Effects of Solutions Centered Climate Education on Youth Beliefs and Behaviors: The University of California’s Bending the Curve Course

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I have read the manuscript and found the topic to be closely aligned with my research interests. However, I believe that the paper requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. My comments are as follows:

1. Acronyms are generally avoided in titles. The title should be revised for clarity and completeness.

2. The sampling method and procedure are not clearly described. Moreover, the target population is not explicitly defined, making it difficult to assess whether the sample size is appropriate.

3. The abstract does not specify the data analysis method used in the study.

4. Before commenting on the main text, I would like to raise some concerns regarding the references. The literature cited needs to be strengthened, particularly in terms of how climate change perceptions influence pro-environmental behavior across different domains. Environmental behavior should not be limited to consumption and carbon production. For instance, previous studies have shown that climate change perception also motivates behaviors related to urban forest conservation and other contexts. Additionally, the reference list requires formatting corrections. It appears that Mendeley was used for citation management, which has resulted in inclusion of access dates for each reference—these should be removed and the reference format revised according to the journal’s guidelines.

5. The introduction needs to incorporate a more comprehensive literature review on how perceptions or beliefs about climate change shape pro-environmental behavior.

6. The paper would benefit from a dedicated Theoretical Framework section to explain the theoretical underpinnings. Beliefs often operate through a chain of mechanisms that lead to behavior. Theoretical models such as the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework could be integrated to explain the role of beliefs in behavioral mechanisms.

7. What was the time interval between the two measurement waves? Was this time frame sufficient to observe behavioral change and calculate carbon footprints?

8. During the two-year period, to what extent were you able to observe actual behavior? Were the data self-reported? If so, how did you address potential biases in self-reported data? This issue should be discussed in the Materials and Methods section and reflected in the Limitations of the study.

9. The discussion section largely repeats the results. There is minimal comparative analysis with previous studies, and the findings are not deeply interpreted or contextualized.

10. The manuscript lacks a dedicated section on limitations and future research directions.

11. The paper does not include sections on theoretical and policy implications, which are essential components of any academic research article.

wishes

Author Response

1. Acronyms are generally avoided in titles. The title should be revised for clarity and completeness.

Response 1: The title has been revised to remove acronyms.

2. The sampling method and procedure are not clearly described. Moreover, the target population is not explicitly defined, making it difficult to assess whether the sample size is appropriate.

Response 2: we have now clarified these points in the Materials and Methods first para “The study sampling method was to survey all BtC enrolled students at two time points: once at baseline (i.e., pre-course) and once at end of the 10-week course lasting one academic quarter (i.e., post-course). The study’s target population was thus, students enrolled in the 10-week BtC course.”

3. The abstract does not specify the data analysis method used in the study.

Response 3: We have now clarified this in the abstract as “374 youth (median age 21 ± 1.7 years, 63% female) participated in the study and data analysis focused on statistically comparing pre- versus post-course survey based data.”

4. Before commenting on the main text, I would like to raise some concerns regarding the references. The literature cited needs to be strengthened, particularly in terms of how climate change perceptions influence pro-environmental behavior across different domains. Environmental behavior should not be limited to consumption and carbon production. For instance, previous studies have shown that climate change perception also motivates behaviors related to urban forest conservation and other contexts. Additionally, the reference list requires formatting corrections. It appears that Mendeley was used for citation management, which has resulted in inclusion of access dates for each reference—these should be removed and the reference format revised according to the journal’s guidelines.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have now expanded the section in the Introduction on how climate change perceptions influence pro-environmental behavior.

“Climate education can increases individual willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors, such as recycling, reducing energy consumption, and support for climate-friendly policies [23]. Moreover, individuals who perceive a greater impact of climate change on their lives, in terms of health, safety and wealth, engage in more pro-environmental behaviors, such as adopting more sustainable living standards, making climate-friendly food choices, paying green taxes and purchasing higher-priced ecofriendly products [24-27]. Greater environmental concern driven by climate change has also been linked to increased intention for urban forest conservation [28], and willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices [29]. In this context, persuading individual perceptions that the world is changeable as opposed to fixed, has been shown to enhance response efficacy towards pro-environmental behaviors [30].” 

References have been formatted per journal guidelines, and access dates have been removed from references.

5. The introduction needs to incorporate a more comprehensive literature review on how perceptions or beliefs about climate change shape pro-environmental behavior.

Response 5: We have added more literature on this topic. Please see response to pt. 4 above.

