Tessa-Marie Baierl
Jürgen Paul1
Franz X. Bogner- 1Department of Biology and Chemistry Education, Centre of Math and Science Education (Z-MNU), University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
- 2Earth Education Research and Evaluation Team, College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States
Despite the growing sustainability challenges faced globally, many individuals engage only minimally in daily sustainability efforts. Although access to information has become more convenient, many people do not actively seek out information on sustainability. However, understanding sustainability is central to continued engagement in sustainable practices. The European initiative NEB | Lab ECO2-Schools addresses this continued disengagement issue by approaching sustainability education more holistically. It integrates knowledge (information about sustainability), attitudes (a driving force for using this knowledge in sustainable engagement), and behaviors (actions to protect or preserve natural environments). Since health, defined as a person’s physical, mental, and social wellbeing, is primary for almost any behavior, the initiative also integrates health promotion. This includes people’s belief in their abilities, coping strategies, and resilience to handle ambiguity and complexity. This is particularly important in sustainability education, as many complex issues may only be solved eventually. Based on data from 794 participants and structural equation modeling, our findings support the foundational role of health promotion in shaping individuals’ attitudes toward nature and environmental attitudes. Both attitudes, in turn, support learning about sustainability and engaging in sustainable behaviors. Researchers and educators may thus consider integrating health promotion with strengthening positive attitudes to support individuals’ consistent, sustainable engagement.
1 Introduction
Media presence, such as highlighting plastic pollution, along with public initiatives like the UN Sustainable Development Goals, contributes to raising awareness about sustainability issues. Those are underlined by curricular shifts toward embracing “green” issues and introducing more sustainability-related topics into classrooms, with schools being a critical infrastructure to lever sustainability in daily life. There is yet a lack of individual engagement despite the availability of information and the possibility of consumer and lifestyle choices. Several theoretical approaches offered ways to reduce this discrepancy, such as through values (DeGroot and Steg, 2008), norms (Harland et al., 1999), or attitudes (Bogner and Wiseman, 2006). With driving urgency, new initiatives are thriving. The European initiative NEB | Lab ECO2-Schools builds upon previous environmental education research, primarily focusing on knowledge and attitudes through a holistic approach (Eco2 Schools, 2024). This approach originates from the GreenComp European sustainability competence framework, which serves as a reference tool for competencies related to sustainable living (Biachni et al., 2022). It acknowledges health-promoting factors such as self-efficacy and resilience as a basis for sustainable efforts (Schutte and Bhullar, 2017). NEB | Lab ECO2-Schools integrates these competencies and involves students and staff in eco-renovating educational buildings while encouraging sustainable daily choices. In this way, it aims to improve sustainability education by connecting health-promoting competencies to sustainability-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.
The EU initiative NEB | Lab ECO2-Schools eco-renovates educational buildings in five European countries through an Open Schooling concept, serving as learning hubs and role models for other buildings to follow (Eco2 Schools, 2024). Open Schooling involves the users of the building (e.g., students and staff) and the community in an innovative eco-renovation process, enabling them to become active participants in addressing sustainability issues. Renovating buildings involves modernizing them to be resource-efficient, raising awareness, and engaging people effectively so they learn to use sustainability-related knowledge and competencies relevant to daily life. School renovations may include installing solar panels and intelligent lighting systems or starting a sustainable canteen. Students are actively engaged in the entire process. They participate in planning installations, learn about their technical and environmental aspects, utilize data from installations such as solar panels, and develop sustainable strategy plans for the green canteen (e.g., plastic waste management, reducing food waste, using locally sourced foods). They also benefit from these projects by using the energy generated from solar panels and consuming food from the canteen. Throughout the initiative, the students may better understand sustainability, learn about different behavioral options, and apply this knowledge to their daily choices, thus also outside of school (e.g., consuming low-waste locally grown foods and avoiding single-use plastics). They may also learn about the environmental impact of different energy sources and compare, for example, the costs and benefits of solar panels to other sources based on local conditions. The “whole school approach” by Mogren et al. (2019) is another example of how built environments can influence individual daily behaviors. Both approaches emphasize the importance of teaching beyond mere facts to promote a more sustainable lifestyle. This means that education should integrate understanding behavioral alternatives and the effectiveness of sustainable strategies (Frick et al., 2004). Ultimately, individuals need to be informed about sustainable practices so that they can effectively implement them.
NEB | Lab ECO2-Schools focuses on educational buildings at various stages, emphasizing the importance of education throughout life, including outreach facilities and science centers. In this regard, schools play a vital role in teaching sustainability, as they provide a foundational platform to reach many individuals, particularly at an age when attitudes and other internal variables are forming (Kaiser et al., 2014). Therefore, school students may be more receptive to change than adults. Sustainability education may continue at universities, expanding opportunities for students to develop competencies. Regardless of age, sustainable behaviors are likely based on people’s wellbeing and resilience and, consequently, on health-supporting competencies such as adaptability (Schutte and Bhullar, 2017). These competencies—also subsumed under the term salutogenesis—are required for health maintenance and overcoming personal or societal challenges (Lindström and Eriksson, 2005). As a result, they are increasingly recognized in educational institutions, as acknowledged by the GreenComp framework.
The GreenComp framework provides a comprehensive set of sustainability competencies to support individuals in adopting more sustainable lifestyles, grounded in the principle of lifelong learning (Biachni et al., 2022). It integrates knowledge, skills, and attitudes in alignment with interdisciplinary approaches to environmental education (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002), acknowledging that factual knowledge alone is insufficient for sustained engagement (Bandura, 1982). The framework also emphasizes the importance of human health through coping strategies and problem-solving, leading to individual, collective, and political initiatives. Health promotion, in turn, may level knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Within this framework, we assess the health-related competencies of (1) promoting nature, (2) critical thinking, (3) adaptability, and (4) individual initiative.
Promoting nature emphasizes the intrinsic connection between humans and the natural environment (Biachni et al., 2022). Recognizing the interdependence between humans and nature, including their needs, resilience, and health, is essential for promoting sustainable behavior. Positive experiences and direct contact with nature often strengthen this relationship, enhancing an individual’s sense of connectedness to the natural world (Nisbet et al., 2008). Time spent outdoors, whether for restoration, recreation, education, or leisure, has been shown to deepen appreciation and emotional attachment to nature (Chawla, 1997; Tam, 2013), as reflected in one’s attitude toward nature (Baierl et al., 2024). Attitude toward nature, in turn, may drive environmentally friendly behaviors (Whitburn et al., 2020). As such, increased exposure to natural environments tends to cultivate emotional bonds and empathy for all living beings, thereby making individuals more likely to engage in nature conservation and preservation (e.g., Hinds and Sparks, 2008; Mayer and Frantz, 2004).
