today’s children will be exposed to an average of five times more disasters than if they
lived 150 years ago [30].
Members of this young generation took action regarding these future prospects in the
“Fridays For Future” grassroots movement over the last three years and contributed to the
climate change discourse [
31
–
34
]. Within this climate movement climate justice is a central
concept, evidenced by claims such as “What do we want? Climate Justice!” in official
documents and in the global demonstrations of the Fridays for Future movement [
35
]. In
the light of the debate about climate justice, the German Federal Constitutional Court [
36
]
has demanded substantial emission-reduction measures until 2030, because the climate
protection act irreversibly postpones high burdens for reducing emissions until after 2030.
In order to still achieve the climate targets limiting global warming to 2
◦
C as planned,
and, if possible, to 1.5 ◦C, the reductions that would then still be necessary would have to
be made even more urgently and at shorter notice. Practically every freedom would be
potentially affected by these obligations and this would be at the expense of the younger
generation and would violate their freedom rights. Therefore, the climate protection act
was determined to be unconstitutional and thus in need of revision.
2.5. Climate Change Education
As children, adolescents, and young adults are those who are the most affected by
climate change, they must be encouraged at an early stage to recognize climate-related
risks and possible actions. This results in an urgency for learners at all school levels to deal
with this significant challenge to both their present and future living environment [
6
,
37
,
38
].
Against this backdrop, the competencies of this young target group to assess, act, and shape
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 4 of 44
the future is a necessary and crucial element of climate literacy [
39
–
41
]. In
many—often
political—documents, education is described as a key factor in promoting these compe-
tencies by creating an awareness of climate-relevant problems, teaching knowledge about
these problems, and promoting the competencies to mitigate and adapt to them [
42
]. In
recent years, many programs and studies have been conducted with the aim of enhancing
the climate literacy of citizens and students. The findings of these programs and studies
have been summarized by three recent reviews with distinct foci of analysis. In a systematic
review, Monroe et al. summarized the findings of 49 intervention studies on identifying
effective climate change education. They report that successful interventions commonly
focus on personally relevant information and the use of active and engaging teaching
methods [
43
]. Jorgenson et al. analyzed 70 papers on environmental and energy education
in order to find out how climate change and necessary innovations in energy systems are
related in climate education. They found that most interventions focus on personal or
local energy efficiency to mitigate climate change but that only three studies promoted
public actions such as community wind parks [
44
]. The most recent and extensive review
by Bhattacharya et al. describes students’ and teachers’ conceptions and beliefs as well as
teaching practices in the context of climate education by summarizing 178 empirical studies.
A main finding of their review is that research on climate education focuses primarily on
core concepts, such as the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle, and resource availability, but
that they avoid explicitly addressing the political aspects of climate change [45].
2.6. Pro-Environmental Attitudes
As well as conceptions about climate change, attitudes to, and perceptions of, climate
change are often discussed as relevant to the initiation of mitigation and adaptation actions.
Studies on students’ environmental attitudes show that awareness of climate issues is
meanwhile widespread among young people. Their climate awareness is very clearly
characterized by a global and long-term perspective [
46
]. Many young people in the early
industrialized countries consider fundamental changes in the economy and society to be
necessary and place the onus here on the state. They expect targeted legal measures from the
state to protect the environment and adapt to climate change impacts. With regard to their
own behavior, they are contradictory: on one hand, they want to act ecologically and be
socially responsible; on the other hand, they often do not want to cut back on consumption
of, for example, electrical and entertainment technology [
47
]. Behavioral changes toward
a more sustainable lifestyle are processes that have been extensively studied in the social
sciences (e.g., [
48
–
51
]). Attitudes towards, and knowledge of, the respective topics are
elaborated as essential characteristics for climate and environmental action. With regard to
climate issues, however, a complex picture emerges: 94% of Europeans consider protecting
the environment important to them personally, and 56% consider it very important [
52
].
There is also high public support for sustainable action: 93% of German citizens agree that
nature should only be used in a way that safeguards biodiversity and preserves nature
for future generations [
53
]. A survey conducted by UNDP [
54
] that covers 50 countries
with 56% of the world’s population showed that independently from the region, people see
the planet in a climate emergency, demanding for more ambitions politics to fight global
warming (Western Europe and North America: 72%; Eastern Europe and Central Asia: 65%;
Arab States: 64%; Latin America and Caribbean: 63%; Asia and Pacific: 63%; sub-Saharan
Africa: 61%). Moreover, in countries with high emissions from land-use change, there is
strong support for conserving forests and land. In high emitting countries, people demand
renewable energy policies in eight of ten countries.
These results indicate that there is already a high level of environmental aware-
ness. People are aware of environmental challenges, they have pro-environment and
pro-sustainability attitudes, and they support political action for a sustainable future. The
central challenge, however, seems different: How can climate awareness lead to stringent
climate action? Taken together, the literature shows that the majority of intervention studies
on climate change education promote students’ conceptual understanding of the causes
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 5 of 44
and consequences of climate change and individual strategies to mitigate climate change.
Additionally, we see that in countries around the world, awareness of environmental issues
and pro-environmental attitudes can be found.
2.7. From Climate Change to Climate Policies
All governments in the industrialized world face the demand for a rapid transforma-
tion of their societies into a carbon-neutral world, where no more greenhouse gasses are
emitted than are captured and adaptation measures are taking place. The central means by
which governments respond to such demands are through the adoption of effective climate
policies [
55
]. Common policy approaches range from regulation (e.g., how much CO
2
is
a car allowed to emit) via subsidies (e.g., programs to promote renewable energies or the
insulation of buildings) to market-based mechanisms (e.g., emissions trading). Moreover,
no major document on climate change gets by without mentioning the central role of
education in creating a more sustainable future (for example [
56
], but also [
2
]). A key
question, therefore, is: What is the impact of policy instruments and education programs in
particular on greenhouse-gas emissions?
Many educational programs aim to change students’ individual behavior by promot-
ing awareness of the consequences of climate change. However, findings from a study [
57
],
in which people’s resource consumption and environmental awareness were examined,
challenge this view. The respondents were grouped according to income, lifestyle, and
values. One would expect that a high level of environmental awareness would be followed
by a lower consumption of resources. The data show a negative correlation between en-
vironmental consciousness and environmentally sensible behavior. People with a high
in environmental consciousness had a bigger carbon footprint than those indicating less
environmental awareness. The study revealed that environmental impacts are best pre-
dicted by people’s income level and not by their attitudes. From the results it can be
deduced that strategies to reduce resource consumption should start in the well-educated
middle and upper classes, as the reduction potentials are particularly high there. However,
the data also show that to reduce resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,
appealing to responsibility towards the environment is not an effective strategy [
58
]. There
is little to no evidence that pro-environmental attitudes, awareness, or perceptions lead to
climate-friendly behaviors. Gatersleben et al. [
59
] come to similar results in the UK when
showing that people with high environmental concerns often also hold high materialistic
values. These findings are also reflected in a study conducted by Stern who classified
behaviors that had a positive impact on the environment and assessed different theories
of environmentalism [
60
]. When summarizing evidence on the factors that determine
environmentally significant behavior Stern found that the more important a behavior is in
terms of its environmental impact, the less it depends on attitudinal variables, including
environmental concern [
60
]. If behavior change is not driven by knowledge we must ask:
What, then, should be the goal of climate literacy education?
With a look into the history of environmental policy by the examples of stopping the
depletion of stratospheric ozone, the abandonment of nuclear power, and the improvement
of air quality in Europe, Niebert [
61
] argues that all major ecological challenges have not
been solved by individual behavioral changes or by “ecologically responsible” consump-
tion, but by political regulations. Further evidence for this claim comes from an analysis
of the air pollutant emissions of 14 OECD countries over a period of 25 years (1990 to
2014; [
62
]). Steinenbach analyzed the effectiveness of different policies in improving the
quality of the environment. The study revealed that only command-and-control regulations
or technical standards are associated with reductions in air pollutant emissions. Softer
instruments such as market- and information-based policies or educational programs were
found to have no significant influence on reducing emissions of air pollutants [
62
]. A
similar conclusion was reached by the IPCC in 2007, which found little evidence that
information-based policies have achieved significant reductions in emissions beyond busi-
ness as usual [
2
]. Chawla and Cushing, thus, argue that the most effective action is political
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 6 of 44
engagement: People cannot purchase energy efficient cars, use public transportation, or
travel on bikeways, for example, unless businesses and governments make these choices
available in the first place [
63
]. With this argument in mind, it is obviously not enough for
climate change education to support climate-friendly actions: It needs to emphasize the
most strategic actions. This issue has also been raised by Stern who distinguishes between
‘private-sphere actions’ and ‘public-sphere actions’ [60]:
Private-sphere actions consist of a personal awareness to the purchase, use, and disposal
of personal and household products that impact the environment. Behavior in the private
sphere differs from environmental behavior in the public sphere in that it has a direct
impact on the environment. However, the environmental impact of each individual’s
personal behavior is small.
Public-sphere actions range from different kinds of environmental citizenship (e.g.,
petitioning on environmental issues, donating to environmental organizations, discussions
with politicians, support or acceptance of environmental regulations, and willingness to pay
higher environmental taxes) to activistic action such as active participation in environmental
organizations and organizing demonstrations (e.g., climate strikes).
Some behaviors, such as saving energy at home or traveling by bike—which are often
targeted in educational programs—directly cause a reduction in the overuse of natural
resources [
64
]. Other environmental actions have a more indirect impact by shaping
the context in which choices are made that directly cause environmental change. For
example, behaviors that promote environmental and taxation policies usually have greater
environmental impact in comparison to behaviors that directly change the environment.
As a consequence, Gardner and Stern [
65
] argue that although private actions for the
environment are important, the most effective actions are public actions, when people
organize to pressure government and industry. The role of public-sphere actions in climate
policy is underpinned in a study by Nash and Steurer [
66
], who analyzed the emergence
of climate change acts as a key legislative tool to mitigate climate change. They found
that governments are more likely to adopt strong climate change acts when heightened
attention at the discursive level politicize public climate debates. The overarching climate
discourse had an even greater influence on the ambition of climate change legislation in the
form of climate acts than the political orientation of governments. Based on these findings
we argue that the development of political socialization and civic action regarding climate
change is highly relevant to effective climate literacy. Therefore, we need to identify which
conditions should be promoted to foster students’ interest and engagement in public issues
regarding climate change.
2.8. Climate Literacy as Political Literacy
In terms of tackling climate change, climate literacy could make an essential con-
tribution, as political decisions for climate actions need citizens’ support in democratic
societies, but what is the appropriate grain size for education? How much do citizens
need to know in order to make informed decisions or to support political measures in a
democratic society? Do we need to understand the radiation budget, the electron transport
chain in photosynthesis, transpiration coefficients, or even the absorption spectrum of
CO
2
in order to meet the planetary load limits? Bord et al. [
67
] have shown that misun-
derstanding environmental changes and their causes leads to a decline in public support
for a committed environmental policy. If, for example, climate change is attributed to the
ozone hole, and this hole is closing, why should climate protection still be pursued? Thus, a
basic understanding of sustainability-related issues is probably less important in terms of
personal choices, but more important in terms of enabling political participation [68].
Empirical findings from both educational research and climate research show that
people in the developed regions such as Europe [
69
] and the US [
70
] already have a high
level of climate consciousness, but that the opportunities for, and influence of, personal
behavior changes are limited. For the improvement of effective climate action, political
measures on local as well as global levels, such as emission caps and the removal of
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 7 of 44
subsidies for fossil fuels, are more important. Moreover, Dalelo [
71
] points out that—
especially for countries in the Global South—professionals with political climate skills are
needed to negotiate effective measures for climate protection and adaptation. In that sense,
climate literacy education can contribute by strengthening the ability of students to engage
in political participation and enable them to question the mechanisms that have led to the
climate crisis. Overall, democracy is enhanced when people are able to evaluate and address
issues such as the climate crisis in an informed manner and a
solution-oriented way [72,73].
Waldron et al. show in their exploratory study that most of the teachers and trainee
teachers they interviewed conceptualize climate change as a physical–geographical process
and focus on individual private actions [
74
]. In contrast, environmental specialists focus
on a transdisciplinary conceptualization of climate change, requiring an understanding of
ecological, ethical, social, economic, and political factors [
74
,
75
]. Effective climate change
education not only needs the integration of the ethical, social, and economic perspectives
of climate change, but the political perspective as well.
There are many factors in fostering students’ democratic competences that lie outside
the influence of schools and science educators, such as the sociodemographic status of
their parents [
76
], parents’ political engagement [
77
,
78
], or an authoritative (democratic)
parenting style [
79
]. Nevertheless, education in both formal and informal settings plays a
central role in the development of political competences as young people need opportunities
to practice collaborative decision making in everyday life, such as in school or after-school
activities, youth organizations, etc. [80,81]. Research has shown that teachers who use the
following approaches have a high potential to foster an active citizenship:
•
Connecting curricular content with current events, such as social, economic, and
justice issues, is a primary factor associated with students’ political interest, activity
and sense of political efficacy [82–86].
•
Engaging with public issues at the local level, where students can see democratic
processes in action and observe the effects of their contributions [83,87,88].
•
Creating opportunities for a discussion of public issues in the classroom. In particular,
fostering deliberative discussions with a change in perspectives helps discussants
better understand their own and others’ viewpoints [43,89].
•
Fostering a political understanding, which means knowledge about political institu-
tions as well as knowledge of current political events (for example climate conferences,
legislative reforms on energy issues, etc.) [84,90–95].
3. Objectives
Recent research on climate literacy and environmental education has shown that
many programs focus on conveying factual information about climate science and related
scientific competences. To meet the potential of educational interventions to mitigate
climate change, adapt to its impacts, and address climate justice matters, it is essential
to provide students with knowledge about the political perspective of climate change
and empower them to participate in politics. Therefore, we investigated the following
research question:
How do current educational intervention studies on climate literacy incorporate the
political perspective of mitigation and adaptation on climate change?
We analyze how greenhouse gas emissions are connected to different sectors in the
educational materials, which private- and public-sphere mitigation and adaptation strate-
gies are mentioned, and what policy regulation options are referred to. Furthermore, we
analyze which actions in the public sphere (i.e., active discussion, reflection on one’s own
and others perspectives, discussions about climate justice, etc.) can be found.
4. Materials and Methods
As the previous reviews by Bhattacharya et al. [
45
], Jorgenson et al. [
44
], and
Monroe et al. [43]
focus on climate change education (albeit without explicitly investi-
gating the political perspective of climate change), their analyzed literature built the initial
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 8 of 44
base of our data set. To extend and update the data set, we also conducted a new database
search. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis
(PRISMA) checklist, which provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews in order to
comply with standards and enhance transparency and replicability [
96
]. All publications
included in the analysis were read several times by the authors and were reviewed with
respect to the inclusion criteria. Next, the coding scheme we developed, which specifically
focuses on the political perspective of climate change education, was applied to analyze
the original studies in accordance with the research question.
4.1. Search Procedure
Initially, all publications analyzed by Bhattacharya et al. [
45
] (n = 178),
Jorgenson et al. [44]
(n = 70), and Monroe et al. [
43
] (n = 49) were included in our sample of potentially relevant
publications. The 297 references were added to a dataset in Zotero.
To avoid overlooking relevant articles, especially as there has been increased attention
on the topic in the last few years, an additional database search was conducted to detect
recently published articles that were not part of the previous reviews.
For the database search we selected databases that represent different disciplines that
address climate change education, science education, and psychology: Education Resource
Center (ERIC) by the US Department of Education (educational science), PsychINFO by the
American Psychological Association (psychology), and Web of Science by Thomson Reuters
(social and natural sciences, humanities). All databases were searched on the 21 December
2021. To obtain relevant articles, the following search criteria were used: (1) relevant search
terms were used; (2) the publications were peer reviewed; (3) the publications were articles;
(4) the articles were written in English; and (5) the articles were published after 2017 (with
the goal to extend the data set originating from the prior reviews [
43
–
45
] and to include
articles published most recently).
Keywords for the database search were selected to include all potential articles relevant
to the objectives of the literature review and also to target the same relevant samples as the
prior reviews [
43
–
45
]. Therefore, the selection of keywords was based on the keywords used
in the previous reviews and only expanded by three additional terms. First, the search term
“climate literacy” was added, as this construct refers to people’s specific knowledge about
climate change, as well as their abilities and attitudes relevant to taking action regarding
climate change [
39
–
41
]. The search terms “political participation” and “participation” were
also used, as we set a specific focus on the political perspective of, and action towards,
climate change. Accordingly, the keywords chosen for the literature search were:
Climate change OR global warming OR climate literacy AND environmental edu-
cation OR education for sustainability OR education for sustainable development OR
conservation education OR climate change education OR climate education OR sustainabil-
ity education OR ecology education OR energy education OR non-formal education OR
climate change education OR climate education OR climate change science education OR
climate change STEM education OR climate change education research OR participation
OR political participation.
The database search yielded 1245 records (ERIC: 301; PsychINFO: 586; WebofScience:
358), plus 297 records from the previous reviews, which we collated and de-duplicated in
Zotero. After de-duplication, 1441 unique records remained. For the analysis we conducted
a two-step approach: First, all articles retrieved for inclusion in the review were screened
based on their title and abstract to exclude articles not related to the study objectives.