6. The paper would benefit from a dedicated Theoretical Framework section to explain the theoretical underpinnings. Beliefs often operate through a chain of mechanisms that lead to behavior. Theoretical models such as the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework could be integrated to explain the role of beliefs in behavioral mechanisms.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this comment. A dedicated theoretical framework section has been added at the end of the introduction integrating the theories suggested by the reviewer.

“Theoretical framework. The theoretical underpinnings for this study stem from many sources. These include Climate Change Communication and Education Theory [37], which emphasizes the role of climate literacy in shaping public understanding and engagement. Psychological theories also play a role; these include theories that propose the influence of attitudes on behavior such as the Theory of Planned Behavior [38], in this case environmental attitudes shaping pro-environmental behavior, and Value-Belief-Norm theory [39], which emphasizes that individuals' values, beliefs, and personal norms influence their pro-environmental behaviors. Further, the Stimulus-Organism-Response framework [40] also generally applies as it explains that external stimuli, such as environmental messaging, influence an individual's behavior by affecting their internal state, i.e., awareness and attitudes. From a pedagogic perspective, Constructivist Learning Theory [41], which suggests that learners build understanding through active engagement and reflection, also forms the basis of this work. Ultimately, while several theories support this investigation, we did not design this study to generate support for any one of these specific theories. Here, we aimed to generate valuable quantifiable evidence for how climate solutions education may stimulate sustainable behaviors, reduce carbon footprint, and improve personal wellbeing and resilience.”

7. What was the time interval between the two measurement waves? Was this time frame sufficient to observe behavioral change and calculate carbon footprints?

Response 7: We have now clarified the time interval between the two measurement waves in the Materials & Methods section first paragraph. Additionally, we have conducted several brain plasticity studies of behavior change and 10-weeks is indeed a reasonable time period to expect behavior change, particularly new habit formation – we now cite a meta-analysis of health behavior studies to support this [42] -

“the time interval between the pre- and post-course surveys was 10-weeks, which has been shown to be a reasonable time period for new habit formation and initiating behavior change [42].”

8. During the two-year period, to what extent were you able to observe actual behavior? Were the data self-reported? If so, how did you address potential biases in self-reported data? This issue should be discussed in the Materials and Methods section and reflected in the Limitations of the study.

Response 8: We have clarified that the surveys were delivered at two time points – pre (within the first week of the start of the course) and post (during the last week of the 10-week quarter-long course). The course was offered in several quarters of the two-year period. We have also clarified that all data were self-reported by course students and we did not objectively observe actual behavior, which is a limitation now integrated in both the Materials and Methods and the study Limitations.

Materials and Methods > Surveys: “we did not have the opportunity or resources to observe actual behaviors exclusive from the self-reports, which is a limitation of the study.”

Discussion > Limitations and Future Directions > “.. the study, like much prior research in this domain, relied on self-reported measures of pro-environmental actions and of psychological health. All of the measures, especially for students enrolled in courses on climate change, have some socially desirable elements, which could contribute to the outcomes observed. While a comparison control group can mitigate some of these concerns, it would also be useful to consider objective tracking of behaviors using smartphone apps and wearables as we and others have implemented in prior research [34,62,63].”

9. The discussion section largely repeats the results. There is minimal comparative analysis with previous studies, and the findings are not deeply interpreted or contextualized.

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Repetition of the results in the discussion section has now been minimized, and more comparisons to prior work have been added.

10. The manuscript lacks a dedicated section on limitations and future research directions.

Response 10: A dedicated section on limitations and future research directions has been demarcated.

11. The paper does not include sections on theoretical and policy implications, which are essential components of any academic research article.

Response 11: The theoretical and policy implications section has been demarcated and expanded upon in the conclusions section.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As the authors note, this article presents original research that does not duplicate existing work. I have a couple of suggestions for strengthening the arguments and making the essay even more useful.

First, it would be helpful to expand the discussion of both the limits of personal behaviors in mitigating climate change and the ways structural factors limit the opportunities for personal behavior change. This is mentioned in the final section of the essay, but it would be worth expanding this and perhaps also addressing this issue earlier (e.g. section 3.3). For example, I would like to know if the limits of personal change and the ways structures constrain these changes are addressed in course materials. I would also like the authors to reflect on this important point more fully as a limitation of this study.

Second, it would strengthen the paper to discuss pedagogy more fully. Why and how does this course affect students' attitudes and behaviors?  There is a discussion of the content of topics covered but not much analysis of pedagogy, other than a mention of the flipped classroom (which is not "unique" - that adjective seemed out of place, since flipped classrooms are common). Are there things this course did that others do not, which may affect its impact on student attitudes and behaviors? Or would any and all sorts of climate education have similar effects?