Critical thinking is the ability to identify credible information, such as recognizing greenwashing, as well as to manage uncertainty, navigate complex scenarios, and, thereby, adapt to change (Sala et al., 2020). In a rapidly changing world that produces an overwhelming influx of knowledge, individuals must be equipped to critically evaluate information and arguments to draw sound conclusions and develop sensible solutions (Paul and Elder, 2002). This involves reflection on personal and others’ viewpoints, an awareness of cultural contexts, and a willingness to confront one’s own flaws and biases (Tversky and Kahneman, 2003), such as confirmation biases, suggesting that people prefer ideas that align with their beliefs and expectations (Nickerson, 1998). Cultivating critical thinking thus requires not only analytical skills but also intellectual humility and openness to diverse perspectives.
Along those lines, adaptability emphasizes coping with ambiguity, uncertainty, and risk. Those coping strategies develop continuously throughout life (Lindström and Eriksson, 2005); they are decisive for navigating the complexity of modern life and addressing sustainability challenges across economic, ecological, and societal domains. Both critical thinking and adaptability require recognizing that many sustainability issues may not have immediate solutions. Instead, these issues demand proactive engagement to prevent or mitigate long-term consequences and adapt human lifestyles and technologies accordingly. Critical thinking assists in managing complex, conflicting information and drawing conclusions, while adaptability allows for flexible responses to evolving, intricate circumstances. Together, these abilities foster responsible action in the face of environmental challenges, a capacity closely linked to Antonovsky’s (1996) concept of sense of coherence—the perception of life as understandable, manageable, and meaningful.
Individual initiative relies on recognizing achievable sustainability actions, having confidence in one’s capability to accomplish them (i.e., locus of control and self-efficacy), and being willing to act (i.e., attitudes). Self-efficacy is the belief in achieving a desired outcome (Bandura and Wessels, 1994). It emanates from people’s assessment of their capabilities and their perceived effectiveness, which, in turn, influences their attitudes and behaviors (Bandura, 1982). The more people perceive themselves as capable of carrying out an activity, the more likely and vigorously they will engage, regardless of the study area, such as sports (Weinberg et al., 1979), learned helplessness (Brown and Inouye, 1978), or health-related intentions and behaviors (Sheeran et al., 2016). Conversely, people avoid behaviors they consider beyond their capabilities (Bandura, 1982). Individual initiative involves actively contributing to sustainable development, relying on people’s self-efficacy and attitudes—their motivational drive to act (Biachni et al., 2022).
An attitude is a motivational concept (Allport, 1933), a relatively persistent internal drive leading to a willingness for action (Biachni et al., 2022). In environmental education research, two distinct attitudes have become relevant for teaching and learning sustainability: attitude toward nature and environmental attitude (Kaiser et al., 2014). Attitude toward nature reflects people’s propensity to appreciate and enjoy the natural environment, e.g., for recreational and restorative outdoor activities (Brügger et al., 2011; Tam, 2013). Environmental attitude, on the other hand, reflects people’s propensity to minimize harm to nature and actively protect it, demonstrating their commitment to nature preservation and conservation (Baierl et al., 2022b). While both attitudes are decisive for environmental engagement (e.g., Dutcher et al., 2007), attitude toward nature appears to be a predecessor: Research indicates environmental attitude’s mediating role between attitude toward nature on learning and ecological engagement (Baierl et al., 2024; Geng et al., 2015; Wells and Lekies, 2006). This is supported by the many positive correlations between attitude toward nature and knowledge or behavior scores (e.g., Bonnett and Williams, 1998; Whitburn et al., 2018) and typically stronger correlations between environmental attitude and knowledge or behavior scores (e.g., Davis et al., 2011; Thompson and Barton, 1994), rendering both attitudes relevant to learning and education. Attitude toward nature can be fostered by nature contact, spending time outdoors, and working with original objects (see, e.g., Dresner and Gill, 1994), which, in turn, may spur their environmental attitudes (Baierl et al., 2022a; Ewert et al., 2005).
Research goals
This study aims to investigate the role of health-promoting competencies—such as self-efficacy and sense of coherence—in shaping sustainability-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, thereby contributing to the broader framework of sustainability education. Building on prior research that highlights the importance of attitudes in sustainable action (e.g., Baierl et al., 2022b; Baierl and Bogner, 2024), we explore how psychological resources that support wellbeing may reinforce educational efforts toward sustainable development.
I. Validation of relationships: To what extent can established relationships among sustainability-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors be validated across three European cohorts, both collectively and individually?
II. Influence of health-promoting competencies: How do competencies that support psychological wellbeing influence sustainability-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, and the structural relationships among them?
III. Educational implications: What initial recommendations for sustainability education can be derived from the observed relationships between health-promoting competencies and sustainability-related outcomes?
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Participants and procedure
Our study relied on a sample of 794 participants (Mage = 18.11, SD = 13.79) based on 54.53% (n = 433) females and 39.67% (n = 315) males; 46 (5.79%) study participants provided no information on gender. Most reported living in an urban area (n = 401), while only 107 lived in a rural area. We lack information on the living areas of 286 participants. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants for their anonymized data to be used in this study. For under aged students, consent was obtained from their parents or legal guardians. Ethical approval was obtained from the Cork University Ethics Committee (Log 2023–069) and waived for two subsamples as the data was anonymized, ensuring that participants could not be identified, and no sensitive data was collected. The research was conducted in an educational setting as part of regular lessons.
In Ireland, 184 university students completed the questionnaire (Mage = 25.14, SD = 9.52; 69.6% [n = 128] females and 26.6% [n = 49] males, while 3.8% [n = 7] preferred not to respond to gender). The majority of the students lived with their family (58.2%, n = 107), in a shared flat (22.8%, n = 42), or with their partner (13%, n = 24), so in company with others. 76.6% (n = 141) lived in a house and 19.6% (n = 36) in an apartment or flat. About two-thirds had pets (57.1%, n = 105), while 39.1% (n = 72) had no pets. The study participants were asked how often they talked about environmental issues at home. 3.3% (n = 6) talked never about environmental issues at home, 32.1% (n = 59) indicated talking every few weeks, 19% (n = 35) once per week, 26.6% (n = 49) talked two or three times per week about environmental issues, and 15.2% (n = 28) every day. The study participants were also asked how frequently they discussed science at home. 12.2% (n = 23) said they never talked about science at home, 23.4% (n = 43) talked every few weeks about science, 11.4% (n = 21) once per week, 29.3% (n = 54) talked two or three times per week about science, and 19.6% (n = 36) every day.