Next, we assessed the full-text articles to select eligible articles based on the following
inclusion criteria:
1.
Topic. Studies were included if the topic was climate change. Studies were excluded if
the topic did not relate to the objectives of the literature review (e.g., self-determination
in the health domain).
2.
Population. Studies were included if participants were elementary and/or secondary
school students and the study took place in formal education (e.g., school, excursion
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 9 of 44
or field trips out of school). If the information about the educational setting was not
given in the article, the criteria of school age (6 to 20 years) was applied. All other
populations were excluded.
3.
Type of study. We included articles that presented empirical data. Theoretical papers,
descriptions of activities, or curriculum analyses were excluded. We included studies
with a pre- and post-test, only a post-test, randomized trials (experimental studies)
and cluster-randomized trials (quasi-experimental studies). We would have also
included cross-over trials, but we found none. We only included studies in English.
4.
Type of intervention. We included studies consisting of defined intervention condi-
tions that explicitly aimed to provide students with knowledge about climate change,
knowledge about mitigation and adaptation strategies, or to encourage students to
actively take action in the public or private sphere related to climate change. These
interventions could be, for example, energy conservation projects or the application
of climate kits with experiments, as long as they targeted climate change education.
Additionally, we only included studies in which it was possible to determine whether
changes in the students’ knowledge or behavior were due to the intervention. There-
fore, solely longitudinal studies (for example, studies investigating the development
of attitudes and behaviors towards climate change) that did not describe a specific
intervention measure were excluded. Project studies were included because they took
place in a formal education.
In cases of discrepancies for any of these criteria, consensus was reached by discussion.
The included articles were then read several times, analyzed, and documented.
4.2. Data Analysis
The data analysis was based on an already existing analysis grid by Adamina et al. [
97
],
which was developed specially for the analysis of journal articles and teaching materials
on climate change education and therefore seemed like an appropriate foundation for our
project. To address our research question, we adapted the analysis grid, with a specific
focus on the political perspective of climate change education (see Table 1for the coding
scheme). To do so, we operationalized climate change mitigation and adaptation measures
using Stern’s [
53
] conceptual framework of environmentally significant behavior, which
distinguishes between “private sphere actions” and “public-sphere actions.” The authors
and two trained research assistants have experience in climate change education (both as
practitioners and researchers). The category system was constructed based on literature
(e.g., [
4
,
5
]), as demonstrated in other reviews [
43
,
98
] and on the adaption of Stern’s ter-
minology [
53
]. Overall, the categories were built deductively and were complemented
inductively with specific anchor examples using methods for qualitative data analysis [
99
]
and qualitative content analysis [
100
,
101
]. Additionally, the data analysis was guided
by the results section of the checklist used for reporting systematic reviews [
96
], which
included the reporting of study characteristics, sample characteristics, and study results.
We developed a standardized data extraction form (using an Excel spreadsheet) to extract
study characteristics and to document the categorizations of the analysis, which allowed a
semi-quantitative content analysis (e.g., frequency of intervention characteristics). The stan-
dardized form, including the coding scheme, was pilot tested by all study team members
using nine randomly selected studies. Team members worked independently to analyze
the intervention details. Throughout the coding process the team members discussed a
sample of studies representative of the evidence base. The decisions made with respect to
this sample were then applied across the reviewed literature. Coded data were compared
and categories were refined, with any discrepancies being resolved through discussion.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 10 of 44
Table 1. Coding scheme for the data analysis based on Adamina et al. [97].
Coding Category Description
Study Characteristics
Educational level
Samples were grouped into three categories: primary education
(grade 1–4), lower secondary education (grades 5–9), upper secondary
education (grades 10–13). If no grade levels are reported, we used
students’ ages or school descriptions to group the samples.
Subject
The school subject or discipline in which the intervention took place. If
the intervention took place in more than one school subject, the code
interdisciplinary was used. If the study is not related to a specific
subject this was coded as curriculum-independent.
Learning goals
Which of the following goals in relation to climate change
are addressed in the intervention?
The students . . .
. .. understand climate change. . . . discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or adaptation strategies
. .. reflect ethical aspects of climate change
. .. take action in mitigation and/or adaptation.
Relation of knowledge and action Does the intervention focus on knowledge about and/or action on
mitigation and adaptation strategies?
Which emission sectors are addressed?
Energy, transportation, agriculture and land use change, waste, industry
At which level and how are reasons
for greenhouse gas emissions addressed? private sphere (individual), public sphere (society, economy)
On which level and how are mitigation strategies addressed? Private sphere (individual), public sphere (society, economy), technical
sphere (scientific/technical concept but no actor is mentioned)
On which level and how are adaptation strategies addressed? Private sphere (individual), public sphere (society, economy), technical
sphere (scientific/technical concept but no actor is mentioned)
Which level of the political system is addressed? Individual, local, national, global
Which interest groups of the climate debate are addressed? Economy, politics, society, scientific community
Which public-sphere regulation strategies are addressed? Regulations, taxation, caps (emission trading), voluntary agreements
Which climate justice matters are addressed? Intergenerational/intersectional justice
5. Results
In the Results Section, we first describe the included studies, presenting a flowchart
of the search procedure and data analysis. Next, we give an overview of how the polit-
ical aspect of climate change was addressed in the interventions by describing findings
regarding the learning goals, interest groups, emission sectors, and policy instruments. We
then present results of in-depth analyses related to the sources of emissions and mitigation
strategies, and the consequences of emission and adaptation measures, as well as matters
of climate justice in the analyzed intervention studies. This section is followed by the
results focusing on public-sphere action on climate change. We end the Results Section by
presenting a typology that describes six types of interventions that differ regarding their
learning goals, teaching methods, and the assumed effects on students’ mitigation and
adaptation actions.
5.1. Description of Included Intervention Studies
The literature searches resulted in 1441 records. First, we screened titles and abstracts
and excluded records that did not portray the objectives of our review (n = 1151). In a second
step, we performed an in-depth analysis of the remaining records and their full text. Based
on the inclusion criteria we excluded papers that were (1) not related to the topic of climate
change education (n = 6; e.g., school class climate, physical activity participation), (2) related
to climate change education but not at school level (n = 145; e.g., university education,
science teacher education), (3) did not present empirical data (
n = 9;
e.g., curriculum
analysis, position papers), and (4) were not intervention studies
(n = 55;
e.g., longitudinal
studies). Our final data set comprised n = 75 articles that were obtained for further analysis
(see Figure 1). The 75 articles we retained for analysis were published between the adoption
of the Kyoto Protocol [
8
] in 1997 and 2021 (see Appendices Aand Bfor the coding of the
individual studies and their references).
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 11 of 44
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 51
Figure 1. Flowchart of the search procedure and data analysis used for the systematic literature
review, following PRISMA guidelines [96].
5.2. Overview of Intervention Characteristics
The 75 analyzed intervention studies are from 17 countries, with USA (n = 36), Ger-
many (n = 6), Australia (n = 5), Canada and Malaysia (both n = 4), Sweden and UK (both
n = 3), India, Israel, Italy, and Switzerland (each n = 2), and Columbia, Denmark, Greece,
Portugal, Taiwan, and Turkey (each n = 1) (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. World map showing the geographic distribution of the analyzed studies in the literature
review.
The majority of the climate education interventions took place at secondary school
level (n = 46) with 30 at lower secondary schools. Thirteen studies took place at elementary
school level (some studies incorporate students from multiple educational levels; see Fig-
ure 3a). Most of the interventions (n = 57) took place in science classes with only six inter-
ventions taking place in cross-curricular settings. Twelve were curriculum-independent
or whole school approaches (see Figure 3b). A focus on understanding was the most com-
mon learning goal (n = 47), followed by discussing adaptation and mitigation strategies
(n = 14) and the promotion of actions on mitigating and adapting to climate change (n =
Records identified from:
ERIC (n = 301)
PsychINFO (n = 586)
WebofScience (n = 358)
Duplicate records removed
before screening:
(n = 79)
Records screened
(n = 1166) Reports excluded:
Reason: Objectives (n = 1151)
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 15)
Reports excluded:
Reason 1: Topic (n = 4)
Reason 2: Population (n = 2)
Reason 3: Data (n = 1)
Reason 4: Intervention (n = 3)
Records identified from:
Bhattacharya et al. (2020; n = 178)
Jorgenson et al. (2019; n = 70)
Monroe et al. (2019; n = 49)
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 275)
Reports excluded:
Reason 1: Topic (n = 2)
Reason 2: Population (n = 143)
Reason 3: Data: (n = 8)
Reason 4: Intervention (n = 52)
Studies included in review
(n = 75)
Identification of studies via databases Identification of studies via previous reviews
Identification
ScreeningIncluded
Duplicate records removed before
screening:
(n = 22)
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the search procedure and data analysis used for the systematic literature
review, following PRISMA guidelines [96].
5.2. Overview of Intervention Characteristics
The 75 analyzed intervention studies are from 17 countries, with USA (n = 36),
Germany (n = 6),
Australia (n = 5), Canada and Malaysia (both n = 4), Sweden and UK
(both n = 3), India, Israel, Italy, and Switzerland (each n = 2), and Columbia, Denmark,
Greece, Portugal, Taiwan, and Turkey (each n = 1) (see Figure 2).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 51
Figure 1. Flowchart of the search procedure and data analysis used for the systematic literature
review, following PRISMA guidelines [96].
5.2. Overview of Intervention Characteristics
The 75 analyzed intervention studies are from 17 countries, with USA (n = 36), Ger-
many (n = 6), Australia (n = 5), Canada and Malaysia (both n = 4), Sweden and UK (both
n = 3), India, Israel, Italy, and Switzerland (each n = 2), and Columbia, Denmark, Greece,
Portugal, Taiwan, and Turkey (each n = 1) (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. World map showing the geographic distribution of the analyzed studies in the literature
review.
The majority of the climate education interventions took place at secondary school
level (n = 46) with 30 at lower secondary schools. Thirteen studies took place at elementary
school level (some studies incorporate students from multiple educational levels; see Fig-
ure 3a). Most of the interventions (n = 57) took place in science classes with only six inter-
ventions taking place in cross-curricular settings. Twelve were curriculum-independent
or whole school approaches (see Figure 3b). A focus on understanding was the most com-
mon learning goal (n = 47), followed by discussing adaptation and mitigation strategies
(n = 14) and the promotion of actions on mitigating and adapting to climate change (n =
Records identified from:
ERIC (n = 301)
PsychINFO (n = 586)
WebofScience (n = 358)
Duplicate records removed
before screening:
(n = 79)
Records screened
(n = 1166) Reports excluded:
Reason: Objectives (n = 1151)
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 15)
Reports excluded:
Reason 1: Topic (n = 4)
Reason 2: Population (n = 2)
Reason 3: Data (n = 1)
Reason 4: Intervention (n = 3)
Records identified from:
Bhattacharya et al. (2020; n = 178)
Jorgenson et al. (2019; n = 70)
Monroe et al. (2019; n = 49)
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 275)
Reports excluded:
Reason 1: Topic (n = 2)
Reason 2: Population (n = 143)
Reason 3: Data: (n = 8)
Reason 4: Intervention (n = 52)
Studies included in review
(n = 75)
Identification of studies via databases Identification of studies via previous reviews
Identification
ScreeningIncluded
Duplicate records removed before
screening:
(n = 22)
Figure 2.
World map showing the geographic distribution of the analyzed studies in the
literature review.
The majority of the climate education interventions took place at secondary school level
(n = 46) with 30 at lower secondary schools. Thirteen studies took place at elementary school
level (some studies incorporate students from multiple educational levels; see Figure 3a).
Most of the interventions (n = 57) took place in science classes with only six interventions
taking place in cross-curricular settings. Twelve were curriculum-independent or whole
school approaches (see Figure 3b). A focus on understanding was the most common
learning goal (n = 47), followed by discussing adaptation and mitigation strategies
(n = 14)
and the promotion of actions on mitigating and adapting to climate change (n = 16). The
discussion of moral or ethical aspects of climate change is a central goal in three of the
analyzed interventions (see Figure 3c).
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 12 of 44
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 51
16). The discussion of moral or ethical aspects of climate change is a central goal in three
of the analyzed interventions (see Figure 3c).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3. Intervention characteristics of the analyzed studies, including the educational level of the
sample, the subject the intervention was based on and its learning goals: (a) Educational level; (b)
Subject; (c) Learning goals. Note. The educational level does not add up to 75 because some studies
incorporate students from multiple educational levels.
The interest groups addressed within the interventions were society (n = 29), science
(n = 6), politics (n = 8), and economy (n = 4) (see Figure 4a). The level of action to mitigate
climate change (Figure 4b) is focused equally on the individual (n = 10), national (n = 9),
and international (n = 10) level, while the local level is comparatively underrepresented
(n = 5). When it comes to policy instruments discussed to mitigate climate change, nearly
all strategies focus on voluntary agreements (n = 21), while regulatory instruments are
only mentioned three times, while environmental taxes or emission trading are not men-
tioned at all (Figure 4c). Responsibility for the emissions (Figure 4d) is, if mentioned at all,
mainly attributed to actors in the public sphere (n = 25), whereas individuals (private
sphere; n = 8) are mentioned infrequently. Scientific or technical concepts are addressed
just twice. Mitigation strategies (Figure 4e) are most often addressed in the private sphere
(n = 29), followed by the technical sphere (n = 9), whereas the public sphere (e.g., political
or societal actors) is mentioned rarely (n = 5). The same pattern arises in interventions on
adaptation strategies, which, if addressed at all, load into the private sphere (n = 9) and
technical sphere (n = 4), while the public sphere is only mentioned in one study (Figure
4f).
(a) (b) (c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 4. Analysis of the educational interventions for different characteristics of the political per-
spective: (a) Interest groups (n = 47); (b) Level of action (n = 34); (c) Responsibility (n = 35); (d) Policy
Instruments (n = 24); (e) Mitigation (n = 43); (f) Adaptation (n = 14). Note. The characteristics do not
add up to 75 because they apply not to all studies.
Figure 3.
Intervention characteristics of the analyzed studies, including the educational level of
the sample, the subject the intervention was based on and its learning goals: (
a
) Educational level;
(b) Subject;
(
c
) Learning goals. Note. The educational level does not add up to 75 because some
studies incorporate students from multiple educational levels.
The interest groups addressed within the interventions were society (n = 29), science
(n = 6), politics (n = 8), and economy (n = 4) (see Figure 4a). The level of action to mitigate
climate change (Figure 4b) is focused equally on the individual (n = 10), national (n = 9),
and international (n = 10) level, while the local level is comparatively underrepresented
(n = 5).
When it comes to policy instruments discussed to mitigate climate change, nearly
all strategies focus on voluntary agreements (n = 21), while regulatory instruments are only
mentioned three times, while environmental taxes or emission trading are not mentioned
at all (Figure 4c). Responsibility for the emissions (Figure 4d) is, if mentioned at all, mainly
attributed to actors in the public sphere (n = 25), whereas individuals (private sphere;
n = 8)
are mentioned infrequently. Scientific or technical concepts are addressed just twice.
Mitigation strategies (Figure 4e) are most often addressed in the private sphere (n = 29),
followed by the technical sphere (n = 9), whereas the public sphere (e.g., political or societal
actors) is mentioned rarely (n = 5). The same pattern arises in interventions on adaptation
strategies, which, if addressed at all, load into the private sphere (n = 9) and technical
sphere (n = 4), while the public sphere is only mentioned in one study (Figure 4f).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 51
16). The discussion of moral or ethical aspects of climate change is a central goal in three
of the analyzed interventions (see Figure 3c).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3. Intervention characteristics of the analyzed studies, including the educational level of the
sample, the subject the intervention was based on and its learning goals: (a) Educational level; (b)
Subject; (c) Learning goals. Note. The educational level does not add up to 75 because some studies
incorporate students from multiple educational levels.
The interest groups addressed within the interventions were society (n = 29), science
(n = 6), politics (n = 8), and economy (n = 4) (see Figure 4a). The level of action to mitigate
climate change (Figure 4b) is focused equally on the individual (n = 10), national (n = 9),
and international (n = 10) level, while the local level is comparatively underrepresented
(n = 5). When it comes to policy instruments discussed to mitigate climate change, nearly
all strategies focus on voluntary agreements (n = 21), while regulatory instruments are
only mentioned three times, while environmental taxes or emission trading are not men-
tioned at all (Figure 4c). Responsibility for the emissions (Figure 4d) is, if mentioned at all,
mainly attributed to actors in the public sphere (n = 25), whereas individuals (private
sphere; n = 8) are mentioned infrequently. Scientific or technical concepts are addressed
just twice. Mitigation strategies (Figure 4e) are most often addressed in the private sphere
(n = 29), followed by the technical sphere (n = 9), whereas the public sphere (e.g., political
or societal actors) is mentioned rarely (n = 5). The same pattern arises in interventions on
adaptation strategies, which, if addressed at all, load into the private sphere (n = 9) and
technical sphere (n = 4), while the public sphere is only mentioned in one study (Figure
4f).
(a) (b) (c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 4. Analysis of the educational interventions for different characteristics of the political per-
spective: (a) Interest groups (n = 47); (b) Level of action (n = 34); (c) Responsibility (n = 35); (d) Policy
Instruments (n = 24); (e) Mitigation (n = 43); (f) Adaptation (n = 14). Note. The characteristics do not
add up to 75 because they apply not to all studies.