Third, I would like the authors to address the problematic relationship between attitudes and behaviors. Research on behavior change shows that simply providing knowledge or changing  attitudes and values does not necessarily lead to changes in behavior.  There is a lot of interesting work on this, including a very accessible overview by Elizabeth DeSombre, Why Good People Do Bad Environmental Things, that might be a starting point. (I've taught her book and students find it very thought provoking.) There is also more theoretical work on the relationship between ideas and practices and the fallacies of a linear understanding of this relationship that might be helpful to engage a bit, as a contribution toward more effective climate education.

Author Response

As the authors note, this article presents original research that does not duplicate existing work. I have a couple of suggestions for strengthening the arguments and making the essay even more useful.

1. First, it would be helpful to expand the discussion of both the limits of personal behaviors in mitigating climate change and the ways structural factors limit the opportunities for personal behavior change. This is mentioned in the final section of the essay, but it would be worth expanding this and perhaps also addressing this issue earlier (e.g. section 3.3). For example, I would like to know if the limits of personal change and the ways structures constrain these changes are addressed in course materials. I would also like the authors to reflect on this important point more fully as a limitation of this study.

Response 1. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We now mention this issue in section 3.3 –

“Here, we also acknowledge that while we measured personal pro-environmental actions, the extent of such personal action is limited and importantly shaped by systemic factors that we did not measure in this study, like infrastructure, economic or social norms that can either facilitate or hinder personal efforts to reduce emissions.”

And expand on it in the discussion –

“Finally, it has been shown that without broader systemic changes, for example in the physical infrastructure and political landscape, it is unclear whether changes in climate behaviors and beliefs will be sustained [20,51,64,65], although one study indeed showed that pro-environmental actions were significant even five years after a climate education course [33]. Ultimately, a combination of individual actions and systemic change is needed for meaningful progress in addressing climate change. Indeed the BtC course curriculum directly addresses this challenge by a focus on interdisciplinary solutions that leverage systemic and structural change including change in economic systems, environmental policy, and governance. The course also emphasizes "societal transformation" as a crucial aspect of bending the curve, implying a recognition that large-scale changes in behavior, attitudes, and institutions are essential. It further highlights policy and market mechanisms to incentivize technological innovation and scale clean technologies globally, and also considers climate justice as important for addressing inequities that are often rooted in systemic issues. Course discussions often focus on addressing the perceived "false choice between individual behavior change and systems change", asserting that both are essential for effective climate action. Thus, while encouraging personal responsibility and agency, BtC is designed to educate students about the complex interactions between individual actions and broader societal systems and structures that shape how climate change will be addressed. In this regard, it is a shortcoming of our study that we could not measure systemic influences or long-term effects of behavior change, which is also an important recommendation for future research.”

2. Second, it would strengthen the paper to discuss pedagogy more fully. Why and how does this course affect students' attitudes and behaviors?  There is a discussion of the content of topics covered but not much analysis of pedagogy, other than a mention of the flipped classroom (which is not "unique" - that adjective seemed out of place, since flipped classrooms are common). Are there things this course did that others do not, which may affect its impact on student attitudes and behaviors? Or would any and all sorts of climate education have similar effects?

Response 2. We thank the reviewer for this comment. The term “uniquely” has been removed in the context of a flipped classroom and course aspects have been expanded in the Materials and Methods 2.1 University course section as below –

“Overall, aspects of the course that distinguish it from other climate education include its main focus on interdisciplinary and scalable climate solutions rather than solely on the science of climate change. Its multifaceted approach considers diverse aspects of climate change, including ethical and intergenerational equity issues; highlighting the interconnectedness of the problem and the need for various stakeholders to work together. BtC emphasizes a "solutions-thinking and design" framework across fields of science, economics, governance, and social behavior, and the curriculum equips students with the knowledge and skills to actively participate in addressing climate change. It empowers students to become active change-makers, encouraging them to design and implement their own solutions via active project-based learning, which in turn promotes both self- and collective efficacy.” 

3. Third, I would like the authors to address the problematic relationship between attitudes and behaviors. Research on behavior change shows that simply providing knowledge or changing  attitudes and values does not necessarily lead to changes in behavior.  There is a lot of interesting work on this, including a very accessible overview by Elizabeth DeSombre, Why Good People Do Bad Environmental Things, that might be a starting point. (I've taught her book and students find it very thought provoking.) There is also more theoretical work on the relationship between ideas and practices and the fallacies of a linear understanding of this relationship that might be helpful to engage a bit, as a contribution toward more effective climate education.