In Sweden, 142 school students (n = 116) and their teaching staff (n = 28) participated in the data collection (Mage = 21.29, SD = 9.41; 59.9% [n = 85] females and 35.2% [n = 50] males, 4.9% [n = 7] preferred not to respond to gender). Also, in this subsample, most lived with their families (60.6%, n = 86), in a shared flat (4.9%, n = 7), or with their partner (4.2%, n = 6), and 2.8% (n = 4) lived on their own. 73.2% (n = 124) lived in a house and 12.7% (n = 18) in an apartment or flat. About half of the sample had pets (55.6%, n = 79), while 43% (n = 61) did not. 13.4% (n = 19) never talked about environmental issues at home, 42.3% (n = 60) talked once every few weeks, 21.1% (n = 30) indicated once per week, 18.3% (n = 26) talked two or three times per week, and 4.9% (n = 7) talked every day about environmental issues. When asked how often students discussed the science they learned at school at home, 19.7% (n = 28) indicated never talking about such topics, 33.1% (n = 47) talked once every few weeks about science, 12.7% (n = 18) once per week, 13.4% (n = 19) talked two or three times per week about science, and 10.6% (n = 15) every day.
In Greece, 468 school students completed the questionnaire (Mage = 13.78, SD = 1.05; 47% [n = 220] female and 46.2% [n = 216] male adolescents; 6.8% [n = 32] preferred not to respond to gender). Most of the students lived in an urban area (85.3% [n = 399]), and only 14.3% in a rural area (n = 67). Due to time restrictions in class for completing questionnaires, we only have additional demographic information on 333 students. About half of the sample lived in a house (52.3%, n = 174), and 47.7% lived in an apartment or flat (n = 159). Most of the school students did not share their room with anybody (80.2%, n = 267), and only 10.5% (n = 35) had pets in their room, 7.5% (n = 25) shared it with siblings, or with siblings and pets (1.8% [n = 6]). In this regard, about half of the sample had pets (55.9%, n = 186), while 44.1% (n = 147) did not. 24.6% (n = 82) never talked about environmental issues at home, 40.8% (n = 136) talked once every few weeks about such topics at home, 10.5% (n = 35) did so once per week, 19.2% (n = 64) talked two or three times per week, and 4.5% (n = 15) talked every day about environmental issues. 20.4% (n = 68) indicated they never talked about the science they learn at school in their homes. 42% (n = 140) talked once every few weeks about the science they learned, 11.7% (n = 39) once per week, 20.4% (n = 68) talked two or three times per week about the science they learned at school, and 4.5% (n = 15) every day.
2.2 Measures
All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 27), including descriptive statistics and correlation analyses. To examine latent constructs and structural relationships, we applied confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS AMOS (Version 27). Model fit was evaluated using standard indices such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). For the calibration of attitudes and knowledge, we employed ConQuest software (Version 4.0) to perform Rasch modeling, enabling the evaluation of item fit and scale reliability.
We collected two sets of measurements at a single testing point for a comprehensive model in sustainability education. The first set focused on health-promoting factors, which included individuals’ self-efficacy (assessed through their sense of internal control and self-concept regarding their abilities, a variation of the locus of control), sense of coherence, and outdoor experiences. The second set evaluated knowledge levels, attitudes toward nature, environmental attitudes, and the ecological footprint as a proxy for sustainable behavior. For a comprehensive overview of all constructs see Table 1. To ensure test fairness, we calibrated the scales for each country in preliminary analyses. As the measurements were consistent for each setting, we will provide the quality criteria for the entire sample (N = 794) to highlight overall trends while analyzing the sub-samples in further detail.
Table 1. This overview presents the constructs measured in our integrated multidimensional model for sustainability education.
The comprehensive idea of health promotion and maintenance includes four constructs derived from the GreenComp framework (Biachni et al., 2022), acknowledging that health comprises physical, mental, and social wellbeing rather than the mere absence of disease (Antonovsky, 1996). The survey assessed the participants’ sense of coherence (Rajesh et al., 2016), outdoor experiences, and self-efficacy (Anderson et al., 2005).
Antonovsky (1993) focused on factors that help cope with crises, rather than on risk and disease. He emphasized the importance of meaningfulness, adaptability, coping strategies, and perceived social support, which are dynamic and develop throughout one’s lifetime (Lindström and Eriksson, 2005). The concept of Sense of Coherence (Antonovsky, 1996) is basic for health promotion and a resource for coping with challenges. The concept involves three elements: (1) meaningfulness, which refers to finding purpose in the world; (2) comprehensibility, which is one’s belief in being able to understand challenges; and (3) manageability, which encompasses one’s perception of having the necessary resources to cope with challenges (Antonovsky, 1996). We utilized seven items from Rajesh et al.’s (2016) scale, which was adapted for use with adolescents (see Figure A1). The study participants responded on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We employed Amos software (Arbuckle, 2016) to carry out a unidimensional, confirmatory factor analysis: Chi-square = 54.068 (14 df), p < 0.001, CMIN/DF = 3.862, CFI = 0.974, and RMSEA = 0.054.
Locus of Control and Self-efficacy were combined into a single scale by Anderson et al. (2005). The scale is based on Levenson’s (1981) concept of the locus of control. Krampen (1991) adapted Levenson’s (1981) scale to be less culturally dependent. Anderson et al. (2005) further enhanced this culturally flexible version by incorporating the self-concept, which refers to an individual’s self-efficacy. We utilized 10 items to measure self-efficacy, reflected by the subscales of internality and self-concept. Participants responded to evaluative statements using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Amos software (Arbuckle, 2016) was used for confirmatory factor analysis. The seven items of the internality scale indicated fair fit indices: Chi-square = 41.260 (14 df), p < 0.001, CMIN/DF = 2.947, CFI = 0.970, and RMSEA = 0.044 (Figure A2). We identified a person’s self-concept using four items: Chi-square = 5.329 (2 df), p = 0.070, CMIN/DF = 2.665, CFI = 0.991, and RMSEA = 0.041 (Figure A3).
The survey asked participants about their Outdoor experience using seven items. Four items focused on individual experiences in nature, while three inquired about outdoor activities with others. One item asked about spending leisure time outdoors with friends, another inquired about hiking, nature walks, or picnics with their family, and a third asked about outdoor lessons, such as in the school garden (see Figure A4). For adults, questions about lessons were asked retrospectively. The participants rated their experiences on a five-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). We used a one-dimensional factor analysis as a proxy of outdoor experiences (CMIN/DF = 2.486, CFI = 0.972, and RMSEA = 0.067).