Figure 4.
Analysis of the educational interventions for different characteristics of the political
perspective: (
a
) Interest groups (n = 47); (
b
) Level of action (n = 34); (
c
) Responsibility (n = 35);
(
d
) Policy Instruments (n = 24); (
e
) Mitigation (n = 43); (
f
) Adaptation (n = 14). Note. The characteristics
do not add up to 75 because they apply not to all studies.
5.3. Addressing Sources of Emissions and Mitigation Strategies
As an indicator of how the analyzed studies reflect debates within climate science and
climate politics on mitigating climate change, we evaluated how the sources of greenhouse
gas emissions were connected to different sectors in the interventions. We examined how
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 13 of 44
the emission sectors addressed in the studies’ interventions corresponded to the sectoral
emissions identified by the IPCC [
4
] (Figure 5). Our analysis shows that only 47 of the
75 studies analyzed mention concrete emission sources such as electricity, heat, transport,
agriculture, etc. In the majority of the studies, “CO
2
emissions” are only mentioned
abstractly without assigning them to a concrete source. This does not necessarily mean
that emission sources were not addressed in the interventions, but they were not reported,
which at least may indicate the relevance attributed by the study authors to these aspects.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 51
5.3. Addressing Sources of Emissions and Mitigation Strategies
As an indicator of how the analyzed studies reflect debates within climate science
and climate politics on mitigating climate change, we evaluated how the sources of green-
house gas emissions were connected to different sectors in the interventions. We exam-
ined how the emission sectors addressed in the studies’ interventions corresponded to the
sectoral emissions identified by the IPCC [4] (Figure 5). Our analysis shows that only 47
of the 75 studies analyzed mention concrete emission sources such as electricity, heat,
transport, agriculture, etc. In the majority of the studies, “CO
2
emissions” are only men-
tioned abstractly without assigning them to a concrete source. This does not necessarily
mean that emission sources were not addressed in the interventions, but they were not
reported, which at least may indicate the relevance attributed by the study authors to
these aspects.
Figure 5. Comparison of emission sectors in interventions and IPCC emission data [102].
Energy. A more detailed analysis of emission sources in the 47 studies that mention
specific sources reveals that energy-related emissions are named in all of them, mostly in
connection with fossil fuels. There is no further differentiation within the sectors (e.g.,
whether energy is used for electricity or heat generation, or whether the emissions come
from buildings or industry). The emphasis on the energy sector is consistent with its iden-
tification as central by the IPCC [4]. In only a few of the studies [103–106] are consistency
measures (expansion of renewable energies) discussed in addition to sufficiency measures
(energy savings). Efficiency measures (energy efficiency) are not mentioned. There is no
differentiated consideration of renewable energies (e.g., wind, hydroelectric, or solar
power) in any of the interventions, or of any political, social, or economic strategies for
promoting the transformation of the energy sector (support programs, carbon pricing,
bans, etc.). Four studies discuss nuclear power as a green energy technology [107–110],
but do not discuss the lifespan of CO
2
emissions in comparison to nuclear energy (when
extracting uranium) or other environmental consequences (e.g., nuclear waste disposal).
Transportation. The second most frequently cited source of emissions is the transpor-
tation sector. This is hardly surprising as transport offers great potential for individual
behavioral changes. Here, too, the number of interventions (15%; e.g., [111–113] roughly
corresponds to the relative magnitude of emissions identified by the IPCC (16%). In addi-
tion to sufficiency measures (e.g., traveling by bicycle instead of car, by train instead of
plane), consistency measures (e-mobility) are mentioned in only a few studies [114]. Effi-
ciency measures (more fuel-efficient cars) are not discussed.
Waste. The waste sector is clearly disproportionately represented in the interventions
in terms of its relevance to climate politics. Waste is mentioned in about 18% of the sector-
differentiating studies, mostly in connection with individual recycling strategies [114–116]
or waste collection. According to the IPCC, only 3% of emissions are attributable to waste,
which is not negligible but may be lower in priority than other sectors.
Figure 5. Comparison of emission sectors in interventions and IPCC emission data [102].
Energy. A more detailed analysis of emission sources in the 47 studies that mention
specific sources reveals that energy-related emissions are named in all of them, mostly
in connection with fossil fuels. There is no further differentiation within the sectors (e.g.,
whether energy is used for electricity or heat generation, or whether the emissions come
from buildings or industry). The emphasis on the energy sector is consistent with its identi-
fication as central by the IPCC [
4
]. In only a few of the studies [
103
–
106
] are consistency
measures (expansion of renewable energies) discussed in addition to sufficiency measures
(energy savings). Efficiency measures (energy efficiency) are not mentioned. There is no
differentiated consideration of renewable energies (e.g., wind, hydroelectric, or solar power)
in any of the interventions, or of any political, social, or economic strategies for promoting
the transformation of the energy sector (support programs, carbon pricing, bans, etc.). Four
studies discuss nuclear power as a green energy technology [
107
–
110
], but do not discuss
the lifespan of CO
2
emissions in comparison to nuclear energy (when extracting uranium)
or other environmental consequences (e.g., nuclear waste disposal).
Transportation. The second most frequently cited source of emissions is the trans-
portation sector. This is hardly surprising as transport offers great potential for individual
behavioral changes. Here, too, the number of interventions (15%; e.g., [
111
–
113
] roughly
corresponds to the relative magnitude of emissions identified by the IPCC (16%). In ad-
dition to sufficiency measures (e.g., traveling by bicycle instead of car, by train instead
of plane), consistency measures (e-mobility) are mentioned in only a few studies [
114
].
Efficiency measures (more fuel-efficient cars) are not discussed.
Waste. The waste sector is clearly disproportionately represented in the interventions
in terms of its relevance to climate politics. Waste is mentioned in about 18% of the sector-
differentiating studies, mostly in connection with individual recycling strategies [
114
–
116
]
or waste collection. According to the IPCC, only 3% of emissions are attributable to waste,
which is not negligible but may be lower in priority than other sectors.
Agriculture and land use change. Deforestation as a form of land-use change also plays
a role in nearly 11% of interventions, which is significantly overrepresented compared to
2% of the emissions from deforestation. Other agricultural emissions (livestock, meat pro-
duction) are mentioned in a minority of studies [
109
,
117
,
118
]. Other agricultural emissions
(e.g., land-use change, peatlands) are not mentioned in any study.
Industrial emissions. Nearly 30% of the global CO
2
is emitted by industry, 24% thereof
by energy-intensive processes (e.g., steel production or the production of fertilizers) and
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 14 of 44
more than 5% as a byproduct of chemical conversion processes (e.g., production of ce-
ment or ammonia) [
4
]. None of these emissions are referred to in the interventions we
analyzed. Usually only generic phrases, such as emissions from “industry”, are used in
the interventions.
5.4. Addressing Consequences of Emission and Adaptation Measures
Both mitigation and adaptation are essential responses to climate change. Here, we
evaluate how the adaptation of societies and individuals to the consequences of climate
change are addressed in the publications we analyzed.
Bofferding and Kloser [
111
] report that secondary school students often confuse miti-
gation with adaptation behaviors and do not recognize measures to reduce the vulnerability
to the effects of climate change. The authors propose not only to give explicit instruction
about adaptation measures in class, but also recommend discussing the relationships be-
tween sufficient adaptation measures and the amount of emitted greenhouse gasses. We
did not find any interventions that explicitly took up these recommendations. Our analysis
shows that of the 75 publications, only 18 mention adaptation measures (in contrast to the
47 studies that address emission sources). Although most studies focus on private-sphere
adaptation measures (n = 9), such as the preparation of the household for extreme events
or collecting rainwater, technical concepts of adaptation, such as efficient irrigation, are
mentioned only four times, and public-sphere adaptation measures (i.e., regional adap-
tation plans) are mentioned only once. Adaptation measures for key risks are described
with respect to the following sectors: ecosystems [
119
–
123
], agriculture [
123
], drinking
water [
124
], public health [
123
], communities [
111
,
123
,
125
], security/poverty [
126
], and
extreme weather events [121,127].
One impressive study focusing on anticipatory adaptation responses that are based
on future climate change projections for South Australia is presented by Bardsley and
Bardsley [
119
]. Their approach provides students with the challenge of generating ideas
for the hypothetical development of a caravan park in response to projected impacts of
climate change, including increased hot spells, sea-level rise, reduced water availability,
increasing bushfire, and floods. An example of such a planning decision is to build barriers
to stop the floods and so to reduce damage to the caravan park and reduce erosion as a
consequence of the predicted higher frequency of storm surges and flooding events. In
another interesting study, Nussbaum et al. [
121
] take reactive adaptation options to already
existing consequences into account. The authors present an educational game in which
students explore various household or community options in the light of the effects of
climate change on the water level of Lake Mead in the southwestern U.S. These options are,
for instance, what local or state policymakers could do to conserve water (e.g., raise water
prices), or household conservation options (e.g., fix leaky toilets). Likewise, Alexandar and
Pyyamoli [
124
], trained students in India to create awareness among the local community
about climate change adaptations (i.e., planting trees, collecting rainwater) to conserve
local water resources through service-learning. Stapleton [
126
] reports on American youths
who participated in an educational program in Bangladesh and who helped locals move a
school to higher grounds to avoid flooding and interacted with climate refugees.
5.5. Addressing Climate Justice
Overall, six of the 75 interventions addressed climate justice issues and, therefore, a
normative side of the climate change debate. In cases in which climate justice was part of
the intervention, intersectional inequity played a role, especially local and global justice
issues. Although global justice issues are often intertwined with social inequities, only
three interventions seemed to tackle these issues together [
125
,
126
,
128
]. Surprisingly, as all
of the analyzed studies had children or young adolescents as their participants, no study
explicitly addressed intergenerational inequality. Half of the studies addressing climate
justice issues included only brief statements regarding the incorporation of these issues
(e.g., [
111
,
120
,
129
]). This does not necessarily mean that climate justice was not addressed
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 15 of 44
more extensively in their interventions, rather it was not reported in more detail, which
may indicate the importance placed on climate justice by the authors. However, some made
it one of their central learning goals, or even the theoretical framework of their climate
change intervention [125,126,128]. We describe these studies in more detail below.
Siegner and Stapert [
125
] addressed intersectional inequality using a global perspective
on the climate crisis. The aim of their intervention was to develop, implement, and evaluate
a climate change curriculum in middle school, with a specific focus on climate change
from a global and holistic point of view. The global perspective consisted of three themes:
(1) Energy (e.g., mapping carbon production and carbon use; history and industrialization),
(2) movements
(e.g., climate change agents and their biographies), and (3) collective action
(e.g., environmental law). In the latter two themes intersectional inequality played a role,
illustrated by addressing global justice issues such as climate migrants and indigenous
peoples. The authors describe the purpose of their choosing a global perspective on a global
crisis as a springboard for students to feel empowered taking (local) action on global issues.
In Öhman and Öhman’s [
128
] study, the students took part in a role-playing activity
in which they represented different countries in a UN negotiation about a climate change
agreement. In the intervention, climate change was portrayed as a problem that involves
conflicts between different interests and value perspectives resulting in justice issues.
In the study, the topic of global economy was the central point of connection between
interest and values in the climate crisis. It was used as a backdrop to reflect on political
power relations, whilst students discussed challenges and potential solutions on a global
and local level. Politicians were introduced as the key people in power and voters as
the central stakeholders. Furthermore, difficult aspects of international climate change
agreements were discussed, such as being hampered by political difficulties in enforcing
changes that would lead to a redistribution of the economy or affect a country’s economic
competitiveness, both of which would affect the voters’ economic standards and, ultimately,
the politicians’ own power positions. Moreover, it was mentioned that the wealth of the
Global North is mainly based on the resources of the Global South. Thus, a dilemma
without any self-evident or obvious solution was described whilst the political perspective
of climate change was directly addressed.
In Stapleton’s [
126
] intervention climate justice was contextualized through a detailed
examination of climate change impacts on populations in Bangladesh, with the aim of
educating youth in industrialized, wealthy nations to become mobilized, climate-engaged
individuals. American students participated in a global climate change education program
in Bangladesh, a country severely affected by climate change. They experienced climate
change impacts through excursions into mangrove forests and interactions with affected
people. The program revolved around the concept of solidarity, working with those who
lack power and privilege and are impacted by systemic oppression. Although the concept
of MAPA was not explicitly named it became the backdrop of climate change in the study.
Key issues on a social and global level arose, not only with respect to Bangladesh, but also
generalized to the Global North and South. These issues included imbalances of power
and wealth, social injustice, and power disparities within climate change impacts. Thus,
the students implicated themselves as part of the problem and had to acknowledge their
own obligations in mitigation. This is the only intervention that uses multi-perspective
approaches to not only address socioeconomic factors but also global differences with
regard to the consequences of climate change and mitigation and adaptation requirements.
Two of the studies discussed above [
126
,
128
] seemed to focus solely on climate justice
and therefore did not emphasize scientific concepts about climate change. Although all
of the three studies discussed above [
125
,
126
,
128
] go into detail about climate justice
issues whilst setting different foci, they seem to share commonalities. They all promote
knowledge about climate justice and they all involve students actively through public-
sphere actions (collective actions), discussions, or a real-life experience on site. The topics
of these interventions are closely linked to the political perspective of the climate crisis
(e.g., regulation of the global economy, climate migrants, or climate justice in the context
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 16 of 44
of MAPA). None of these three studies made any mention of concrete contributions to
a solution, related, for example, to different emission sectors, emission amounts, policy
instruments, or concrete political regulations such as taxation, emission trading, voluntary
agreements, or financial aid given by richer industrialized countries to poorer countries [
5
].
5.6. Addressing Public-Sphere Actions on Climate Change
The data in Figure 4c–f show that the relative majority of the studies see responsibility
for the causes of climate change in the public sphere while measures for mitigating or
adapting to climate change is in most cases discussed in the private sphere. The same holds
for instruments to mitigate global warming: While different authors [
60
–
63
] have shown
that it is regulation policies that is most effective to handle global warming, the vast majority
of the instruments—if any—discussed in the studies are voluntary agreements. These
findings lead to the impression that most educators collectivize the responsibility for the
causes for global warming while privatizing the responsibility to handle global warming.
However, those studies discussing public sphere actions show very interesting ap-
proaches: With regard to public-sphere knowledge, we found that only 21 of the 75 papers
referred to climate policies, legal requirements, or the IPCC. More specifically, 4 studies re-
ferred to the Kyoto Protocol, 2 to the 2
◦
C goal, and 18 to the IPCC. However, the IPCC is typ-
ically not addressed in these studies as a political framework. Rather, it is used in reference
to scientific knowledge about climate change and to the scientific and societal relevance of
mitigation and adaptation. Likewise, climate policy reference frameworks
(i.e., 1.5 ◦C limit)
are addressed seldomly [
111
,
119
,
125
,
130
,
131
]. Taking a closer look at what was taught in
the educational interventions, just five of them refer to national or international climate
policies, global treaties on emission caps, or the
IPCC reports [123,125,132–134].
Most stud-
ies refer to climate policy (e.g., [
135
], who mention the IPCC report in the introduction and
in the discussion of their publication) but do not go further than using the reports to justify
why understanding climate change and its impacts are imperative. Tasquier et al. [
133
]
make explicit reference to the IPCC reports in their intervention to introduce the students
to scientific research. Covitt et al. [
132
] focused their analysis on the conceptual use of
the quantitative carbon cycling model representation from the IPCC as a reasoning tool.
The IPCC is not referred to in any of the interventions addressing climate justice issues.
Interventions that allowed a more in-depth analysis are described below.
Buchanan et al. [
136
] and Jensen [
137
] both describe participatory, problem- and
project-oriented learning activities at different school levels in which possibilities for collec-
tive action are addressed and local political actors are involved. An Australian program
evaluated by Buchanan et al. [
136
] takes on the demand formulated by several authors
from the political sciences that public-sphere action is promoted by connecting climate
change in a cross-curricular way by making links between climate change education and
subjects such as English, mathematics, science, design and technology, or geography.
Bardsley and Bardsley [
119
] and Kapudewan and Mohd Ali Khan [
138
] focus on the
local to national level, but without addressing options for public-sphere actions. Bardsley
and Bardsley [
119
] describe the development of planning opportunities for sustainable
management of the coastal system under a climate change scenario for 2030. In this study,
possible personal behavioral and broader societal responses based on climate change
scenarios for South Australia were evaluated by students. The aim was to reduce the
impacts of climate change within the context of a hypothetical development of a caravan
park near the coastline. Kapudewan and Mohd Ali Khan [
138
] describe a group discussion
in which students present what they could do to reduce emissions from the viewpoint of
different stakeholders (e.g., minister, town planner, or farmer). The change in perspective
is an important way to promote the development of public-sphere action [43,89,139].
One of the very few studies that addressed the political perspective of climate change
at the primary school level, and political regulations other than voluntary agreement
options, is Wang [
140
], in which the development of argumentation skills took place in
an online learning environment. Through the analysis of the question of whether a new
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 17 of 44
naphtha cracking plant should be built, students also discussed political regulation options
at national levels such as bans.
Stevenson et al. [
123
] used agricultural and environmental message framing when
working with agriculture students. The students were asked to read one of four short arti-
cles addressing either the farming community, public health, environment, or agriculture.