Response 3. We thank the reviewer for this comment and agree with their insightful remarks that also align with their first comment. DeSombre’s book discusses how social structures, real world incentives and the inherent characteristics of environmental resources alongside information, habits, attitudes, norms, influence how we behave, and what we can do to change behaviour. The course discusses social structures and systems and aims to not only empower students with information regarding climate solutions, but also change attitudes and norms via hands-on project-based learning on designing solutions. We have integrated this point in the discussion section in the Limitations and Future Directions section with a citation to DeSombre’s work among others –

“it has been shown that without broader systemic changes, for example in the physical infrastructure and political landscape, it is unclear whether changes in climate beliefs and behaviors will be sustained [20,51,64,65], although one study indeed showed that pro-environmental actions were significant even five years after a climate education course [33]. Ultimately, a combination of individual actions and systemic change is needed for meaningful progress in addressing climate change. Social structures, real world incentives and the inherent characteristics of environmental resources alongside information, habits, attitudes, norms, influence how we behave, and the limits of behavior change [66]. In [51], we emphasize that alongside bottom-up climate literacy, we need systemic change brought about by greater connectivity between involved sectors and intentional coalition-building among key stakeholders aiming towards long-term policy-making. Indeed the BtC course curriculum directly addresses this challenge by a focus on interdisciplinary solutions that leverage systemic and structural change including change in economic systems, environmental policy, and governance. The course also emphasizes "societal transformation" as a crucial aspect of bending the curve, implying a recognition that large-scale changes in behavior, attitudes, and institutions are essential. It further highlights policy and market mechanisms to incentivize technological innovation and scale clean technologies globally, and also considers climate justice as important for addressing inequities that are often rooted in systemic issues. Course discussions often focus on addressing the perceived "false choice between individual behavior change and systems change", asserting that both are essential for effective climate action. Thus, while encouraging personal responsibility and agency as well as creativity in designing solutions, BtC is thoughtfully curated to educate students about the complex interactions between individual actions and broader societal systems and structures that shape how climate change will be addressed.”

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• This is a good piece of research that tries to quantify the effectiveness of a climate change education course measured in terms of student engagement, opinions and behavioural change.
• The research is focussed on a single course which could be influenced by many variables including content, method and style of delivery, student background etc. The authors are aware of this and clearly articulate the limitations of the study towards the end.
• The paper is ready for publication but needs to address the items noted as follows:
• The paper makes use of many acronyms. It would be useful to include a glossary of terms/acronyms. For example, in line 93, what does ‘IRB’ stand for?
• Page 3 – Consider summarising the ten BtC course solutions into a table rather than listing a paragraph about each one. It would read better and enable the reader to get a better understanding of how the course is structured.
• It would be useful to include some background about the students who took the course. What was there level of climate knowledge before the course? Did they previously have an environment/climate background/experience or were they relatively new to the subject? What type and level of courses had they previously completed?
• Lines 405-408: Extrapolating the CO2 reductions to all students across the university is misleading. It is not clear that all students would respond to the course in the same way especially if their backgrounds are diverse. The long-term effects of behavioural change are also not known.
• Lines 408-412: Comparing CO2 emissions to household emissions and city-sizes varies based on the country that the household/city is located. Therefore, it would be useful to state the country. Describing CO2 savings in relation to driving is misleading, given the range of emissions based on the energy source of the vehicle (e.g. petrol, diesel, electric, hybrid). Therefore, avoid comparing to the transport sector.
• Formatting – Avoid splitting Tables across 2 pages.

Author Response

This is a good piece of research that tries to quantify the effectiveness of a climate change education course measured in terms of student engagement, opinions and behavioral change.

The research is focused on a single course which could be influenced by many variables including content, method and style of delivery, student background etc. The authors are aware of this and clearly articulate the limitations of the study towards the end.

The paper is ready for publication but needs to address the items noted as follows:

1. The paper makes use of many acronyms. It would be useful to include a glossary of terms/acronyms. For example, in line 93, what does ‘IRB’ stand for?

Response 1: Acronyms used in the text have been added at the end of the discussion section.

 

2. Page 3 – Consider summarizing the ten BtC course solutions into a table rather than listing a paragraph about each one. It would read better and enable the reader to get a better understanding of how the course is structured.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this comment and have now summarized the ten BtC solutions in a table.

 

3. It would be useful to include some background about the students who took the course. What was there level of climate knowledge before the course? Did they previously have an environment/climate background/experience or were they relatively new to the subject? What type and level of courses had they previously completed?