Environmental attitude reflects an individual’s propensity to minimize harm to nature and to actively protect it (Baierl et al., 2022b). We used 28 items from the pool of Baierl et al. (2022b), and the scale was calibrated using a dichotomous Rasch model (see Rasch, 1980). The person separation reliability (rel. = 0.80) indicates that the scale differentiated fairly well among the participants. Mean Square (MS) values reflect the discrepancy between the Rasch model’s prediction and actual responses. A value of 1.10 indicates 10% more response variation than the model predicted. MS weighted by the item variance (MSw) fell between 0.81 and 1.22, so they were within reasonable boundaries (Bond and Fox, 2007). Only one item was too heterogeneous in its responses (MSw = 1.34): “If I am offered a plastic bag in a store, I take it.” Some study participants with positive attitudes agreed on it, while others with negative attitudes did not. It is thus a poor proxy for environmental attitude with our cohort, probably given cultural differences in using plastic bags. Therefore, the item was excluded from further analysis. Person parameters ranged from −3.71 to 2.88 (M = −0.09 [SD = 1.02]). Item difficulties (i.e., the cost involved in carrying out a behavior) ranged from −1.13 to 1.74 (M = 0.0 [SD = 0.63]).
Attitude toward nature reflects a person’s propensity to appreciate, enjoy, or connect with nature (see Baierl et al., 2024; Brügger et al., 2011). Indicator items include self-reports about nature bonding activities, such as “I take time to watch the clouds pass by,” and responses to evaluative statements about nature appreciation, such as “I like the quiet of nature.” We used 27 items from the item pool of Baierl et al. (2024). The person reliability score (rel. = 0.83) was good, and MSw values fell within a reasonable range between 0.85 and 1.30 (see Bond and Fox, 2007). Person parameters ranged from −3.55 to 3.59 (M = 0.17; SD = 1.22). Item difficulties (i.e., the cost involved in a behavior) ranged from −1.45 to 1.92 (M = 0.0; SD = 0.86).
For both attitudes, the study participants responded to self-reported behaviors on five-point frequency scales ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) or a yes-no format, for which they could choose not applicable if they were indecisive, which was coded as a missing value. The study participants responded to evaluative statements on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Six items were negatively formulated and reverse-coded before the analysis. All polytomous items were dichotomized for the Rasch calibration. Therefore, never, seldom, occasionally, strongly disagree, disagree, and not sure/neutral were coded as a lack of nature appreciation or preservation (= 0). Often, always, agree, and strongly agree were coded as an expression of nature appreciation or preservation (= 1).
Sustainability-related knowledge comprises system, action, and effectiveness knowledge (13 items in total), a common distinction of knowledge dimensions adopted from Frick et al. (2004). Those items were presented in a single-choice format with four options and one correct answer. System knowledge covers facts and an understanding of ecosystem functioning and sustainability issues. An example used in this study is “Which of the following is not a renewable energy?” with its four answer options: (1) solar energy, (2) fossil energy, (3) wind power, and (4) biomass. Action knowledge involves knowledge about different behaviors, for example, “How can you help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?” with its four answer options: (1) plant trees, (2) ride a bicycle, (3) wear clothing made from natural fibers, and (4) use wood as fuel. This type of knowledge helps individuals put system knowledge into practice by showing them what they can do regularly. Effectiveness knowledge deals with understanding the impact of environmental strategies, such as comparing different initiatives for climate change mitigation. We used the Rasch model for calibration (see Adams and Khoo, 2015). Knowledge was measured in logits, so the more positive a logit value is, the stronger we assume an individual’s environmental knowledge to be. Logits indicate the natural logarithm of the ratio between the relative frequencies of correct and incorrect responses and fell between −2.80 and 3.25 logits (M = 0.41, SD = 1.63). The separation reliability indicated that the scale accurately distinguished among the study participants (rel. = 0.74; MSw = 0.82–1.24), and item difficulties ranged from −1.07 to 3.84 (M = 0.00; SD = 1.23).
Ecological footprint: We used items from typical footprint calculators and added a few on other consumption behaviors, such as second-hand shopping (Global Footprint Network, 2021). We chose those items that were within the scope of our cohort. We therefore excluded items related to housing and included items on age-related consumption behaviors. The items covered four domains: electricity, nourishment, transportation, and other consumption of goods such as clothes or resources spent on leisure. The study participants responded to 29 self-reported behaviors on five-point frequency scales ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A total of 14 items were negatively formulated and reverse-coded before the analysis. We derived the mean score from those 29 items as a behavioral indicator, reflecting their level of pro-environmental engagement (M = 2.95, SD = 0.38).
3 Results
We first conducted Pearson correlations to examine the relationship between health-promoting factors, attitudes, knowledge, and the ecological footprint as a behavior indicator (see Table 2). Our findings are consistent with existing literature. For instance, environmental attitudes show a stronger correlation to pro-environmental behavior than knowledge levels do (e.g., Pooley and O’Connor, 2000). Then, we find the typical correlation between attitude toward nature and environmental attitude (e.g., Baldi et al., 2021; DeVille et al., 2021; Mackay and Schmitt, 2019), while the correlation between environmental attitude and knowledge levels is stronger than the correlation between attitude toward nature and knowledge (e.g., Baierl et al., 2024). We also find a significant positive correlation between internality and self-concept, indicating that both contribute to a person’s self-efficacy within their locus of control (Anderson et al., 2005).
Table 2. Pearson correlations between the individual measurements within our integrated sustainability model.
In the next step, we delved deeper into the relationships between the variables and worked toward creating an integrated sustainability model. Recent research suggested that environmental attitude may play a mediating role: While positive attitude toward nature levels influence the acquisition and retention of knowledge, environmental attitude seems to mediate this relationship (Baierl et al., 2024). We tested such a potential mediation and included an additional component: the impact of outdoor experiences, which positively contributes to attitudes toward nature (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. According to recent research, environmental attitude appears to mediate attitude toward nature’s positive effect on knowledge scores (Baierl et al., 2024), which is replicated by our study (N = 794). We further examined the impact of outdoor experiences on attitudes toward nature. Spending time outdoors, whether alone, with others, or for educational purposes, was associated with higher attitude toward nature scores.
Having tested the suggested core of an integrated sustainability model, including the roles of attitudes and their positive effect on learning, we added health promotion variables (see Figure 2). These competencies, such as adaptability and individual initiative, encompass internality and self-concept, forming a person’s self-efficacy (Anderson et al., 2005), and sense of coherence (Rajesh et al., 2016). To ensure test fairness, we conducted a group analysis in Amos (Arbuckle, 2016) to verify the results for the three subsamples (see Figures A5–A7 in the Supplementary Material). The trends are similar, with slight variations in their regression weights.
Figure 2. An integrated sustainability model (N = 794) with attitude toward nature and environmental attitude playing relevant roles in learning about sustainability and engaging in sustainability activities. As suggested, health-promoting factors such as Outdoor experiences, Self-efficacy, and Sense of Coherence, are fundamental to shaping attitudes and promoting sustainable engagement. Single-headed arrows indicate regression scores. Rectangles represent the measured variables listed individually in the Supplementary Material, while the oval represents the latent variable that encompasses health-related competencies.