The authors found this approach to be an effective teaching practice in promoting public-
sphere action. The articles referred to national policies and described how these policies
help limit threats to communities (i.e., improving the energy efficiency of homes to reduce
energy costs and the impacts of climate change threatening communities worldwide). One
feature of the short articles was that all ended with a positive message frame: efforts to limit
global warming are a “win-win” situation as they will reduce the risks of global warming
as well as improve national agriculture and health.
Focusing on the international level, Öhman and Öhman [
128
] describe a role play in
which students represent different countries in a simulated UN negotiation about a climate
change agreement. This intervention is embedded into a 10-week thematic project on
climate change in the subjects of Swedish, geography, and civics with the goal of preparing
students to participate in international civic debates. The analysis focused on students’
interactions; changes in their knowledge are not described. Similarly, Siegner and Sta-
pert [
125
] present and evaluate a climate change curriculum implemented in an integrated
social studies and language framework, incorporating not only action competence, but
also knowledge learning goals. Aspects of civic education were simulated into a “World
Climate Summit”. In this UN climate negotiations activity, students observed through their
negotiations how their intended emission reduction plans affected global temperatures by
explicitly taking reference to the 2
◦
C limit specified at the COP 21. Further service-learning
projects at the local community level will be added to the curriculum to link the local to the
international as well as the individual to the collective/political level.
Tasquier et al. [
133
] explore students’ epistemological knowledge of models and
modeling in science through a climate change learning environment. Their lesson on
political and economic scenarios is of special interest in terms of the political perspective.
Their core message is that individuals as well as policy makers have the power to contribute
to climate change mitigation through the behaviors of the individuals in their daily activities.
They also discuss collective political and economic aspects and institutional choices (e.g., the
role of global treaties on emission caps).
5.7. Intervention Typology
The following typology describes six types of interventions that differ regarding their
main learning goals and how and which mitigation and adaptation actions they explicitly
or implicitly promote. The categories are not exclusive as some studies combine elements
of multiple types (e.g., they promote mitigation and adaptation strategies, or they address
preconceptions and complex system knowledge). However, most studies can be assigned
clearly to one type. For every category the supposed effect of the interventions on students’
mitigation and adaptation actions are summarized.
Overcoming preconceptions about climate change. Numerous intervention studies aim at en-
hancing students’ understanding of crucial concepts such as the greenhouse
effect [141,142].
Typically, they address only one concept but describe this concept as well as the related
student preconceptions in detail. Some of these studies argue that a foundational un-
derstanding of climate change is necessary for contributing to climate protection. These
teaching approaches are based on constructivist theories of learning and directly address
preconceptions that students should overcome. To induce conceptual change, they use
inquiry activities and/or argumentation, often in combination with scaffolding (e.g., [
143
]),
concept cartoons (e.g., [
144
]), conceptual metaphors (e.g., [
142
]), or teacher explanations
(e.g., [
141
]). Subsequently, they initiate negotiation and reflection of the new concepts
by group or class discussions [
145
]. The effects of these interventions are investigated in
pre–post study designs that are sometimes combined with a treatment group and control
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 18 of 44
group comparison. All of these studies report that their interventions led to a substantial
change in students’ understanding of the targeted concept. Interestingly, if any mention is
made of mitigation strategies, it is only in the introduction and discussion of the manuscript;
they are not taught to the students. In addition, the focus of all studies in this area remains
narrowly on teaching the physical science basis of climate change. We did not find inter- or
transdisciplinary approaches, in which knowledge about the greenhouse effect is taught
alongside knowledge about its economic, social, or political interrelationships, in the inter-
ventions. It seems that these studies follow an implicit heuristic of “understanding climate
change leads to action against climate change”.
Teaching complex knowledge about climate change and its consequences. Climate change
and its consequences is a complex topic as it involves interacting processes in different
earth spheres (i.e., atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere) that are each in themselves
complex and affected by human activities. In contrast to studies aiming to overcome
students’ preconceptions, these interventions are not limited to one concept but rather
focus on the interaction of different subsystems related to climate change (e.g., the impact
of carbon cycling on the climate system). They promote students’ systems thinking so that
the students can understand the complexity of climate change and reason about it. To do
so, they utilize representations of complex and interrelated
systems [118,130,146,147],
com-
putational models that enable students to explore the impact of different variables on the
climate system [
148
–
150
], or scaffolding to support students’ scientific argumentation [
140
].
They include anthropogenic factors affecting global warming or the potential effects of
changes in human behavior on global warming [
147
–
149
]. However, they seldom address
how to initiate mitigation strategies that students can adopt in the public or private sphere.
Their implicit heuristic of climate education seems to be “if students understand how the
complex earth system is influenced by human activities, they will take action”.
Knowing and discussing mitigation strategies. Unlike the first two intervention types, there
are interventions that explicitly teach or discuss strategies to mitigate climate change. In these
interventions, students learn how humans influence the climate system and, additionally,
what they, their families, and their peers can do to slow down global warming. These
interventions focus on strategies on the personal or local level, such as saving energy and
electricity [
122
,
125
,
131
,
151
,
152
], using environmentally friendly
transportation [111–113,152],
or using regenerative energy sources [
111
,
113
,
152
]. However, some interventions also
inform students about climate policy, such as national and international strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas emission [122,133], or economic regulation of greenhouse emissions [125].
One finding of these studies is that just acknowledging anthropogenic climate change
is not sufficient to initiate public-sphere action. Instead, conceptual understanding of
climate change and knowledge about mitigation strategies can lead to individual efforts to
reduce personal impact on climate change and thus limit such action-value gaps [
111
,
153
].
Furthermore, knowledge about climate change and mitigation strategies also has a positive
impact on students’ self-efficacy regarding their private-sphere mitigation actions [
152
].
Besides knowledge, credible role models who have successfully adopted mitigation actions
can help to induce private-sphere actions [
151
]. However, all these effects have only been
observed in a short period after the intervention. It is an open question how enduring
the mitigation behavior of students is. The supposed effect of these interventions can be
described by the heuristic “if students understand climate change and why and how to
change their behavior they will do so”.
Changing beliefs regarding climate change and facilitating positive attitudes towards the
environment. Whereas the first three intervention types address students’ conceptions
and knowledge about climate change or mitigation strategies, this category consists of
interventions that explicitly aim to facilitate positive attitudes towards the environment or
to change students’ beliefs regarding climate change. These studies are often motivated
by models of environmental education that include affective variables such as students’
connectedness with nature as moderators between knowledge about the environment
and pro-environmental behavior [
154
]. Dunkley [
155
] reports that field trips to places
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 19 of 44
where students can experience human dependency upon the non-human world can help
students to establish affective connections with the natural world and to perceive how
climate change might affect their lives. In the intervention of Semmens et al. [
156
], students
created art illustrating complex processes related to climate change, which induced a
feeling of personal connectedness to nature. In more traditional science classes, framing
climate change within community-relevant problem scenarios can elicit feelings of worry
in students [
123
]. Presenting facts about climate change through an entertaining, multi-
sensory, captivating presentation has a positive influence on students’ beliefs, involvement,
and conservation behaviors [
157
]. The heuristic of these interventions can be described as
“students must feel their connectedness with nature and acknowledge climate change in
order to take action”.
Take action on climate change. In this type of intervention, students not only learn
facts and concepts about climate change and mitigation strategies, but also take public-
sphere actions against climate change during the intervention. These actions include the
identification of ways to reduce their energy consumption [
103
,
136
,
158
,
159
], writing service
announcements to teach the public about global warming [
160
], sending written petitions
to private companies and local village boards [
137
], discuss with politicians [
161
] or signing
a public commitment to reduce personal energy consumption [
162
]. The focus of these
interventions is to do something in the public sphere that directly mitigates climate change
at the school or local level. In an extreme form of these interventions, students do not even
receive specific knowledge about climate change or mitigation strategies (or at least this is
not mentioned in the intervention description). Instead, they choose to initiate something
in the local community based on their own perspectives. The students decide which
problem they want to work on and how teachers and experts from the local community
will support them to achieve their goals [
137
]. “Take action” studies typically describe
the students’ actions and their impact on the local community in detail. An impressive
example is the decision of a community council to build a new bike lane in consequence of
a petition and the political activism of students from a regional school [
137
]. All studies
report that students’ actions are successful. Students’ willingness to take action depends on
the simplicity of the actions, encouragement from family members, and support from the
school and teachers. The heuristic of these interventions seems to be “if students want to
take action, let them act”.
Teaching strategies to adapt to the consequences of climate change. In climate science there
is a consensus that climate change is caused by human emission of greenhouse gasses,
that these emissions already have a profound influence on our climate system, and that
the consequences already harm humans by increases in extreme weather events such as
storms, floods, and more and longer arid periods [
163
]. Consequently, some interventions
teach students how to adapt to these events by conserving local water resources [
121
,
124
],
preparing families to survive floods [
127
], or discussing strategies to adapt to increasing
bushfire risk and the rise of sea levels [
111
,
119
]. All adaptation strategies are based on the
most likely local risk scenarios. The teaching approaches include simulation games [
121
],
preparation projects (preparing flood surviving boxes with parents), and planning com-
munity adaptation strategies in response to local risk scenarios [
119
]. One finding of
these studies is that students who understand and acknowledge that climate change is
happening are more likely to support adaptation strategies [
123
]. Generally, the impact of
these interventions on personal and local adaptation to the risk scenarios are substantial
as they carry over into families and local communities [
124
,
127
]. The local and personal
relevance of the adaptation strategies seem to be the reason why these interventions are
effective [
123
]. Interventions on adaptation strategies seem to follow the heuristic: “climate
change is happening and harming us, so we have to adapt if we want to live securely”.
The frequency of the six intervention types differs. While only 7% of the interventions
belong to the “take action” type, over 80% belong to the three categories that focus on
promoting knowledge to induce action (preconception 27%, mitigation 29%, and complex
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 20 of 44
knowledge 34%), and 19% of the studies address adaptation strategies. The frequencies do
not add up to 100% because a few studies belong to two intervention types.
6. Discussion
The aim of this review was to investigate how current educational intervention studies
on climate literacy incorporate the political perspective of mitigation and adaptation on
climate change. We analyzed 75 empirical studies to find out how their interventions
connect greenhouse gas emissions to different sectors, how different interventions mention
private- and public-sphere strategies for mitigation and adaptation, and—if at all—what
policy regulation options are referred to. Furthermore, we analyzed which methods
(e.g., active discussions,
reflection on perspectives, and discussions about climate justice)
are referred to in the interventions to discuss or promote actions in the public sphere.
This is the fourth review in the last three years to summarize empirical findings about
climate change education. In contrast to the previous three reviews, we included only
intervention studies conducted in regular school contexts. We excluded any interven-
tions that took place in higher education, and excluded correlational studies without any
intervention and purely theoretical papers. We applied this focus on regular classroom
settings because primary and secondary education reaches every student and thus has the
potential to promote the extensive mitigation and adaptation actions that are required as a
consequence of climate change. For the same reason we focus on the political aspects of
climate change in our analysis. The reviews by Bhattacharya et al. [
45
], Jorgenson et al. [
44
],
and
Monroe et al. [43]
found that political aspects of climate change are hardly addressed
in climate change interventions, and that climate change education focuses mainly on
delivering scientific concepts about climate change but seldom promotes public-sphere
mitigation or adaptation actions. By utilizing a framework based on scientific knowledge
about actions necessary to mitigate and adapt to the forecasted consequences of climate
change, we were able to evaluate why an education that avoids the political aspects of
climate change is ineffective. The specific focus on political aspects of climate change allows
us to highlight the few interventions that already incorporate elements of political literacy
in the context of climate change. These elements include climate justice, the promotion of
adaptation to climate change, and the initiation of public-sphere actions.
We found that the majority of intervention studies focus on private-sphere actions,
while only a minority of the studies include public-sphere actions. The current climate
education seems to align with the motto of early environmental education, “think global
act local”. The dominant effect heuristics of interventions seems to be that education can
contribute to mitigate climate change by informing students about climate change and what
they personally can do to mitigate it. This fits our finding that the responsibility for the
emissions is often attributed to large-scale societal actions while mitigation actions focus
on private and technical/scientific strategies and voluntary agreements. An explanation
for this finding might be the vision of environmental education and reform pedagogy to
empower young people with individual possibilities for action and to link content to the
students’ lives. However, this view confuses private-sphere action with personal action
as individuals, whereas students can support or initiate public-sphere actions. Limiting
actions to the private sphere is not only problematic with regard to the empirically estab-
lished low effectiveness of such actions on political developments and real greenhouse gas
emissions [
60
,
63
]. It is also problematic as it assumes that promoting basic knowledge and
addressing attitudes will save the climate. Empirical data [
57
] show that the correlation
between attitudes and greenhouse-gas emissions varies from non-existent to negative and,
even if a connection could be established, Kaiser et al. [
164
] have shown how difficult it is
to initiate long-lasting changes in individual behavior.
As a consequence, climate education should address public-sphere actions instead
of private-sphere actions in order to effectively mitigate climate change and to initiate
adaptation actions. To obtain an impression of how current interventions promote students’
actions, we first discuss which emission sources and mitigation strategies are addressed in
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 21 of 44
climate education. Next, we discuss how public-sphere actions on climate change have been
addressed so far, and whether we can expect an implicit effect of interventions focusing on
teaching knowledge about climate change on students’ actions. Finally, we discuss how
adaptation is taught currently and why including issues of climate justice is important for
climate education.
6.1. Addressing Sources of Emissions and Mitigation Strategies
To take effective public-sphere mitigation actions, students need to have a realistic
picture of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions and who is responsible for them. In this
regard, informing students about sources of greenhouse gasses can be seen as grounding
political action. We found that current climate education has a strong focus on energy-
related issues, which is congruent with the importance of emissions from this sector.
However, it is interesting to note that almost all studies focus exclusively on electricity
production as the main source of emissions. Heat supply is not addressed in any of the
studies; although, this is currently one of the most pressing political challenges in the early
developed countries, ranging from heat supply for domestic heating to heat demand in
industry. Furthermore, it is interesting that only sufficiency-oriented—and in nearly all
cases exclusively private sphere—actions are addressed. The switch to renewable energy
sources, which are currently the most important political element in the debate in the
industrialized countries, as well as strategies for increasing energy efficiency, are hardly
addressed at all. This lack of attention to renewable energy means that the potential for
educating students about one of the most important factors in the debate about climate
change is wasted.
With regard to the disproportionate focus on the waste sector compared to the emis-
sions from waste, it shows a (con)fusion of climate education with general environmental
education. In this regard, the transition to a circular economy is undoubtedly a significant
policy strategy for a sustainable society, but the argument in the analyzed studies is not
one that is reflected in terms of climate issues, but often falls through either human rights
issues or chemical pollution issues. At this point, the strong focus of climate literacy stud-
ies on the waste sector seems to replicate a phenomenon found particularly in everyday
conceptions of climate change, namely that climate change is caused by pollution [
165
].
The—also—disproportionate focus of climate literacy studies on deforestation as a cause
of climate change relative to real emissions can be explained by the curricular importance
of photosynthesis as the central reaction for carbon sequestration in school science. Un-
fortunately, this focus comes at the expense of real carbon fixation potentials and current
carbon sources in peatlands, among others. There could be interesting curricular links here,
including the draining of peatlands for livestock.
It is interesting that neither specific energy-based emissions nor process-based emis-
sions from industry play a role in the studies—not even in the studies that are categorized
as science education, in which technical processes such as those used in steel production
often play a role, especially in chemistry classes. Here, anchoring points for climate educa-
tion in science education could be formed. Climate education concepts [
97
] illustrate that
addressing the emission sector is already possible in elementary and middle school when
appropriate teaching materials are applied, for example by using emission sketches.
In sum, we found that current climate education interventions give students only a
partially realistic picture of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, the energy sector is not
discussed in detail and other sectors are either missing (e.g., industry) or overrepresented
(e.g., waste) compared to their impact on global emissions. In consequence, it is not
surprising that the mitigation actions proposed in these studies are also limited to these
sources. It seems that climate education focuses only on those sources that can be addressed
by private-sphere actions, no matter if they are relevant with regard to their impact on global
greenhouse gas emissions. The over-emphasis on cutting private energy consumption
(particularly electricity consumption) has not only a limited mitigation effect because of
its small magnitude, but its effect can further vanish if the saved energy is used elsewhere
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 22 of 44
(e.g., by industry). Such rebound effects appear when improvements in resource efficiency
actually lead to more rather than less energy consumption because of a reduction in
energy prices. To avoid such effects, private-sphere actions need to be accompanied by
political measures such as caps, which can hardly be taken if they are not demanded by
the public [
166
]. Thus public-sphere actions are actually a prerequisite for private-sphere
actions to be effective.