Figure 2 presents findings from the full sample, highlighting the significant impact of adaptability, individual initiative, and outdoor experiences—key components of health promotion—on core constructs commonly evaluated in sustainability and environmental education. These constructs include attitudes toward nature, environmental attitudes, sustainability-related knowledge, and the ecological footprint as a behavioral indicator. The data reveal that health-promoting factors exhibit stronger associations with attitudes toward nature (total sample: b = 0.35, Irish sample: b = 0.17, Swedish sample: b = 0.45, Greek sample: b = 0.38) than with environmental attitudes (total sample: b = 0.14, Irish sample: b = 0.12, Swedish sample: b = 0.22, Greek sample: b = 0.10) or knowledge scores (total sample: b = 0.23, Irish sample: b = 0.27, Swedish sample: b = 0.42, Greek sample: b = 0.17). It is important to note that the significantly lower numbers for environmental attitudes may stem from a suppression effect, as attitudes toward nature could act as a mediator, explaining much of the variance.
Furthermore, attitudes toward nature positively influence environmental attitudes (b = 0.58), which in turn facilitate both the acquisition of sustainability knowledge (b = 0.36) and the enactment of sustainable behaviors (b = 0.26). Importantly, while health-promoting factors contribute to the development of attitudes and enhance learning potential, knowledge alone appears to exert minimal influence on sustainability related behaviors (b = 0.12). Instead, environmental attitudes emerge as the primary driver of such behaviors (b = 0.26). These findings underscore a dynamic interplay between health promotion, attitudes toward nature, and environmental attitudes, collectively shaping sustainability engagement.
These trends were consistent across all three national subgroups, with the most pronounced differences observed in knowledge scores. In the Irish cohort, higher levels of sustainability-related knowledge were significantly associated with increased sustainable behaviors (b = 0.26), a relationship not observed in the Swedish (b = 0.10) and Greek (b = 0.01) cohorts. Additionally, outdoor experiences consistently exerted a substantial influence on attitudes toward nature (Greek sample: b = 0.31, Swedish sample: b = 0.29, total sample: b = 0.35), with the strongest effect again noted in the Irish sample (b = 0.6). Overall, despite slight differences, the relationships are similar across the subgroups, so the data suggest a general pattern: individuals with stronger health-promoting competencies tend to exhibit more positive attitudes, which in turn increase the likelihood of learning about sustainability and engaging in sustainable behaviors.
4 Discussion
The Health-promoting competencies we applied, as assessed through the sense of coherence and self-efficacy, along with individuals’ outdoor experiences, positively impact attitudes and, in turn, contribute to learning and sustainable engagement. We carefully tested an integrated sustainability model using samples from three European countries: Greece, Sweden, and Ireland. This allowed us to evaluate the fairness of tests at educational institutions across various age levels that are important for developing competencies related to sustainability.
At the core of the model (Figure 2) are knowledge (about sustainability and sustainability-related behaviors) and attitudes (attitude toward nature and environmental attitude), which positively affect sustainable behaviors (ecological footprint indicators). This key connection is based on health-promoting factors such as self-efficacy, suggesting that attitudes and sustainability-related knowledge require a solid foundation in health-maintaining factors for further sustainability competencies to flourish. The positive impact of several of these individual variables on their own has been reaffirmed over time (e.g., Hines et al., 1987; Van Valkengoed et al., 2022), and our data presents them in a single model, with health promotion as the foundation.
Our data supports the notion that knowledge about sustainability issues is important for sustainable efforts (see Table 1: r = 0.26; Figure 2: b = 0.12; see, also, Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008), especially if the knowledge covers individual behavioral options and the effectiveness of sustainable strategies (Frick et al., 2004), as it did in our study. However, literature states knowledge alone is not enough for sustained engagement (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Marcinkowski and Reid, 2019) and does not guarantee corresponding behavior (Barth et al., 2012). Along those lines, our findings show that the effect of environmental attitude on sustainable behaviors is stronger than the contributing role of knowledge (see Table 1: r = 0.31; Figure 2: b = 0.26). While knowledge about sustainability issues is relevant, people’s attitudes appear more relevant for sustainable engagement (see also Miller et al., 2022).
Accordingly, a person’s environmental attitude appears more powerful for engaging in sustainable behaviors and aids in acquiring and retaining sustainability-related knowledge (see, e.g., also Glasman and Albarracín, 2006; Marcinkowski and Reid, 2019). We can consider knowledge as a positively correlated but insufficient variable influencing sustainability-related behaviors (see also Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). However, we can also regard a person’s knowledge score as a consequence of positive attitudes (e.g., Baierl et al., 2022b; Henn et al., 2019): The more positive their attitude toward nature (i.e., their appreciation for natural environments) and their environmental attitude (i.e., their propensity to protect and preserve natural environments), the more inclined they are to acquire information about the environment and ways to preserve and protect it. Ultimately, people need knowledge about sustainability and sustainable behaviors to implement them. Thus, if there is a motivational drive to appreciate, protect, and preserve natural environments, it is only natural to seek information on how to do so (see, also, DeHouwer et al., 2013). Therefore, knowledge scores (the amount of knowledge people gain and retain) can also be viewed as a consequence of learning, as people require a motivational force to engage with and retain information. As such, we observed the typical positive relationship between knowledge and environmental attitude scores (see Table 1: r = 0.46; see Figure 2: b = 0.36; see also Roczen et al., 2014).
Our data further supports the positive relationship between attitude toward nature and environmental attitude of typically around 0.5 (Figure 2; Kaiser et al., 2014; Nisbet et al., 2008). It also suggests that environmental attitude plays a mediating role in the effect of attitude toward nature on learning and environmentally friendly engagement (see, e.g., Baierl et al., 2024; Geng et al., 2015). This is supported by a relatively stronger correlation between environmental attitude and sustainability-related behaviors (see Table 1) than between attitude toward nature and behaviors, also seen in other studies (e.g., Wells and Lekies, 2006). In other words, the more positive a person’s attitude toward nature (their perceived connection to and appreciation for natural environments), the more willingly they preserve and protect it (the stronger their environmental attitudes). This, in turn, leads to enhanced learning about and engagement in sustainability (see also Arbuthnot, 1977), rendering both attitudes relevant for sustainability education.
The question remains on how to enhance attitudes in educational settings. Research indicates that spending time outdoors strengthens a person’s connection to and appreciation of nature, resulting in a more positive attitude toward it (e.g., Collado et al., 2020). Multiple studies have demonstrated the positive impact of outdoor experiences on environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Palmer et al., 1998) and even more so on attitudes toward nature (e.g., Kals et al., 1999; Perkins, 2010). However, these positive effects appear to result from regular exposure to nature rather than from short-term isolated experiences (van de Wetering et al., 2022). This is supported by our data, which shows a strong correlation between attitude toward nature and regular outdoor experiences (see Table 1: r = 0.45) and a less pronounced relationship between nature exposure and environmental attitudes (r = 0.26). Since outdoor experiences, e.g., bonding activities that nurture emotions, shape a person’s perceived interconnectedness and relationship with nature, those who spend more time outdoors tend to develop a more positive attitude toward nature. As attitude toward nature appears to drive environmental attitude, we observed a positive yet weaker relationship between outdoor experiences and environmental attitudes. Conversely, less time spent outdoors is associated with less pronounced attitudes toward nature, environmental attitudes, and engagement in pro-environmental activities (Soga and Gaston, 2016).
Many previous studies focused on childhood experiences, while fewer explored the impact of prevalent or educational outdoor experiences on attitude and behavior changes (e.g., Okada et al., 2013; Liu and Green, 2024). Our interest lies in enhancing education and drawing teaching recommendations, which led us to examine the role of present outdoor experiences. This involved the time regularly spent outdoors alone or with company, as well as lessons conducted outdoors or involving natural objects. Consistent through all three subsamples, we found that the more time individuals spent outdoors for leisure, with family or friends, and engaging in outdoor-based teaching, the stronger their attitude toward nature scored (see Table 2 [b = 0.44] and Figure 2 [b = 0.35] for the total sample; and Figures A5–A7 [b = 0.29–0.6] for the subsamples). This, in turn, contributed to more solid environmental attitudes and sustainable engagement. One teaching recommendation may thus involve advocating for outdoor experiences or at least integrating nature objects into the classroom regularly (see also van de Wetering et al., 2022).
The health-promoting factors we considered significantly affect sustainable engagement. This aligns with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG 3, which emphasizes good health and wellbeing. Our data suggest that higher levels of these health-promoting factors such as self-efficacy resulted in more positive attitudes (Figure 2: b = 0.35 for attitude toward nature, and b = 0.14 for environmental attitude), knowledge (Figure 2: b = 23), and behavior scores (for all correlations, see Table 2).
Consistent with previous research (Bandura, 1982), self-efficacy influences attitudes and subsequent behaviors for the total sample (e.g., Table 1: r = 0.38–0.42) and across all sub-samples (see Figures A5–A7). Self-efficacy has emerged as a key motivational factor in fostering adaptive and sustainable behaviors, particularly in response to climate change (Van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019). Research indicates that individuals who believe in their ability to influence outcomes are more likely to engage in actions that reduce environmental impact (e.g., Doherty and Webler, 2016; Garfin et al., 2024). This holds especially true for behavior-specific self-efficacy, where direct feedback—such as experiencing the consequences of food choices—enhances perceived control and the intention to act sustainably (Plechatá et al., 2022). In our study, we examined whether general self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s overall ability to cope with challenges and influence life outcomes (Levenson, 1981), contributes to engagement in sustainability efforts. Using a general self-efficacy scale (Anderson et al., 2005), we found that individuals with higher self-efficacy were more likely to report sustainable attitudes and behaviors. This suggests that broad psychological resources may support environmental action, even beyond targeted interventions.
Supporting health promotion in classroom settings involves enhancing students’ self-efficacy, which can be achieved by providing information about specific sustainable behaviors, setting clear goals, and fostering supportive social norms; observing peers engaging in sustainable actions can strengthen individuals’ belief in their ability to act (Van Valkengoed et al., 2022). However, self-efficacy varies with task complexity: individuals with high self-efficacy may approach challenging tasks with confidence but underestimate the need for preparation in simpler tasks, while those with low self-efficacy may overprepare for manageable tasks and avoid complex ones due to perceived inability, often accompanied by stress responses (Pajares, 1996; Artino, 2012). Educators should consider these differences when designing instruction, offering personalized feedback, and promoting autonomy—especially in group settings—to align tasks with students’ perceived capabilities (Deci and Ryan, 2012). This is particularly relevant in sustainability education, where goals are often abstract and consequences are distant, making it difficult for learners to experience the impact of their actions directly (Hamann et al., 2021; Muenz et al., 2023).
Another important health-promoting factor is an individual’s sense of coherence. Rooted in Antonovsky’s (1996), the sense of coherence encompasses the capacity to perceive life as comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful. Educational practices that reflect these principles may contribute to strengthening students’ sense of coherence. Specifically, instruction should be coherent and transparent, with clear rationales for pedagogical decisions and assessment criteria. A balanced workload—neither excessively demanding nor insufficient—is essential to support students’ ability to manage academic challenges. Fostering student involvement in socially legitimate decision-making processes may also enhance their sense of coherence. While life experiences largely shape people’s sense of coherence, pedagogical approaches that emphasize transparency and inclusivity can play a supportive role in its development (de Oliveira Olney and Kiss, 2022).
Those may display some teaching recommendations for practical purposes. What our findings do point to are the critical roles of attitudes and health promotion on its basis. The validity of those factors’ roles has been shown for three sub-samples, which may indicate generalizability. Nonetheless, these findings require further confirmation, and additional variables likely contribute to successful sustainability education. We acknowledge cultural differences that may also need further elaboration. One item on plastic bag use, e.g., seemed to be a poor proxy for environmental attitude, probably given different cultural frames in the use of plastics. Then, outdoor experiences had the most decisive impact on attitudes in the Irish cohort. Our data does not conclude whether this effect depends on age, as they were the older university sample, the cultural setting with a probably stronger emphasis on the outdoors, or other factors.
We need to approach the data with caution from a methodological perspective, too. While structural equation modeling is a powerful tool for examining initial relationships among latent constructs, we must recognize its exploratory nature when applied to cross-sectional data. Structural equation modeling primarily reveals covariation and does not establish causality. To draw causal inferences, we would require temporal precedence and eliminate alternative explanations, which cross-sectional designs inherently lack. Therefore, our findings should be interpreted as suggestive of potential relationships rather than definitive causal pathways.
Additionally, the use of cross-sectional data limits the ability to infer directional effects, as exposure and outcome are measured simultaneously. This design may be susceptible to reverse causality, and it does not capture changes over time or the temporal sequence of events (e.g., Savitz and Wellenius, 2022). While cross-sectional studies can still offer valuable insights into associations and inform future longitudinal research, their limitations must be acknowledged.
Finally, reliance on self-reported behavioral indicators, such as those used to assess the ecological footprint, introduces potential response biases, including social desirability and recall inaccuracies. These limitations underscore the need for cautious interpretation and suggest that future studies could benefit from incorporating objective behavioral measures or longitudinal designs to strengthen causal claims.
Our data is not overly conclusive and may set the base for further research. The EU initiative NEB | Lab ECO2-Schools will apply this model for program evaluation. Students participate in educational interventions such as a 2-month solar panel project or a green canteen initiative, and we are about to investigate any changes and relationships related to these variables. For now, our model may provide prompts for researchers and educators, given that cross-sectional data always requires further confirmation.