6.2. How Are Public-Sphere Actions on Climate Change Addressed So Far?
When looking at knowledge about public-sphere actions and how such actions are
promoted, it is striking that very few interventions introduce students to actions described
in official political documents or the IPCC reports. This is surprising as these documents
describe the scientific and political consensus on mitigation actions and are thus a relatively
solid knowledge base for educational interventions. The findings on mitigation measures
are at least as reliable as the scientific findings on climate change, which are directly dis-
cussed with students in some intervention studies (e.g., [
133
]). The minimum requirement
for promoting students’ public-sphere actions would be to inform students about common
policy instruments such as regulation, subsidies, or market-based mechanisms [
55
]. Based
on this knowledge, they can build up their own opinion about political mitigation strategies
and, if old enough, make informed decisions in public elections. Furthermore, this knowl-
edge can serve as a starting point for some students to take further actions such as becoming
involved in climate activism because they know which instruments and actions they can
demand from decision makers. However, informing students about relevant political
discourses is only one strategy, and is not the most effective strategy for engaging students
in public-sphere actions. Further teaching approaches include opportunities for students to
discuss public issues in the classroom [
43
,
89
,
128
] or engaging students with public issues
at the local level, so that they can observe the effects of their activism [
83
,
167
,
168
]. The
studies in our review that use these methods are aimed at changing policies on a local
level [
136
,
137
]. At first glance this seems to be a straightforward approach as students can
easily initiate concrete actions within their personal environment. However, the “Fridays
for future” protests, a global grassroots initiative based on local groups, which demands
extensive political actions on climate change, demonstrate that students can dominate and
shift public debates even on an international level [
31
–
34
]. Given the multiple methods for
promoting public-sphere actions ranging from informing students about climate policies to
taking part in activism, the question remains, why current education about such a highly
political topic such as climate change seldom addresses the political perspective.
Three explanations are at hand. The first is that climate change interventions are
conducted in the context of science education and that science educators are not able or
willing to teach the societal and political perspective of climate change. However, solely
focusing on science concepts when doing science in schools misses the demands of science
curricula, as Osborne and Dillon [
169
] have shown in an analysis of science education
curricula in the early industrialized countries, who demand a science education not as an
end in itself, but rather to provide students with skills for active citizenship.
However, the question remains, why there are not more political education or inter-
disciplinary research teams developing and investigating climate education programs. It
is possible that there are additional reasons for the dearth of research into the political
aspects of climate change education. It may be that researchers and teachers are unwilling
to inform students about the political aspect of the topic, or even to promote students
public-sphere actions because it is a controversial topic and they are afraid to publicly
support a specific political ideology [
128
,
170
]. Science educators may believe that if a
genuine science topic becomes political, it is too close to advocacy to address it in the
classroom. However, this applies for many other controversial topics in history or politics,
and there are teaching methods used to inform students about controversial issues and
to help students find their own position on these topics without overwhelming them [
43
].
The first two statements highlight the importance of promoting teacher education that
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 23 of 44
meets these requirements [
171
,
172
]. In order to supply teachers with knowledge about
the political aspects of climate change, the corresponding pedagogical content knowledge
as well as teaching methods must be taught [
173
]. The third explanation is that even if
socioscientific issues have become a major strand in science education research, the choice
of which specific topics are taught at the intersection of science and society—such as climate
change— is motivated by more general educational concerns. That is, climate change is
taught not only to prepare students to deal with climate change but because it motivates
students to learn scientific concepts. Thus, this socioscientific issue is boiled down to
teaching the scientific but not the societal perspective. While social change is at the core
of environmental education’s mission [
174
] and sustainability education [
175
], it seems
challenging for K–12 educators, program developers, and science education researchers to
shift the goals from scientific facts to political literacy.
6.3. Indirect Effect of Current Climate Education on Students’ Public-Sphere Actions?
We found that current climate change interventions predominantly deliver knowledge
about climate change but seldom directly promote public-sphere actions. However, they
might have an indirect effect on students’ actions including their public-sphere actions if
understanding the causes and consequences of climate change initiates effective actions. For
each of the identified intervention types, we next discuss whether and how interventions
belonging to a specific type can contribute to student actions, in particular their public-
sphere actions.
Studies aiming at overcoming students’ preconceptions about climate change report
enthusiastic results with respect to understanding the science behind global warming. From
a science education point of view, this is a motivating result as the strategies are obviously
successful. With regard to the findings of Bord et al. [
67
], that a basic understanding of
environmental changes is necessary to develop public support for a committed environ-
mental policy, teaching the principles of climate change can indeed contribute to effective
mitigation strategies [
68
,
176
]. However, the central question of how deep an understanding
of the physical science basis of climate change is needed for lay people and students to
support mitigation strategies stays open. A wide range of authors ([
83
,
86
], among others)
have shown that it is crucial for curricular content to incorporate current events from public,
social economic issues in order to increase students’ political interest and activity. It could
therefore be an appropriate strategy for climate educators to broaden their perspective
from a narrow science perspective to a more trans- and interdisciplinary perspective.
Teaching complex knowledge about climate change and its consequences reflects the
demand from sustainability sciences to foster students’ systems thinking competences as
a major factor for initiating environmentally friendly actions [
177
]. Moreover, from the
perspective of political education interventions, systems thinking could promote actions
within the public sphere, as multiperspectivity and acquiring cross-domain knowledge are
important promoters of political socialization.
Intervention studies that aim at creating an understanding of climate change and
a knowledge of mitigation and adaptation strategies can lead to private-sphere actions
and have a positive impact on students’ self-efficacy regarding their personal mitigation
and adaptation actions. However, this limitation to private-sphere actions is problematic
because it suggests that individual students are responsible for mitigating and adapting to
climate change and that their private-sphere actions will have a substantial effect on climate
change. These interventions, thus, counteract the promotion of public-sphere actions,
which are the most effective actions with respect to mitigating and adapting to climate
change [
60
,
63
,
66
]. Studies aiming at promoting positive attitudes towards the environment
are effective in changing students’ attitudes but not in triggering climate friendly behavior
and, thus, are the least effective interventions in terms of mitigating and adapting to
climate change if they only address attitude change. Promoting positive attitudes might be
effective as an additive to other interventions that are focused on taking action. However,
cooperative learning environments in which students discuss controversial issues can lead
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 24 of 44
to higher levels of personal awareness and perceived self-efficacy in relation to global
warming [
89
]. Thus, addressing the political aspect of climate change might have side-
effects on students’ attitudes. These effects can be explained by cognitive dissonance theory,
which proposes that people adapt their attitudes to their behavior in order to eliminate
conflict between attitudes and behavior [
178
,
179
]. Rather than changing attitudes in order
to change behaviors, the implication of cognitive dissonance theory is that attitude change
follows behavior change. This is a further argument for focusing on action in climate
education and not limiting it to delivering knowledge and trying to change attitudes.
Interestingly, many studies in which students take action on climate change focus on
public-sphere actions such as writing service announcements to teach the public about
global warming or sending written petitions to private companies and local village boards.
In the intervention described by Jensen [
137
], the students achieved impressive success
when putting public pressure on the local boards by demonstrating and communicating
their demands via newspapers. This demonstrates the potential of educational interven-
tions that address public-sphere actions. However, public actions can also be promoted by
less direct approaches such as teaching students about possible political regulation strate-
gies to mitigate climate change [93–95] or reflecting on historic social movements [180].
Our findings show that current interventions in climate education do not correspond
to the current state of climate research that rapid, extensive, and coordinated actions are
required to mitigate and adapt to climate change. As effective mitigation and adaptation
actions are public-sphere actions, effective climate education needs to prepare students to
understand, participate in, and initiate such actions. That is, climate education needs to
incorporate political literacy in the context of climate change. Moreover, initiating students’
actions seems to have positive side-effects on their attitudes towards nature and mitigating
climate change. Claiming that the participatory perspective is crucial for effective climate
education is not a totally new approach to sustainability education. Many authors have
claimed that aspects such as action competence and independent opinion making should
be a significant feature of environmental and sustainability education (see [
181
–
187
]). We
consider it to be surprising and important finding that, to date, a focus on action has not
played a dominant role in climate education research.
6.4. Addressing Consequences of Emissions and Adaptation Measures
Both mitigation and adaptation are crucial in tackling climate change and are increas-
ingly integrated into policy processes [
3
,
5
]. Interventions that teach adaptation strategies
tend to address the most likely local risk scenarios and mainly take up measures in the
private sphere. This seems a promising approach to motivate students and to illustrate the
relevance of the issue of climate change. Stevenson et al. [
123
] showed that support for
adaptation strategies is higher if students understand and acknowledge climate change as a
current issue. Therefore, it seems important to explicitly address local adaptation measures
in class (e.g., [
188
]), both in terms of adaptation to what is already happening and to future
changes in the climate system (i.e., extreme events) and their consequences. However,
educational interventions often do not address student confusion about mitigation and
adaptation measures, nor do they relate the impact of adaptation measures to CO
2
emis-
sions. Focusing solely on private-sphere actions at the local level is missing opportunities
for greater impacts. It is necessary to integratively consider, discuss, and evaluate actions in
terms of conflicting problems, goals, and solutions [
97
]. The adaptation responses reported
in the interventions we analyzed did not tend to relate public-sphere actions to the findings
from the IPCC reports nor to climate policy goals from local to international levels. Students
need to understand how local adaptation measures in response to climate change risks
are linked to societal activities and political climate change frameworks at national and
international levels (e.g., the protection of particularly vulnerable ecosystems), such as in
the study by Bardsley and Bardsley [
119
]. Moreover, the local focus overlooks issues of
justice with regard to adaptation options for populations that contribute least to climate
change but often suffer its consequences the most. Even though the consequences of climate
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 25 of 44
change affect regions differently, adaptation strategies need to be based on international
solidarity and cooperation [
189
] (p. 13). This cooperation is also crucial for industrialized
countries as the fatal consequences of extreme weather events can cause damage that local
or even national governments can hardly handle [
190
]. Thus, climate change education has
to include issues of justice to lay a foundation for international solidarity.
6.5. Why Is Addressing Climate Justice Necessary?
Talking about climate change mitigation and adaptation illuminates that the global
climate crisis is indeed an issue of inequity, as it impacts different social groups on different
scales [
191
], and the most harm is caused to those who are least responsible for causing
it [
4
,
5
]. This emphasizes the social perspective of this socioscientific issue [
9
–
12
]. Although
justice issues underpinned the climate change discourse since before the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change [
37
] in 1992, and gained reasonable attention
since then, this prominent role in the climate change debate is not reflected in our findings.
Our results show a disproportionately low implementation of climate justice in climate
education in relation to its importance in scientific and political debates. Furthermore,
except for one study by Siegner and Stapert [
125
], no intervention addresses the “polluter
pays” principle or emissions per capita [
27
]. This is striking because it would be easy to
implement by working, for example, with actual CO2-emission data (e.g., [
192
]), or by
illustrating challenges based on histories of social oppression, geographical position, or
group membership (e.g., class, race, age, and country of origin). These inequalities both
produce climate change and profoundly shape responses to it [23].
Furthermore, our finding that few interventions address climate justice conflicts with
the fact that climate justice is the central motive of the “Friday For Future” movement.
This connects to results from a Swiss interview study with participants of the climate
strikes, who stated that they acquired their climate science knowledge in school, while
their political and economic concepts on climate change were often inspired by their peer
group and social media [
193
]. A representative study by Wahlström et al. [
194
] came to a
similar conclusion that social media (44.7%) and friends or acquaintances (24.1%) were the
top primary sources for protest information among youths in 19 cities around the world.
The fact that the climate education studies we examined make little reference to
climate justice indicates that there are many missed opportunities, and perhaps even
dangers, considering that the information shared on social media is uncurated, the sources
of this information are usually not transparent, and that social media is also the source of
fake news [
195
] and a venue for the promotion of misconceptions [
196
]. Arguably, more
integration of climate justice issues into formal and informal climate education could lead to
more sound, holistic, and transparent messaging of climate justice issues. There is currently
great untapped potential here that could—and should—be addressed in the future. In this
sense, the topic of climate justice could act as a kind of door-opener for addressing the
political perspective of climate change in education contexts, since both the causes and
consequences of climate change lie in a historically constituted global economic system,
and can thus be understood as an intersecting set of social inequalities [
23
]. In this regard,
Ho and Seow [
197
] identified the advantage of interdisciplinary curricula, where teachers
are able to contextualize the climate crisis in its historical, social, and economic perspectives.
At the same time, a crisis that has arisen at the political and overall socio-economical level
can also point to possibilities for action at that very level to facilitate a sustainable and
climate-just transition.
6.6. Limitations
Our analysis is based on the notion of effective climate education as an education
that leads to actions sufficient to limit and handle the consequences of climate change.
Against this background, current climate education focuses almost entirely on private-
sphere actions that are insufficient to limit global warming to 1.5
◦
C or to adapt to the fatal
consequences of climate change. This instrumentalist notion of education seems legitimate
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 26 of 44
because of the urgency and scope of the problem. However, there are three alternative
notions of effective education in the context of climate change. The first sees education
not as an instrument but as an intentless process of empowering one’s individual nature
in order to secure one’s value and continuance (Humboldt, 1974 cited in [
198
]). In this
regard, understanding climate change and private-sphere actions can be seen as effective
as they empower students to form their own opinions about climate change and to take
actions in a self-determined way. The second notion can be described as achieving effective
(science) education through the means of climate change. On this view, climate change
is seen as an interesting context in which scientific concepts can be promoted and, thus,
make science education more effective. The third view only emerged recently and portrays
successful education and learning as more than just acquiring facts and knowledge about
climate change and transferring it into actions. Successful education in this sense can be
described as resilience-promoting, where the psychological perspective of climate change
is addressed [
199
]. In this context, responses to the climate crisis, its potential impacts
on mental health and well-being, and its consequences for climate action are addressed
to strengthen students’ psychosocial resilience mechanisms [
200
]. Examples include the
promotion of reflective abilities, and addressing psychosocial aspects of climate change such
as climate anxiety (e.g., [
201
–
203
]), climate grief (e.g., [
204
,
205
]), or climate despair [
206
].
All three notions of effective education in the context of climate change are legitimate and
important. However, researchers and teachers should be aware of which goals they want
to reach and should tailor their interventions in accordance with those goals and be aware
that interventions that are limited to science concepts and private-sphere actions will not
mitigate climate change or lead to the adaptation of its impacts. Thus, teaching scientific
concepts and knowledge should go along with promoting public-sphere actions.
Our search for relevant literature included three prior reviews on climate change
education [
43
–
45
]. We also searched three databases (ERIC, PsychInfo, and Web of Science)
that index the most relevant journals in order to include the most recent publications. As
we only wanted to analyze peer-reviewed intervention studies on climate change, we
excluded several potential sources of information on the political perspective of climate
change education. However, relying on the peer-review policies of the journals as a quality
criterion for the included studies and keeping the objectives of this review in mind, we
believe our findings are based on a diverse enough sample to offer meaningful insights and
draw out relevant implications. We acknowledge that our findings might not translate to
the climate change education landscape in general because we included only peer-reviewed
intervention studies and, e.g., no materials that have not been tested empirically. However,
we are confident that our results are representative in terms of the general findings. For
instance, Adamina et al. [
97
] conducted an extensive analysis of teaching materials and
journals relevant to climate change education from primary to upper secondary school
levels in German-speaking countries. Their findings mirrored our results in that they
noted few contributions in terms of the political perspective and that measures to reduce
emissions mostly address the private sphere. Moreover, most of the studies analyzed in our
review were conducted in Europe, North America, and Australia. Only very few studies
came from other regions. As we did not apply any regional exclusion criteria, our findings
represent the international visible research on climate education. However, even when
research from other regions is invisible it seems plausible that it exists, but we cannot
analyze whether and how climate education from these countries might differ from climate
education in western countries.
In our analysis we relied on the authors to describe the content of their interventions.
These descriptions are presumably not always comprehensive, but rather reflect the focus
of the authors. We have to assume that the central content of the interventions is described
even if less central contents are not all covered. To ensure that we did not miss any details
regarding content, we analyzed further materials describing the interventions in more
detail (e.g., external curriculum descriptions, appendices with detailed design descriptions)
to extend the information about the interventions analyzed.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 27 of 44
6.7. Implications for Researchers and Educators
The findings of this systematic literature review on the political perspective in current
climate change education reveals a strong focus on the communication of the physical
science basis of climate change. If a focus on mitigation and adaptation of climate change
is to be emphasized more strongly—something we definitely encourage—interventions
to strengthen citizens’ climate literacy should use broader approaches. To put it more
pointedly, any study that is claimed to have an impact on saving the climate, but then
exclusively uses measures that have neither a direct nor an indirect effect on the climate,
does not meet its own goals. Research shows that young people already have very positive
environmental attitudes [
54
], that private actions do not have a significant impact on
the climate [
55
], and that there is a set of measures known to increase young people’s
ability to participate politically [
82
–
95
]. It is therefore necessary to shift the focus of climate
education in line with the empirical findings from research in environmental economics and
political education in order to achieve a greater impact. In this regard, education can offer a
potential to activate contagious change processes that lead to mitigation and adaptation
strategies with a significant effect [
207
–
209
]. Based on our findings, we encourage the
climate education community to experiment with the following recommendations to make
climate literacy education more effective—for students and for the climate:
1.
Transform socioscientific issues to social and scientific issues Climate science debates (IPCC,
1.5
◦
C limit, renewable energy strategies, etc.) should not only be implemented in the
rationale of climate literacy studies, but in climate education programs themselves.
We should avoid framing climate change as a socioscientific issue, and then only teach
the physical science basis of climate change. Climate science discusses climate issues
at the interface of science and society—and so should we.
2.
Teach about all sources of emissions For a comprehensive climate education, all emis-
sion sectors should be addressed. For prioritization, a focus on the actual emissions
identified by the IPCC or in national greenhouse gas reports seems reasonable. In-
teresting curricular links could be made, especially in science education, to carbon
flows [
210
,
211
] in agriculture, renewable energy [
212
,
213
] and energy efficiency [
214
],
emissions from industry [
215
], etc., without any problems. This could help students
connect science knowledge to real life problems.