5 Conclusion
Health-promoting competencies commend the core relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Our data confirmed attitude toward nature’s and environmental attitude’s supportive roles in learning and sustainable endeavors, and environmental attitude appears to mediate this relationship: The more positive a person’s attitude toward nature, the more positive their environmental attitude, which support sustainable behaviors. Based on both attitudes’ integral roles in sustainability education, we developed an integrated model with health promotion at its base. We found that higher levels of health-sustaining competencies, such as self-efficacy and sense of coherence, lead to more positive attitudes, which, in turn, support sustainable engagement. Along those lines, outdoor experiences—alone, with others, and for educational purposes—seem beneficial for generating positive attitudes. Educators may thus consider incorporating more outdoor experiences, strengthening people’s self-efficacy and sense of coherence, and promoting positive attitudes in sustainability education. While preliminary cross-national analyses across three European countries suggest generalizability, further research is needed to substantiate the foundational role of health promotion in sustainability education.
Data availability statement
The raw data underlying the findings of this article may be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Cork University Ethics Committee (Log 2023-069) and waived for two subsamples as the data was anonymized, ensuring that participants could not be identified, and no sensitive data was collected. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin.
Author contributions
T-MB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JP: Writing – review & editing. FB: Resources, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The study was funded by the Erasmus+ project NEB-Lab|Eco2 Schools (101086921) as well as by the University of Bayreuth and the elite program MINT-Teacher Education PLUS (S-NW-2015-316).
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to the study participants from our project partners in Ireland, Sweden, and Greece for their contributions to data collection. Additionally, we appreciate the support of the staff who assisted in this process. Special thanks are extended to Daniel Carr from Ireland, Georgios Savvas from Sweden, and Nikos Zygouritsas from Greece for their management of the data collection.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. We used DeepL (www.deepl.com) to enhance the article's readability. Subsequently, we carefully reviewed and modified the suggestions provided by DeepL, and we assume full responsibility for the article's content.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1654082/full#supplementary-material
References
Anderson, A., Hattie, J., and Hamilton, R. J. (2005). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and motivation in different schools: is moderation the key to success? Educ. Psychol. 25, 517–535. doi: 10.1080/01443410500046754
Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Soc. Sci. Med. 36, 725–733. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90033-Z
Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promot. Int. 11, 11–18. doi: 10.1093/heapro/11.1.11
Arbuthnot, J. (1977). The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge. Environ. Behav. 9, 217–232. doi: 10.1177/001391657792004
Artino, A. R. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: from educational theory to instructional practice. Perspect. Med. Educ. 1, 76–85. doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0012-5
Baierl, T.-M., and Bogner, F. X. (2024). Cognitive learning about forests: the key role of environmental attitude. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 47, 358–378. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2024.2323917
Baierl, T.-M., Johnson, B., and Bogner, F. X. (2022a). Informal earth education: significant shifts for environmental attitude and knowledge. Front. Psychol. 13:819899. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.819899
Baierl, T.-M., Kaiser, F. G., and Bogner, F. X. (2022b). Environmental attitude's supportive role for learning about environmental issues. J. Environ. Psychol. 81:101799.
Baierl, T.-M., Kaiser, F. G., and Bogner, F. X. (2024). The role of attitude toward nature in learning about environmental issues. Front. Psychol. 15:1471026. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1471026
Baldi, L., Trentinaglia, M. T., Mancuso, T., and Peri, M. (2021). Attitude toward environmental protection and toward nature: how do they shape consumer behaviour for a sustainable tomato? Food Qual. Prefer. 90:104175. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104175
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37, 122–147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A., and Wessels, S. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudra (V. S. Ramachaudra Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (4th ed., p. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Barth, M., Fischer, D., Michelsen, G., Nemnich, C., and Rode, H. (2012). Tackling the knowledge: action gap in sustainable consumption - insights from a participatory school programme. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 6, 301–312. doi: 10.1177/0973408212475266
Biachni, G., Pisiotis, U., and Cabrera, M. (2022). GreenComp: the European sustainability competence framework. Brussels: Joint Research Centre.
Bogner, F. X., and Wiseman, M. (2006). Adolescents’ attitudes towards nature and environment: quantifying the 2-MEV model. Environment 26, 247–254. doi: 10.1007/s10669-006-8660-9
Bond, T. G., and Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bonnett, M., and Williams, J. (1998). Environmental education and primary children's attitudes towards nature and the environment. Camb. J. Educ. 28, 159–174. doi: 10.1080/0305764980280202
Brown, I., and Inouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: the role of perceived similarity in competence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36, 900–908. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.900
Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., and Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Eur. Psychol. 16, 324–333. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000032
Chawla, L. (1997). Significant life experiences revisited: a review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. J. Environ. Educ. 29, 11–21.
Collado, S., Rosa, C. D., and Corraliza, J. A. (2020). The effect of nature-based environmental education program on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors: a randomized experiment with primary schools. Sustainability 12:6817. doi: 10.3390/su12176817
Davis, J. L., Le, B., and Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. J. Environ. Psychol. 31, 257–265. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.01.004
de Oliveira Olney, R., and Kiss, E. (2022). The application of salutogenesis to teaching and learning: a systematic review. Dev. Health Sci. 4, 58–68.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. Langevan, A. Kruglanski, and E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology : Volume 1 (1st ed., p. 416–437). United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd
DeGroot, J. I. M., and Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior. Environ. Behav. 40, 330–354.
DeHouwer, J., Gawronski, B., and Barnes-Holmes, D. (2013). A functional-cognitive framework for attitude research. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 24, 252–287. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2014.892320
DeVille, N. V., Tomasso, L. P., Stoddard, O. P., Wilt, G. E., Horton, T. H., Wolf, K. L., et al. (2021). Time spent in nature is associated with increased pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:7498. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147498
Doherty, K. L., and Webler, T. N. (2016). Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 879–884. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3025
Dresner, M., and Gill, M. (1994). Environmental education at summer nature camp. J. Environ. Educ. 25, 35–41. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1994.9941956
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., and Luloff, A. E. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ. Behav. 39, 474–493. doi: 10.1177/0013916506298794
Eco2 Schools (2024). Eco2 Schools as New European Bauhaus Labs, from The NEB|LAB ECO2-SCHOOLS. Berlin: European Bauhaus Labs.
Ewert, A., Place, G., and Sibthorp, K. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual's environmental attitudes. Leis. Sci. 27, 225–239.
Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., and Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Pers. Individ. Differ. 37, 1597–1613. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015
Garfin, D. R., Zernick, M. V., and Wong-Parodi, G. (2024). Emotions, worry, efficacy, and climate change-related sustainability behaviors among a representative sample of Texas and Florida residents. Clim. Chang. 177:54.
Geng, L., Xu, J., Ye, L., Zhou, W., and Zhou, K. (2015). Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PLOSOne. 10:e0127247. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127247
Glasman, L. R., and Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychol. Bull. 132, 778–822. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778
Global Footprint Network (2021). Calculate your footprint. Available online at: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.106456134.414652975.1634978935-1496825234.1634978935 (accessed October 23, 2021).
Hamann, K. R., Holz, J. R., and Reese, G. (2021). Coaching for a sustainability transition: empowering student-led sustainability initiatives by developing skills, group identification, and efficacy beliefs. Front. Psychol. 12:623972. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.623972
Harland, P., Staats, H., and Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29, 2505–2528. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x
Henn, L., Taube, O., and Kaiser, F. G. (2019). The role of environmental attitude in the efficacy of smart-meter-based feedback interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 63, 74–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.007
Heimlich, J. E., and Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: a literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 14, 215–237. doi: 10.1080/13504620802148881
Hinds, J., and Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 109–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 18, 1–8. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Kaiser, F. G., Brügger, A., Hartig, T., Bogner, F. X., and Gutscher, H. (2014). Appreciation of nature and appreciation of environmental protection: how stable are these attitudes and which comes first? Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 64, 269–277. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2014.09.001
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., and Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav. 31, 178–202. doi: 10.1177/00139169921972056
Kollmuss, A., and Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260. doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401
Krampen, G. (1991). Fragebogen zu Kompetenz-und Kontrollüberzeugungen (FKK)[questionnaire on locus of control and control beliefs (FKK)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. Res. Locus Control Construct. 1, 15–63. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-443201-7.50006-3
Lindström, B., and Eriksson, M. (2005). Salutogenesis. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59, 440–442. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.034777
Liu, J., and Green, R. J. (2024). Children’s pro-environmental behaviour: a systematic review of the literature. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 205:107524. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107524
Mackay, C. M., and Schmitt, M. T. (2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 65:101323. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323
Marcinkowski, T., and Reid, A. (2019). Reviews of research on the attitude-behavior relationship and their implications for future environmental education research. Environ. Educ. Res. 25, 459–471. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2019.1634237
Mayer, F., and Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 503–515. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
Miller, L. B., Rice, R. E., Gustafson, A., and Goldberg, M. H. (2022). Relationships among environmental attitudes, environmental efficacy, and pro-environmental behaviors across and within 11 countries. Environ. Behav. 54, 1063–1096. doi: 10.1177/00139165221131002
Mogren, A., Gericke, N., and Scherp, H. Å. (2018). Whole school approaches to education for sustainable development: a model that links to school improvement. Environmental Education Research, 25, 508–531. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1455074
Muenz, T. S., Schaal, S., Groß, J., and Paul, J. (2023). How a digital educational game can promote learning about sustainability. Sci. Educ. Int. 34, 293–302. doi: 10.33828/sei.v34.i4.5
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2, 175–220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., and Murphy, S. A. (2008). The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41, 715–740. doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748
Okada, M., Okamura, T., and Zushi, K. (2013). The effects of in-depth outdoor experiences on attitudes toward nature. J. Outdoor Recreat. Educ. Leadersh. 5, 192–209.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 543–578. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004543
Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., Ho, R. K., and Ofwono-Orecho, J. (1998). An overview of significant influences and formative experiences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in nine countries. Environ. Educ. Res. 4, 445–464.
Paul, R. W., and Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking change of your professional and personal life. New Jersey: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 455–463. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004
Plechatá, A., Morton, T., Perez-Cueto, J. A., and Makransky, G. (2022). Why just experience the future when you can change it: virtual reality can increase pro-environmental food choices through self-efficacy. Technol. Mind Behav. 3:4.
Pooley, J. A., and O’Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes. Environ. Behav. 32, 711–723. doi: 10.1177/0013916500325007
Rajesh, G., Eriksson, M., Pai, K., Seemanthini, S., Naik, D. G., and Rao, A. (2016). The validity and reliability of the sense of coherence scale among Indian university students. Glob. Health Promot. 23, 16–26. doi: 10.1177/1757975915572691
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Roczen, N., Kaiser, F. G., Bogner, F. X., and Wilson, M. (2014). A competence model for environmental education. Environ. Behav. 46, 972–992. doi: 10.1177/0013916513492416
Sala, A., Punie, Y., Garkov, V., and Giraldez, C. M. (2020). LifeComp: The European framework for personal, social and learning to learn key competence. Brussels: European Commission.
Savitz, D. A., and Wellenius, G. A. (2023). Can Cross-Sectional Studies Contribute to Causal Inference? It Depends. American Journal of Epidemiology. 192, 514–516. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac037
Schutte, N. S., and Bhullar, N. (2017). Approaching environmental sustainability: perceptions of self-efficacy and changeability. J. Psychol. 151, 321–333. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2017.1289144
Sheeran, P., Maki, A., Montanaro, E., Avishai-Yitshak, A., Bryan, A., Klein, W. M. P., et al. (2016). The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 35, 1178–1188. doi: 10.1037/hea0000387
Soga, M., and Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 94–101. doi: 10.1002/fee.1225
Tam, K.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: similarities and differences. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 64–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
Thompson, S. C. G., and Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 14, 149–157.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (2003). “Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment” in Heuristics and biases. The psychology of intuitive judgement. eds. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman. 2nd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 19–48.
Van de Wetering, J., Leijten, P., Spitzer, J., and Thomaes, S. (2022). Does environmental education benefit environmental outcomes in children and adolescents? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 81:101782. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101782
Van Valkengoed, A. M., Abrahamse, W., and Steg, L. (2022). To select effective interventions for pro-environmental behaviour change, we need to consider determinants of behavior. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1482–1492. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01473-w
Van Valkengoed, A. M., and Steg, L. (2019). Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 158–163. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., and Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: an empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. J. Sport Psychol. 1, 320–331. doi: 10.1123/jsp.1.4.320
Wells, N. M., and Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Child. Youth Environ. 16, 1–24. doi: 10.1353/cye.2006.0031
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W. L., and Abrahamse, W. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conserv. Biol. 34, 180–193. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13381
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W. L., and Milfont, T. L. (2018). Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environ. Behav. 51, 787–810. doi: 10.1177/0013916517751009
Keywords: environmental attitude, attitude toward nature, self-efficacy, outdoor experience, NEB | Lab ECO2-schools, sense of coherence, sustainability-related knowledge, ecological footprint
Citation: Baierl T-M, Paul J and Bogner FX (2025) From attitudes to action: a multidimensional model for sustainability education. Front. Educ. 10:1654082. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1654082
Edited by:
Wang-Kin Chiu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, ChinaReviewed by:
Seham Alraish, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab EmiratesAmin Pujiati, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Copyright © 2025 Baierl, Paul and Bogner. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tessa-Marie Baierl, dGVzc2EtbWFyaWUuYmFpZXJsQHVuaS1iYXlyZXV0aC5kZQ==