3.
Teach about mitigation and adaptation Much of climate education concentrates on the
physical science basis. However, this only represents one of three parts of the IPCC
assessments. The majority of the assessment reports concentrate on mitigation and
adaptation strategies; this ratio could be a good starting point for climate education
as well. As it is often not the physical science basis that is discussed controversially
in the media and in economic and political discourse, but rather strategies to adapt
to climate change and to mitigate global warming, educating climate literate citizens
should place a focus on mitigation and adaptation.
4.
Take the responsibility to the public sphere Research from various disciplines shows that
it is not the private actions or the attitudes of individuals that make a difference, but
rather our collective actions in the public sphere. Therefore a one-sided focus on
private-sphere action should be avoided in climate education. It places an excessive
responsibility on learners’ shoulders, which, firstly, they cannot meet, and, secondly,
is not empirically justified. The large emission savings and adaptation mechanisms
require social, political, and economic responsibility. Based on the evidence, we
should set the priorities right and equip learners with the competence to act as
responsible citizens.
5.
Climate education should strengthen learners’ political literacy To strengthen the ability of
learners to participate in public debates about climate change, findings from policy
education research should be considered in terms of how to educate politically literate
citizens at different school levels to build up competencies for independant and
reflective political thinking and action [
97
,
216
]. In particular, methods focussing on a
change in perspective, role play, cross-curricular discussions or debates, or involving
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 28 of 44
encounters with real actors (e.g., politicians, companies, and affected people) are
underrepresented in current intervention studies. Experimenting with such methods
and implementing them into the curriculum could contribute to an evidence-based
climate change education.
6.
Make climate justice not only a social media but a school issue Climate justice plays a central
role for students and their public engagement to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Since climate justice plays only a peripheral role in climate education interventions
and students obtain their knowledge from social media and peer interactions, we
encourage the climate education community not to let this opportunity pass by and to
integrate a foundational knowledge about the perspectives and challenges of climate
justice into the programs.
7.
Train (science) teachers to become effective teachers of climate literacy Teachers draw on
their knowledge and beliefs and, thus, impact the climate literacy of their students.
To enable sustainable learning, teachers need to be educated on how to teach climate
change effectively. Thus, the academic education of teachers as well as professional
development programs for practicing teachers should also implement the political
perspective of climate change (i.e., political CK and PCK on climate change policies).
Here, also more research is needed on what scientific and socioeconomic knowledge
students and teachers need, as well as what materials have to be provided.
8.
Report more details about interventions Further research on climate education should
present more details about the content taught (e.g., which sources of emissions are
addressed) and teaching methods utilized in the interventions. This is not only
important for research and reproducibility but also for teaching in order to adapt
materials and methods. We suggest, for example, using online appendices to share
details and materials.
We advocate for an implementation of the political perspective in climate change
education, as it is a powerful concept that contributes to understanding the climate crisis
and the most effective actions against it. However, as only a small number of studies
incorporate the most effective ways of mitigating and adapting to climate change, we
see here great potential for future research. Relevant research questions that should be
addressed are: How can students’ political literacy regarding climate change be promoted
effectively? What knowledge of climate policies do students need to support or take
public-sphere action? How is scientific knowledge about climate change related to political
knowledge about climate change?
7. Conclusions
Scientific findings from climate change research show that increasingly rapid and pro-
found change is needed to stabilize the Earth’s climate and preserve humanity’s existence.
Science also shows that effective solutions already exist to address the climate crisis and
thus limit global warming and its impacts. In this context, education is an essential element
in implementing a climate-just transformation. However, education can only live up to
this expectation and unfold its transformative potential if effective opportunities, such as
public-sphere action in contrast to individual action, and mitigating and adapting to climate
change, are addressed. Therefore, to shed light on the role of the political perspective in
climate change education, we conducted this systematic literature review. We found that
there is still great potential for implementing public-sphere action in educational programs
at school levels. Our analysis further shows that key aspects of climate policy such as
the 1.5
◦
C limit, IPCC reports, or climate justice are rarely addressed in interventions.
While the responsibility for emissions is attributed to the public sphere, the debate on
climate change mitigation mostly focuses on the private sphere. Thus, our results show
that climate education is currently not in line with the current climate research discourse.
As effective mitigation and adaptation rely on public-sphere actions, we conclude that
effective climate education should discuss these public actions if it is to be effective. With
the current need for transitional processes and the great potential of education in mind,
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 29 of 44
we recommend a shift in teaching and learning about climate change towards political
education in order to educate climate literate citizens. Such education moves away from a
focus on the individual, and towards collective and meaningful measures that empower
students to develop political knowledge and action about climate change as an expression
of a more holistic understanding of the climate crisis, human nature, the natural world, and
the interconnectedness of it all.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.K., K.N. and M.S.; methodology, J.K., K.N., M.S. and
P.B.; validation, J.K., K.N., M.S. and P.B.; formal analysis, J.K., K.N., M.S. and P.B.; investigation, J.K.,
K.N., M.S. and P.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K., K.N., M.S. and P.B.; writing—review
and editing, J.K., K.N., M.S. and P.B.; visualization, J.K. and K.N.; supervision, J.K., K.N. and M.S. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The coding of individual studies and the references to the studies are
available in (Appendices Aand B).
Acknowledgments:
The authors wish to thank the research assistants Anne Becker and Sara Taner for
their invaluable help with the database research, the coding process, and for their
administrative support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 30 of 44
Appendix A
Table A1. Overview of 75 intervention studies selected for final inclusion in the systematic literature review.
Study Education Level Subject Sectoral Emissions Responsibility Action: Mitigation Action: Adaption Interest Groups Policy
Instruments Main Learning Goal
Alexandar and
Poyyamoli, 2012 Lower Science Private sphere,
technical sphere Private sphere,
technical sphere Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Arya, and Maul, 2016 Upper Curriculum-
independent Waste Society Voluntary
agreements
discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Assarf and Orion, 2008 Upper Science Deforestation understand climate change.
Assarf and Orpaz, 2009 Upper Science understand climate change.
Baker, et al., 2013 Primary Cross-curricular Public sphere
(society, economy) Private sphere understand climate change.
Barata, et al., 2017 Lower Curriculum-
independent Waste take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Bardsley and Bardsley, 2007 Upper Science Agriculture Private sphere
(individual) Private sphere Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Bofferding and Kloser, 2015 * Lower, Upper Science Energy Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Private sphere Science Voluntary
agreements
discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Breslyn, et al., 2017 Lower Science Energy,Transport,
Agriculture Public
sphere (society) Society Voluntary
agreements
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Buchanan, et al., 2016 Primary, Lower Cross-curricular Energy take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Christensen and Knezek, 2018 Lower Science Energy Private sphere
(individual) Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Covitt, et al., 2021 Lower, Upper Science understand climate change.
Dunkley, 2016 * Upper Curriculum-
independent Waste Private sphere Public sphere discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Edsand and Broich, 2019 Upper Science Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Eggert, et al., 2017 Upper Science Energy, Transport,
Deforestation Technical sphere Society,
Politics, Economy understand climate change.
Fisher, 2016 Upper Curriculum-
independent Deforestation,
Agriculture, Waste Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Private sphere Society take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Flora, et al., 2014 Upper Science Energy, Waste Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Gold, et al., 2015 Lower, Upper Science Society, Economy understand climate change.
Hallar, et al., 2011 Lower Science understand climate change.
Holley and Park, 2020 Upper Science Energy, Waste understand climate change.
Holthuis, et al., 2014 Lower, Upper Science Energy, Transport Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Private sphere understand climate change.
Jakobsson, et al., 2009 Upper Science Agriculture discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Jensen, 2004 Primary, Lower Curriculum-
independent
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Jin, et al., 2013 Primary, Lower, Upper Science Energy Public
sphere (society) Society understand climate change.
Karpudewan, et al., 2017 Upper Science Energy, Transport Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Society,
Politics, Economy Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Karpudewan, et al., 2015a Primary Science Energy, Transport Public
sphere (society) Private sphere,
technical sphere Politics understand climate change.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 31 of 44
Table A1. Cont.
Study Education Level Subject Sectoral Emissions Responsibility Action: Mitigation Action: Adaption Interest Groups Policy
Instruments Main Learning Goal
Karpudewan, et al., 2015b Upper Science Energy,
Agriculture understand climate change.
Klosterman and Sadler, 2010 Lower Science discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies.
Leigh, 2009 Lower, Upper Curriculum-
independent Energy Private sphere
(individual) Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Lester, et al., 2006 * Primary Science Energy, Transport Private sphere Technical sphere Society take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Lombardi, et al., 2015 Lower Science Public
sphere (society) understand climate change.
Markauskaite, et al., 2020 Upper Science Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Mason and Santi, 1998 Primary Science Energy, Waste discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Mastura and Rohaida, 2017 Lower Science Energy,
Deforestation Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
McNeal, et al., 2014 Upper Science Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
McNeill and Pimentel, 2009 Upper Science Energy, Transport,
Waste Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements
discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
McNeill and Vaughn, 2010 Upper Science Deforestation, Waste Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Niebert and
Gropengießer, 2015 Upper Science Energy,
Deforestation
Niebert and
Gropengießer, 2014 Upper Science Public sphere
(economy) Technical sphere understand climate change.
Niebert and
Gropengießer, 2012 Upper Science Energy Public sphere
(economy) Technical sphere understand climate change.
Nussbaum, et al., 2015 Lower Science Energy,
Agriculture Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Private sphere understand climate change.
Öhman and Öhman, 2013 Upper Cross-curricular reflect ethical aspects
of climate change
Oluk and Özalp, 2007 Lower Science Energy,
Agriculture Public
sphere (society) Society understand climate change.
Österlind, 2005 Lower Science Energy, Waste Public
sphere (society) Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Pallant and Lee, 2015 Lower,
Upper Science understand climate change.
Porter, et al., 2012 Lower Science Energy,
Deforestation Public sphere
(society) understand climate change.
Pruneau, et al., 2006 Lower,
Upper Curriculum-
independent
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Pruneau, et al., 2003 Lower Science Energy, Waste understand climate change.
Reinfried, et al., 2012 Lower Science Energy Public sphere
(society, economy) understand climate change.
Reinfried and
Tempelmann, 2014 Upper Science Public
sphere (society) understand climate change.
Rousell, et al., 2017 Upper Cross-curricular Technical sphere discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Rule and Meyer, 2009 Upper Science Energy, Transport,
Deforestation, Waste Public
sphere (society) Private sphere Private sphere Society discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Rye, et al., 1997 Primary Science Energy, Waste understand climate change.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 32 of 44
Table A1. Cont.
Study Education Level Subject Sectoral Emissions Responsibility Action: Mitigation Action: Adaption Interest Groups Policy
Instruments Main Learning Goal
Schelly, 2012 Upper Cross-curricular Energy
Public
sphere (society),
private sphere
(individual)
Technical sphere Society take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Schramm, et al., 2018 Upper Science Energy,
Deforestation Science understand climate change.
Schuster, et al., 2008 Upper Science understand climate change.
Sellmann and Bogner, 2013a Upper Curriculum-
independent Energy, Transport Public
sphere (society) Technical sphere Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Sellmann and Bogner, 2013b Upper Science Energy, Transport
Public sphere
(society), private
sphere
(individual)
Private sphere,
public sphere Private sphere Society,
Politics Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Semmens, et al., 2021 Lower Science Energy,
Deforestation Public sphere
(society, economy) Private sphere understand climate change.
Siegner and Stapert, 2020 * Lower Cross-curricular Energy, Transport Public
sphere (society) Private sphere,
public sphere
Society,
Politics,
Science Regulation reflect ethical aspects
of climate change
Stapleton, 2019 * Upper Curriculum-
independent reflect ethical aspects
of climate change
Stevenson, et al., 2017 Upper Science Energy,
Agriculture, Waste
Private sphere,
technical sphere,
public sphere Technical sphere Politics, Economy understand climate change.
Svihla and Linn, 2012 Lower Science Energy, Transport,
Agriculture, Waste Private sphere
(individual) Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements understand climate change.
Taber and Neil, 2009 Primary Science Energy, Transport
Public sphere
(society), private
sphere
(individual)
Private sphere discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Tasquier, et al., 2016 Upper Science Energy, Transport Public sphere
(society) Private sphere,
public sphere
Society,
Politics,
Science Regulation discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Varma and Linn, 2012 Lower Science Energy
Public sphere
(society), private
sphere
(individual)
Private sphere Society Voluntary
agreements
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Vethayagam and
Hemalatha, 2010 Primary Curriculum-
independent
take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Visintainer and Linn, 2015 Lower, Upper Science understand climate change.
Vitale, et al., 2016 Upper Science understand climate change.
Walsh and Blakely, 2018 Upper Science Energy Science discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Walsh and McGowan, 2017 Upper Science Science discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Wang, 2014 Primary Science Energy, Waste Public sphere
(society) Public sphere Society Regulation discuss and evaluate mitigation
and/or
adaptation strategies
Williams, et al., 2017 Primary Curriculum-
independent Private sphere take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
Zangori, et al., 2017 Upper Science understand climate change.
Zografakis, et al., 2008 Primary, Lower,
Upper Curriculum-
independent Energy Private sphere take action in
mitigation and/or
adaptation.
* Studies who address justice in the intervention.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 33 of 44
Appendix B
References of 75 intervention studies selected for final inclusion in the
systematic review.
1.
Alexandar, R.; Poyyamoli, G. Activity-based water resources and climate change
education among school students in puducherry. In Climate change and the sustain-
able use of water resources; Leal Filho, W., Ed.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2012; pp 557–578, ISBN 978-3-642-22265-8.
2.
Arya, D.; Maul, A. The building of knowledge, language, and decision-making about
climate change science: a cross-national program for secondary students. International
Journal of Science Education 2016, 38, 885–904, doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1170227.
3.
Assarf, O.B.-Z.; Orpaz Idit. The “life at the poles” study unit: developing junior high
school students’ ability to recognize the relations between earth systems. Res Sci Educ
2010, 40, 525–549, doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9132-2.
4.
Assaraf, O.B.-Z.; Orion, N. A design based research of an earth systems based envi-
ronmental curriculum. EURASIA J MATH SCI T 2009, 5, doi:10.12973/ejmste/75256.
5.
Baker, J.; Loxton, J.; Sherren, K. Using art elicitation to deliver and evaluate a grade 4
climate change instructional module. Applied Environmental Education & Communi-
cation 2013, 12, 130–142, doi:10.1080/1533015X.2013.824248.
6.
Barata, R.; Castro, P.; Martins-Loução, M.A. How to promote conservation behaviours:
the combined role of environmental education and commitment. Environmental
Education Research 2017, 23, 1322–1334, doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1219317.
7.
Bardsley, D.K.; BARDSLEY, A.M. A constructivist approach to climate change teach-
ing and learning. Geographical Research 2007, 45, 329–339, doi:10.1111/j.1745-
5871.2007.00472.x.
8.
Bofferding, L.; Kloser, M. Middle and high school students’ conceptions of climate
change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Environmental Education Research 2015,
21, 275–294, doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.888401.
9.
Breslyn, W.; Drewes, A.; McGinnis, J.; Hestness, E.; Mouza, C. Development of
an empirically-based conditional learning progression for climate change. Science
Education International 2017, 28, 214–223, doi:10.33828/sei.v28.i3.5.
10.
Buchanan, J.; Schuck, S.; Aubusson, P. In-school sustainability action: climate clever
energy savers. Aust. J. environ. educ. 2016, 32, 154–173, doi:10.1017/aee.2015.55.
11.
Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. Impact of middle school student energy monitoring
activities on climate change beliefs and intentions. School Science and Mathematics
2018, 118, 43–52, doi:10.1111/ssm.12257.
12.
Covitt, B.A.; Parker, J.M.; Kohn, C.; Lee, M.; Lin, Q.; Anderson, C.W. Understand-
ing and responding to challenges students face when engaging in carbon cycle
pool-and-flux reasoning. The Journal of Environmental Education 2021, 52, 98–117,
doi:10.1080/00958964.2020.1847882.
13.
Dunkley, R.A. Learning at eco-attractions: Exploring the bifurcation of nature and
culture through experiential environmental education. The Journal of Environmental
Education 2016, 47, 213–221, doi:10.1080/00958964.2016.1164113.
14.
Edsand, H.-E.; Broich, T. The impact of environmental education on environmental
and renewable energy technology awareness: Empirical evidence from colombia. Int
J of Sci and Math Educ 2020, 18, 611–634, doi:10.1007/s10763-019-09988-x.
15.
Eggert, S.; Nitsch, A.; Boone, W.J.; Nückles, M.; Bögeholz, S. Supporting students’
learning and socioscientific reasoning about climate change—the effect of computer-
based concept mapping scaffolds. Res Sci Educ 2017, 47, 137–159, doi:10.1007/s11165-
015-9493-7.
16.
Fisher, S.R. Life trajectories of youth committing to climate activism. Environmental
Education Research 2016, 22, 229–247, doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1007337.
17.
Flora, J.A.; Saphir, M.; Lappé, M.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Maibach, E.W.; Leiserowitz, A.A.
Evaluation of a national high school entertainment education program:
The Alliance for Climate Education. Climatic Change 2014, 127, 419–434,
doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1274-1.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 34 of 44
18.
Gold, A.U.; Oonk, D.; Smith, L.K.; Boykoff, M.; Osnes, B.; Buhr Sullivan, S. Lens
on climate change: Making climate meaningful through student-produced videos.
Journal of Geography 2015, 114, 235–246.
19.
Hallar, A.G.; McCubbin, I.B.; Wright, J.M. CHANGE: A place-based curriculum for
understanding climate change at storm peak Laboratory, Colorado. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society 2011, 92, 909–918, doi:10.1175/2011BAMS3026.1.
20.
Holley, D.; Park, S. Integration of science disciplinary core ideas and environmental
themes through Constructivist Teaching Practices. EURASIA J MATH SCI T 2020, 16,
doi:10.29333/ejmste/115583.
21.
Holthuis, N.; Lotan, R.; Saltzman, J.; Mastrandrea, M.; Wild, A. Supporting and
understanding students’ epistemological discourse about climate change. Journal of
Geoscience Education 2014, 62, 374–387, doi:10.5408/13-036.1.
22.
Jakobsson, A.; Mäkitalo, Å.; Säljö, R. Conceptions of knowledge in research on
students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect: Methodological positions and
their consequences for representations of knowing. Sci. Ed. 2009, 93, 978–995,
doi:10.1002/sce.20341.
23.
Jensen, B.B. Environmental and health education viewed from an action-oriented
perspective: a case from Denmark 2004.
24.
Jin, H.; Zhan, L.; Anderson, C.W. Developing a fine-grained learning progression
framework for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Educa-
tion 2013, 35, 1663–1697, doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.782453.
25.
Karpudewan, M.; Mohd Ali Khan, Nur Sabrina. Experiential-based climate change
education: fostering students’ knowledge and motivation towards the environment.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 2017, 26, 207–
222, doi:10.1080/10382046.2017.1330037.
26.
Karpudewan, M.; Roth, W.-M.; Abdullah, M.N.S.B. Enhancing primary school stu-
dents’ knowledge about global warming and environmental attitude using
climate change activities. International Journal of Science Education 2015, 37, 31–54,
doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.958600.
27.
Karpudewan, M.; Roth, W.-M.; Chandrakesan, K. Remediating misconception on cli-
mate change among secondary school students in Malaysia. Environmental Education
Research 2015, 21, 631–648, doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.891004.
28.
Klosterman, M.L.; Sadler, T.D. Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge
gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of
Science Education 2010, 32, 1017–1043, doi:10.1080/09500690902894512.
29.
Leigh, K. Energy busters Norfolk schools fight climate change. The Journal of Envi-
ronmental Education 2009, 13–14.
30. Lester, B.T.; Ma, L.; Lee, O.; Lambert, J. Social activism in elementary science education:
A science, technology, and society approach to teach global warming. International
Journal of Science Education 2006, 28, 315–339, doi:10.1080/09500690500240100.
31.
Lombardi, D.; Brandt, C.B.; Bickel, E.S.; Burg, C. Students’ evaluations about climate
change. International Journal of Science Education 2016, 38, 1392–1414,
doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1193912.
32.
Mason, L.; Santi, M. Discussing the greenhouse effect: children’s collaborative dis-
course reasoning and conceptual change. Environmental Education Research 1998, 4,
67–85, doi:10.1080/1350462980040105.
33.
Markauskaite, L.; Kelly, N.; Jacobson, M.J. Model-based knowing: How do students
ground their understanding about climate systems in agent-based computer models?
Res Sci Educ 2020, 50, 53–77, doi:10.1007/s11165-017-9680-9.
34.
Mastura, H.; Mohd Saat, R. Exploring students’ understanding in making a decision
on a socioscientific issue using a persuasive graphic organiser. Journal of Baltic Science
Education 2017, 16, 813–824, doi:10.33225/jbse/17.16.813.
35.
McNeal, K.S.; Libarkin, J.C.; Ledley, T.S.; Bardar, E.; Haddad, N.; Ellins, K.; Dutta, S.
The role of research in online curriculum development: the case of EarthLabs climate
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 35 of 44
change and earth system modules. Journal of Geoscience Education 2014, 62, 560–577,
doi:10.5408/13-060.1.
36. McNeill, K.L.; Pimentel, D.S. Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of
the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Sci. Ed. 2009, n/a-n/a,
doi:10.1002/sce.20364.
37.
McNeill, K.L.; Vaughn, M.H. Urban high school students’ critical science agency:
conceptual understandings and environmental actions around alimate change. Res
Sci Educ 2010, 42, 373–399, doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9202-5.
38.
Niebert, K.; Gropengiesser, H. Understanding and communicating climate
change in metaphors. Environmental Education Research 2013, 19, 282–302,
doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.690855.
39.
Niebert, K.; Gropengießer, H. Understanding the greenhouse effect by embodiment—
Analysing and using students’ and scientists’ conceptual resources. International
Journal of Science Education 2014, 36, 277–303, doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.763298.
40.
Niebert, K.; Gropengiesser, H. Understanding starts in the mesocosm: conceptual
metaphor as a framework for external representations in science teaching. International
Journal of Science Education 2015, 37, 903–933, doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1025310.
41.
Öhman, J.; Öhman, M. Participatory approach in practice: an analysis of student dis-
cussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research 2013, 19,
324–341,
doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.695012.
42.
Oluk, S.; Özalp, I. The teaching of global environmental problems according to the
constructivist approach: as a focal point of the problem and the availability of concept
cartoons. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 2007, 7, 881–896.
43.
Nussbaum, M.E.; Owens, M.C.; Sinatra, M.G.; Rehmat, A.P.; Cordova, J.; Ahmad, S.;
Harris, F.C. Losing the lake: simulations to promote gains in student knowledge and
interest about climate change. International journal of environmental and science
education 2015, 10, 789–811.
44.
Österlind, K. Concept formation in environmental education: 14-year olds’ work on
the intensified greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer. pa. International
Journal of Science Education 2005, 27, 891–908, doi:10.1080/09500690500038264.
45.
Pallant, A.; Lee, H.-S. Constructing scientific arguments using evidence from dynamic
computational climate models. J Sci Educ Technol 2015, 24, 378–395, doi:10.1007/s10956-
014-9499-3.
46.
Porter, D.; Weaver, A.J.; Raptis, H. Assessing students’ learning about fundamental con-
cepts of climate change under two different conditions. Environmental Education Research
2012, 18, 665–686, doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.640750.
47.
Pruneau, D.; Doyon, A.; Langis, J.; Vasseur, L.; Martin, G.; Ouellet, E.; Boudreau, G.
The process of change experimented by teachers and students when voluntarily trying
environmental behaviors. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 2006,
5, 33–40, doi:10.1080/15330150500452349.
48.
Pruneau, D.; Gravel, H.; Bourque, W.; Langis, J. Experimentation with a socio-
constructivist process for climate change education. Environmental Education Re-
search 2003, 9, 429–446, doi:10.1080/1350462032000126096.
49.
Reinfried, S.; Aeschbacher, U.; Rottermann, B. Improving students’ conceptual under-
standing of the greenhouse effect using theory-based learning materials that promote
deep learning. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education
2012, 21, 155–178, doi:10.1080/10382046.2012.672685.
50.
Reinfried, S.; Tempelmann, S. The impact of secondary school students’ preconcep-
tions on the evolution of their mental models of the greenhouse effect and
global warming. International Journal of Science Education 2014, 36, 304–333,
doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.773598.
51.
Rousell, D.; Cutter-Mackenzie, A.N.; Foster, J. Children of an earth to come: spec-
ulative fiction, geophilosophy and climate change education research. Educational
Studies 2017, 53, 654–669.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 36 of 44
52.
Rule, A.C.; Meyer, M.A. Teaching urban high school students global climate change
information and graph interpretation skills using evidence from the scientific literature.
Journal of Geoscience Education 2009, 57, 335–347, doi:10.5408/1.3559674.
53.
Rye, J.A.; Rubba, P.A.; Wiesenmayer, R.L. An investigation of middle school students’
alternative conceptions of global warming. International Journal of Science Education
1997, 19, 527–551, doi:10.1080/0950069970190503.
54.
Schelly, C.; Cross, J.E.; Franzen, W.; Hall, P.; Reeve, S. How to go green: creat-
ing a conservation culture in a public high school through education, modeling,
and communication. The Journal of Environmental Education 2012, 43, 143–161,
doi:10.1080/00958964.2011.631611.
55. Schramm, J.W.; Jin, H.; Keeling, E.G.; Johnson, M.; Shin, H.J. Improved student reason-
ing about carbon-transforming processes through inquiry-based learning activities
derived from an empirically validated learning progression. Res Sci Educ 2018, 48,
887–911, doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9584-0.
56.
Schuster, D.A.; Filippelli, G.M.; Thomas, C.W. Secondary students’ subject matter
representations of climate change. Journal of Geoscience Education 2008, 56, 307–316,
doi:10.5408/secondary_students_subject_mat.
57.
Sellmann, D.; Bogner, F.X. Climate change education: quantitatively assessing the
impact of a botanical garden as an informal learning environment. Environmental
Education Research 2013, 19, 415–429, doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.700696.
58.
Sellmann, D.; Bogner, F.X. Effects of a 1-day environmental education intervention on
environmental attitudes and connectedness with nature. Eur J Psychol Educ 2013, 28,
1077–1086, doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0155-0.
59. Semmens, K.; Fosbenner, L.; Maxfield, K.; Carr, R.H.; Ramage, J.; O’Leary, J.;
Larouche, C.;
Hayward, J.; Henderson, M. Teaching earth systems connections to middle school
students in an informal learning environment with Science on a Sphere
®
, personal
relevance and arts-based activities. Journal of Geoscience Education 2021, 69, 71–84,
doi:10.1080/10899995.2020.1829396.
60.
Siegner, A.; Stapert, N. Climate change education in the humanities classroom: a case
study of the Lowell school curriculum pilot. Environmental Education Research 2020,
26, 511–531, doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1607258.
61.
Stapleton, S.R. A case for climate justice education: american youth connecting to
intragenerational climate injustice in Bangladesh. Environmental Education Research
2019, 25, 732–750, doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1472220.
62. Stevenson, K.T.; King, T.L.; Selm, K.R.; Peterson, M.N.; Monroe, M.C. Framing climate
change communication to prompt individual and collective action among adolescents
from agricultural communities. Environmental Education Research 2018, 24, 365–377,
doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1318114.
63.
Svihla, V.; Linn, M.C. A Design-based approach to fostering understanding of global
climate change. International Journal of Science Education 2012, 34, 651–676,
doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.597453.
64.
Taber, F.; Taylor, N. Climate of concern—A search for effective strategies for teaching
children about global warming. International journal of environmental and science
education 2009, 4, 97–116.
65.
Tasquier, G.; Levrini, O.; Dillon, J. Exploring students’ epistemological knowledge
of models and modelling in science: results from a teaching/learning experience
on climate change. International Journal of Science Education 2016, 38, 539–563,
doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1148828.
66.
Varma, K.; Linn, M.C. Using interactive technology to support students’ understand-
ing of the greenhouse effect and global warming. J Sci Educ Technol 2012, 21, 453–464,
doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9337-9.
67.
Vethanayagam, A.L.; Hemalatha, F.S.R. Effect of environmental education to school
children through animation based educational video. Language in India 2010, 10, 2.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 37 of 44
68.
Visintainer, T.; Linn, M. Sixth-grade students’ progress in understanding
the mechanisms of
global climate change. J Sci Educ Technol 2015, 24, 287–310,
doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9538-0.
69.
Vitale, J.M.; McBride, E.; Linn, M.C. Distinguishing complex ideas about climate
change: knowledge integration vs. specific guidance. International Journal of Science
Education 2016, 38, 1548–1569, doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1198969.
70.
Walsh, E.M.; McGowan, V.C. ‘Let your data tell a story:’ climate change experts
and students navigating disciplinary argumentation in the classroom. International
Journal of Science Education 2017, 39, 20–43, doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1264033.
71.
Walsh, E.M.; Tsurusaki, B. Thank you for being republica: negotiating science and
political identities in climate change learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2018,
27, 48–8.
72.
Wang, T.H. Implementation of web-based argumentation in facilitating elementary
school students to learn environmental issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
2014, 30, 479–496, doi:10.1111/jcal.12061.
73. Williams, S.; McEwen, L.J.; Quinn, N. As the climate changes: intergenerational action-
based learning in relation to flood education. The Journal of Environmental Education
2017, 48, 154–171, doi:10.1080/00958964.2016.1256261.
74. Zangori, L.; Peel, A.; Kinslow, A.; Friedrichsen, P.; Sadler, T.D.Student development of
model-based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio-scientific
issues unit. J Res Sci Teach 2017, 54, 1249–1273, doi:10.1002/tea.21404.
75.
Zografakis, N.; Menegaki, A.N.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Effective education for energy effi-
ciency. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 3226–3232, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.021.
References
1.
Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add. 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/documents/9097 (accessed on 1
January 2022).
2.
IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A., Eds.; Cambridge Universitiy Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
3.
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
4.
IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N.,
Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; Cambridge Universitiy Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021.
5.
IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, E.S., Poloczanska, M., Mintenbeck, K.,
Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
6.
UN General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (UN Dok. A/RES/70/1); UN General
Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
7.
UNRISD. Policy Innovations for Transformative Change: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UNRISD: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2016.
8. United Nations Climate Change. Kyoto Protocol—Targets for the First Commitment Period; UN: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
9.
Sadler, T.D. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. J. Res. Sci. Teach.
2004
,41, 513–536.
[CrossRef]
10.
Schreiner, C.; Henriksen, E.K.; Kirkeby Hansen, P.J. Climate education: Empowering today’s youth to meet tomorrow’s challenges.
Stud. Sci. Educ. 2005,41, 3–49. [CrossRef]
11.
Dawson, V. Western Australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific issue of climate change. Int. J. Sci.
Educ. 2015,37, 1024–1043. [CrossRef]
12.
Clausen, S.W. Exploring the pedagogical content knowledge of danish geography teachers: Teaching weather formation and
climate change. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ. 2018,27, 267–280. [CrossRef]
13. Hasselmann, K. Stochastic climate models part i. theory. Tellus 1976,28, 473–485. [CrossRef]
14. World Meteorological Organization [WMO]. State of the Global Climate 2020; WMO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
15.
Gasparatos, A.; Doll, C.N.H.; Esteban, M.; Ahmed, A.; Olang, T.A. Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for
transitioning to a Green Economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,70, 161–184. [CrossRef]
16.
Ebi, K.L.; Åström, C.; Boyer, C.J.; Harrington, L.J.; Hess, J.J.; Honda, Y.; Kazura, E.; Stuart-Smith, R.F.; Otto, F.E.L. Using detection
and attribution to quantify how climate change is affecting health: Study explores detection and attribution to examine how
climate change is affecting health. Health Aff. 2020,39, 2168–2174. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 38 of 44
17.
van Oldenborgh, G.J.; Krikken, F.; Lewis, S.; Leach, N.J.; Lehner, F.; Saunders, K.R.; van Weele, M.; Haustein, K.; Li, S.;
Wallom, D.; et al. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021,
21, 941–960. [CrossRef]
18.
Stuart-Smith, R.; Saad, A.; Otto, F.; Lisi, G.; Lauta, K.; Minnerop, P.; Wetzer, T. Attribution Science and Litigation: Facilitating Effective
Legal Arguments and Strategies to Manage Climate Change Damages; Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment: Oxford,
UK, 2021.
19.
Callaghan, M.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Nath, S.; Lejeune, Q.; Knutson, T.R.; Reichstein, M.; Hansen, G.; Theokritoff, E.; Andrijevic, M.;
Brecha, R.J.; et al. Machine-learning-based evidence and attribution mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies. Nat. Clim. Change
2021,11, 966–972. [CrossRef]
20.
Vicedo-Cabrera, A.M.; Scovronick, N.; Sera, F.; Royé, D.; Schneider, R.; Tobias, A.; Astrom, C.; Guo, Y.; Honda, Y.;
Hondula, D.M.; et al.
The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 2021,11, 492–500. [CrossRef]
21.
Lenton, T.M.; Rockström, J.; Gaffney, O.; Rahmstorf, S.; Richardson, K.; Steffen, W.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Climate tipping points—Too
risky to bet against. Nature 2019,575, 592–595. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
The Federal Government. German Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change (DAS); The Federal Government: Berlin, Germany, 2008.
23.
Newell, P.; Srivastava, S.; Naess, L.O.; Torres Contreras, G.A.; Price, R. Toward transformative climate justice: An emerging
research agenda. WIREs Clim. Change 2021,12, e733. [CrossRef]
24.
Caney, S. Two kinds of climate justice: Avoiding harm and sharing burdens: Two kinds of climate justice. J. Polit. Philos.
2014
,
22, 125–149. [CrossRef]
25. Harris, P.G. A Research Agenda for Climate Justice; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-78811-816-3.
26.
Schlosberg, D.; Collins, L.B. From environmental to climate justice: Climate change and the discourse of environmental justice.
WIREs Clim. Change 2014,5, 359–374. [CrossRef]
27. Schlosberg, D. Climate justice and capabilities: A framework for adaptation policy. Ethics Int. Aff. 2012,26, 445–461. [CrossRef]
28.
Krause, D. Transformative approaches to address climate change and achieve climate justice. In Routledge Handbook of
Climate Justice; Jafry, T., Ed.; Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 509–520.
ISBN 978-1-138-68935-0.
29. Moss, J. Climate Change and Justice. CUP.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018.
30.
Thiery, W.; Lange, S.; Rogelj, J.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Gudmundsson, L.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Andrijevic, M.; Frieler, K.; Emanuel, K.;
Geiger, T.; et al. Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes. Science 2021,374, 158–160. [CrossRef]
31.
Huttunen, J.; Albrecht, E. The framing of environmental citizenship and youth participation in the fridays for future movement
in Finland. Fennia 2021,199, 46–60. [CrossRef]
32.
de Moor, J.; De Vydt, M.; Uba, K.; Wahlström, M. New kids on the block: Taking stock of the recent cycle of climate activism. Soc.
Mov. Stud. 2021,20, 619–625. [CrossRef]
33.
Noth, F.; Tonzer, L. Understanding climate activism: Who participates in climate marches such as “fridays for future” and what
can we learn from it? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022,84, 102360. [CrossRef]
34.
Wallis, H.; Loy, L.S. What drives pro-environmental activism of young people? A survey study on the fridays for future movement.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2021,74, 101581. [CrossRef]
35.
Balthesen, E. What Do We Want? Climate Justice ! 2019. Available online: https://www.klimareporter.de/international/what-
do-we-want-climate-justice (accessed on 1 January 2022).
36.
BverfG. Beschluss Des Ersten Senats Vom 24. März 2021: Klimaschutz. [Resolution of the First Senate of March 24, 2021: Climate
Protection]. 1 BvR 2656/18-, Rn. 1-270. 2021. Available online: http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20210324_1bvr265618.html (accessed
on 1 February 2022).
37. PUNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; PUNFCCC: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
38.
UNFCCC. Action for Climate Empowerment: Guidelines for Accelerating Solutions through Education, Training and Public; UNESCO &
UNFCCC: Paris, France, 2016.
39. Azevedo, J.; Marques, M. Climate literacy: A systematic review and model integration. IJGW 2017,12, 414. [CrossRef]
40.
Kuthe, A.; Keller, L.; Körfgen, A.; Stötter, H.; Oberrauch, A.; Höferl, K.-M. How many young generations are there?—A typology
of teenagers’ climate change awareness in Germany and Austria. J. Environ. Educ. 2019,50, 172–182. [CrossRef]
41.
Kuthe, A.; Körfgen, A.; Stötter, J.; Keller, L. Strengthening their climate change literacy: A case study addressing the weaknesses
in young people’s climate change awareness. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2020,19, 375–388. [CrossRef]
42.
Michelsen, G.; Siebert, H.; Lilje, J. Nachhaltigkeit Lernen: Ein Lesebuch; VAS: Bad Homburg, Germany, 2011; ISBN 978-3-88864-484-9.
43.
Monroe, M.C.; Plate, R.R.; Oxarart, A.; Bowers, A.; Chaves, W.A. Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A
systematic review of the research. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017,25, 791–812. [CrossRef]
44.
Jorgenson, S.N.; Stephens, J.C.; White, B. Environmental education in transition: A critical review of recent research on climate
change and energy education. J. Environ. Educ. 2019,50, 160–171. [CrossRef]
45.
Bhattacharya, D.; Carroll Steward, K.; Forbes, C.T. Empirical research on K-16 climate education: A systematic review of the
literature. J. Geosci. Educ. 2021,69, 223–247. [CrossRef]
46.
UBA. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2018. [Environmental Awareness in Germany 2018]; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau, Ger-
many, 2019.
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 39 of 44
47.
UBA. Umweltbewusstsein Und Umweltverhalten Junger Menschen. [Environmental Awareness and Environmental Behavior of Young
People]; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau, Germany, 2016.
48.
Ajzen, I.; Madden, T.J. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 1986,22, 453–474. [CrossRef]
49.
Diekmann, A.; Preisendörfer, P. Persönliches umweltverhalten: Diskrepanzen zwischen anspruch und wirklichkeit. Kölner Z.
Soziologie Soz. 1992,44, 226–251.
50.
Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A
meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987,18, 1–8. [CrossRef]
51.
Martens, T.; Rost, J. Der Zusammenhang von Wahrgenommener bedrohung durch umweltgefahren und der ausbildung von
handlungsintentionen. Z. Exp. Psychol. 1998,45, 345–364.
52.
EU. Special Eurobarometer 468: Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment; European Commission: Brussels, Bel-
gium, 2017.
53. BfN. Nature Awareness Study 2015; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2016.
54. UNDP. Peoples’ Climate Vote; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2021.
55.
Sommerer, T.; Lim, S. The environmental state as a model for the world? An analysis of policy repertoires in 37 countries. Environ.
Politics 2016,25, 92–115. [CrossRef]
56. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals Learning Objectives; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017.
57.
UBA. Repräsentative Erhebung von Pro-Kopf-Verbräuchen Natürlicher Ressourcen in Deutschland [Representative Survey of per Capita
Consumption of Natural Resources in Germany]; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau, Germany, 2016.
58.
Moser, S.; Kleinhückelkotten, S. Good intents, but low impacts: Diverging importance of motivational and socioeconomic
determinants explaining pro-environmental behavior, energy use, and carbon footprint. Environ. Behav.
2018
,50, 626–656.
[CrossRef]
59.
Gatersleben, B.; White, E.; Abrahamse, W.; Jackson, T.; Uzzell, D. Values and sustainable lifestyles. Archit. Sci. Rev.
2010
,53, 37–50.
[CrossRef]
60. Stern, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000,56, 407–424. [CrossRef]
61. Niebert, K. Effective sustainability education is political education. Education. J. Res. Debate 2019,2. [CrossRef]
62.
Steinebach, Y. Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross-national
analysis. Regul. Gov. 2022,16, 225–242. [CrossRef]
63. Chawla, L.; Cushing, D.F. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environ. Educ. Res. 2007,13, 437–452. [CrossRef]
64.
Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions; Stern, P.C.; Young, O.R.; Druckman, D. (Eds.) National
Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; p. 308. ISBN 0-309-04494-4.
65.
Gardner, G.T.; Stern, P.C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, 2nd ed.; Pearson Custom Publ: Boston, MA, USA, 2002;
ISBN 978-0-536-68633-6.
66.
Nash, S.L.; Steurer, R. Climate change acts in Scotland, Austria, Denmark and Sweden: The role of discourse and deliberation.
Clim. Policy 2021,21, 1120–1131. [CrossRef]
67.
Bord, R.J.; O’Connor, R.E.; Fisher, A. In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Underst. Sci.
2000,9, 205–218. [CrossRef]
68.
O’Connor, R.E.; Bard, R.J.; Fisher, A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change.
Risk Anal. 1999,19, 461–471. [CrossRef]
69. EU Comission. Attitudes of Europeans towards the Environment; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
70.
Pew Research Center. U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energ. Democrats Mostly Agree the Federal Government Should Do More on
Climate, While Republicans Differ by Ideology, Age and Gender; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
71.
Dalelo, A. Global climate change in geography curricula for Ethiopian secondary and preparatory schools. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ.
Educ. 2011,20, 227–246. [CrossRef]
72. Chung, A.; Rimal, R.N. Social norms: A review. RCR 2016,4, 1–28. [CrossRef]
73. Zeidler, D.L. The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Sci. Ed. 1997,81, 483–496. [CrossRef]
74.
Waldron, F.; Ruane, B.; Oberman, R.; Morris, S. Geographical process or global injustice? Contrasting educational perspectives on
climate change. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019,25, 895–911. [CrossRef]
75.
Oberman, R.; Martinez Sainz, G. Critical thinking, critical pedagogy and climate change education. In Teaching for Social Justice
and Sustainable Development Across the Primary Curriculum; Kavanagh, A.M., Waldron, F., Mallon, B., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon,
UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-0-367-43414-4.
76.
Lange, D.; Onken, H.; Korn, T. Politikunterricht im Fokus: Politische Bildung und Partizipation von Jugendlichen; Empirische Studie;
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Forum Politik und Gesellschaft: Berlin, Germany, 2013; ISBN 978-3-86498-585-0.
77.
Pancer, S.M.; Pratt, M.W. Social and family determinants of community service involvement in Canadian Youth. In Roots of Civic
Identity; Yates, M., Youniss, J., Eds.; Cambridge Universitiy Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999; pp. 32–55.
78.
Fletcher, G.J.O.; Simpson, J.A.; Thomas, G. The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000,26, 340–354. [CrossRef]
79. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Dev. Psychol. 1971,4, 1–103. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 40 of 44
80.
Flekkøy, M.G.; Kaufman, N.H. The Participation Rights of the Child: Rights and Responsibilities in Family and Society; Jessica Kingsley
Publishers: London, UK; Bristol, PA, USA, 1997; ISBN 978-1-85302-489-4.
81.
Dewey, J.; Hylla, E.; Dewey, J. Demokratie und Erziehung: Eine Einleitung in die philosophische Pädagogik; Mit Einer Umfangreichen
Auswahlbibliographie; Oelkers, J., Ed.; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany; Basel, Switzerland, 2011; ISBN 978-3-407-22057-8.
82.
Hahn, C.L. Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY,
USA, 1998.
83. Niemi, R.G.; Junn, J. Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1998.
84.
Delli Carpini, M.X.; Keeter, S. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA,
1996; ISBN 978-0-300-06256-4.
85.
Popkin, S.; Dimock, M. Political knowledge and citizen competence. In Democracy and Citizen Competence; Elkins, S., Ed.;
University Press: Penn Stete, PA, USA, 1996.
86.
Amadeo, J.A.; Torney-Purta, J.V.; Lehmann, R.H.; Husfeldt, V.; Nikolova, R. Civic Knowledge and Civic Engagement among Upper
Secondary Students. Citizenship and Education in Sixteen Countries; IEA: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002.
87.
Conover, P.J.; Searing, D.D.; Crewe, I.M. The deliberative potential of political discussion. Brit. J. Polit. Sci.
2002
,32, 21–62.
[CrossRef]
88.
Torney-Purta, J.; Amadeo, J.-A. A cross-national analysis of political and civic involvement among adolescents. APSC
2003
,
36, 269–274. [CrossRef]
89.
Devine-Wright, P.; Devine-Wright, H.; Fleming, P. Situational influences upon children’s beliefs about global warming and energy.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2004,10, 493–506. [CrossRef]
90. Bartels, L.M. Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. Am. J. Political Sci. 1996,40, 194. [CrossRef]
91. Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy by Anthony Downs, 1st ed.; Harper: New York, NY, USA, 1957.
92. Lau, R.R.; Redlawsk, D.P. Voting correctly. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1997,91, 585–598. [CrossRef]
93.
Lau, R.R.; Redlawsk, D.P. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. Am. J. Political Sci.
2001,45, 951. [CrossRef]
94.
Lau, R.R.; Redlawsk, D.P. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-0-511-79104-8.
95.
Sturgis, P. Causes and consequences of core political value change. In Proceedings of the American Political Science Association
Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 28–31 August 2003.
96.
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med.
2021
,
18, e1003583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97.
Adamina, M.; Hertig, P.; Probst, M.; Reinfried, S.; Stucki, P. CCESO—Climate Change Education and Science Outreach. Klimabildung
in Allen Zyklen der Volksschule und in der Sekundarstufe II. Grundlagen und Erarbeitung Eines Bildungskonzeptes; Federal Office for the
Environment: Ittigen, Switzerland, 2018.
98.
Corbin, J.M.; Strauss, A.L. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed.; SAGE:
Los Angeles, LA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-4129-9746-1.
99.
Hammann, M.; Jördens, J. Offene Aufgaben codieren. In Methoden in der Naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung; Krüger, D.,
Parchmann, I., Schecker, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 169–178. ISBN 978-3-642-37826-3.
100.
Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Systematic Approach. In Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics
Education. ICME-13 Monographs; Kaiser, G., Presmeg, N., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [CrossRef]
101. Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice & Using Software; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2014.
102.
WRI. Reckoning and Recovery: Working toward a More Equitable and Sustainable Future. WRI Annual Report 2020–2021; WRI:
Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
103. Leigh, K. Energy busters norfolk schools fight climate change. J. Environ. Educ. 2009,91, 13–14.
104.
Edsand, H.E.; Broich, T. The impact of environmental education on environmental and renewable energy technology awareness:
Empirical evidence from Colombia. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2019,18, 611–634. [CrossRef]
105.
McNeill, K.L.; Vaughn, M.H. Urban high school students’ critical science agency: Conceptual understandings and environmental
actions around alimate change. Res. Sci. Educ. 2010,42, 373–399. [CrossRef]
106.
Gold, A.U.; Kirk, K.; Morrison, D.; Lynds, S.; Sullivan, S.B.; Grachev, A.; Persson, O. Arctic climate connections curriculum: A
model for bringing authentic data into the classroom. J. Geosci. Educ. 2015,63, 185–197. [CrossRef]
107.
Boyes, E.; Stanisstreet, M. Plus ca Change, plus c’est La Meme Chose? School Students’ Ideas about the “Greenhouse Effect” a
Decade On. Can. J. Environ. Educ. 2001,6, 77–101.
108.
Breslyn, W.; Drewes, A.; McGinnis, J.; Hestness, E.; Mouza, C. Development of an empirically-based conditional learning
progression for climate change. Sci. Educ. Int. 2017,28, 214–223. [CrossRef]
109.
Chhokar, D.; Taylor, B. Stanisstreet indian secondary students’ views about global warming: Beliefs about the usefulness of
actions and willingness to act. Int. J. Sci. Methematics Educ. 2011,9, 1167–1187. [CrossRef]
110.
Jeffries, H.; Stanisstreet, M.; Boyes, E. Knowledge about the “Greenhouse Effect”: Have college students improved? Res. Sci.
Technol. Educ. 2001,19, 205–221. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 4194 41 of 44
111.
Bofferding, L.; Kloser, M. Middle and high school students’ conceptions of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2015,21, 275–294. [CrossRef]
112.
Jin, H.; Zhan, L.; Anderson, C.W. Developing a fine-grained learning progression framework for carbon-transforming processes.
Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2013,35, 1663–1697. [CrossRef]
113.
Karpudewan, M.; Roth, W.-M.; Abdullah, M.N.S.B. Enhancing primary school students’ knowledge about global warming and
environmental attitude using climate change activities. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015,37, 31–54. [CrossRef]
114.
Shepardson, D.P.; Niyogi, D.; Choi, S.; Charusombat, U. Seventh grade students’ conceptions of global warming and climate
change. Environ. Educ. Res. 2009,15, 549–570. [CrossRef]
115.
Schröder, L.-M.U.; Wals, A.E.J.; van Koppen, C.S.A. (Kris) Analysing the state of student participation in two eco-schools using
engeström’s second generation activity systems model. Environ. Educ. Res. 2020,26, 1088–1111. [CrossRef]
116.
Arya, D.; Maul, A. The building of knowledge, language, and decision-making about climate change science: A cross-national
program for secondary students. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016,38, 885–904. [CrossRef]
117.
Lee, L.-S.; Chang, L.-T.; Lai, C.-C.; Guu, Y.-H.; Lin, K.-Y. Energy literacy of vocational students in Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res.
2017
,
23, 855–873. [CrossRef]
118.
Svihla, V.; Linn, M.C. A Design-based approach to fostering understanding of global climate change. Int. J. Sci. Educ.
2012
,
34, 651–676. [CrossRef]
119.
Bardsley, D.K.; Bardsley, A.M. A Constructivist Approach to Climate Change Teaching and Learning. Geogr. Res.
2007
,45, 329–339.
[CrossRef]
120.
Holthuis, N.; Lotan, R.; Saltzman, J.; Mastrandrea, M.; Wild, A. Supporting and understanding students’ epistemological
discourse about climate change. J. Geosci. Educ. 2014,62, 374–387. [CrossRef]
121.
Nussbaum, M.E.; Owens, M.C.; Sinatra, M.G.; Rehmat, A.P.; Cordova, J.; Ahmad, S.; Harris, F.C. Losing the lake: Simulations to
promote gains in student knowledge and interest about climate change. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2015,10, 789–811.
122.
Sellmann, D.; Bogner, F.X. Climate change education: Quantitatively assessing the impact of a botanical garden as an informal
learning environment. Environ. Educ. Res. 2013,19, 415–429. [CrossRef]
123.
Stevenson, K.T.; King, T.L.; Selm, K.R.; Peterson, M.N.; Monroe, M.C. Framing climate change communication to prompt
individual and collective action among adolescents from agricultural communities. Environ. Educ. Res.
2017
,24, 365–377.
[CrossRef]
124.
Alexandar, R.; Poyyamoli, G. Activity-based water resources and climate change education among school students in puducherry.
In Climate Change and the Sustainable Use of Water Resources; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 557–578.
125.
Siegner, A.; Stapert, N. Climate change education in the humanities classroom: A case study of the lowell school curriculum pilot.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2020,26, 511–531. [CrossRef]
126.
Stapleton, S.R. A case for climate justice education: American youth connecting to intragenerational climate injustice in Bangladesh.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2019,25, 732–750. [CrossRef]
127.
Williams, S.; McEwen, L.J.; Quinn, N. As the climate changes: Intergenerational action-based learning in relation to flood
education. J. Environ. Educ. 2017,