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have now added this information to Materials and Methods section 2.1 University course -  

“This interdisciplinary course was offered across departments such that students who took the course ranged in their backgrounds from engineering, natural sciences, marine biology as well as humanities and social sciences including political science. The course is delivered as an upper division course i.e., for college students beyond their first two years of education suggesting a level of prior knowledge or specialization, but not necessarily dedicated within the environmental/climate sciences.”

 

4. Lines 405-408: Extrapolating the CO2 reductions to all students across the university is misleading. It is not clear that all students would respond to the course in the same way especially if their backgrounds are diverse. The long-term effects of behavioral change are also not known.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We do envision that BtC could be part of all UC education, given the global emphasis on greening education, which we discuss in the Policy Implications section. Nevertheless, in the manuscript we have clarified this section as a hypothetical exercise and we also highlight the cautions mentioned by the reviewer –

“Such scale-up calculations emphasize the importance of climate solutions based education, yet must be taken with caution given individual variance and unclear long-term effects of behavior change.”

 

5. Lines 408-412: Comparing CO2 emissions to household emissions and city-sizes varies based on the country that the household/city is located. Therefore, it would be useful to state the country. Describing CO2 savings in relation to driving is misleading, given the range of emissions based on the energy source of the vehicle (e.g. petrol, diesel, electric, hybrid). Therefore, avoid comparing to the transport sector.

Response 5: We have now stated the country as the US. We have also clarified that emissions in these calculations are projected for petrol-powered driving.

 

6. Formatting – Avoid splitting Tables across 2 pages.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. All tables that fit into a single page have been formatted to not be split across pages.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I have reviewed your revisions. While some of the changes have indeed improved the manuscript, I believe that certain sections still require substantial modifications. I will outline my comments based on their importance, rather than the sequence of the manuscript.

1. Limitations and future directions: This section requires major revision. Limitations should describe the constraints you encountered during the research, the aspects that restrict the generalizability of your findings, or elements that could have been considered but were hindered by time or other constraints. For example, since your study was conducted within a specific and limited population, caution is needed when generalizing the results to other regions; therefore, you might suggest replicating the study elsewhere. Similarly, the use of self-reported data is itself a limitation. Generally, this section does not require references.

2. Theoretical implications: The current draft outlines points that are already well known, even without reading your study. What is essential here is to clarify the added theoretical value of your research. The theoretical implications should be explicitly derived from your own findings rather than restating what is already established in previous studies.

3. Policy implications: The same issue applies here. Your recommendations for policy and management should be directly grounded in the empirical findings of your study. What insights do your results provide to policymakers and practitioners that were not apparent before your research? This needs to be clearly articulated.

4. References: Your reference list still needs strengthening. In my view, some of the sources cited in the implications section were unnecessary. It would be more appropriate to base your references on behavioral models and climate change research, as these are more directly aligned with your study.

5. Tone of the manuscript: Finally, I strongly recommend revising the overall tone of the manuscript to make it more academically rigorous and polished.

Please note that my comments are intended solely to help you improve the quality of your paper. I apologize if my critiques seem too direct, but I sincerely hope they assist you in enhancing the manuscript

 

wishes

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. Limitations and future directions: This section requires major revision. Limitations should describe the constraints you encountered during the research, the aspects that restrict the generalizability of your findings, or elements that could have been considered but were hindered by time or other constraints. For example, since your study was conducted within a specific and limited population, caution is needed when generalizing the results to other regions; therefore, you might suggest replicating the study elsewhere. Similarly, the use of self-reported data is itself a limitation. Generally, this section does not require references.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment and have completely revised the Limitations and future directions section per the reviewer’s details suggestions and as below.

Limitations and future research directions. Our study is certainly not void of limitations. First, it was conducted exclusively among college-aged students, of median age 21 years (range 18-44 years), and primarily at 1 of the 10 University of California campuses, i.e., in San Diego. This relatively homogenous sample limits the generalizability of results to other cities, states, regions, or individuals of differing ages, cultural and political identities. Future research should replicate this work in alternate settings, including non-college populations and institutions across different states and counties to explore whether similar effects emerge. 

Second, the course was optional, raising the possibility of selection bias. Due to the voluntary nature of enrollment, students who took the course may have had previous interest in the subject matter, which could make them more open to behavior change and climate action than students with less prior awareness. This suggests that our study outcomes may not be representative of students who would not choose to enroll in such a course. Yet, of note, at the University of California San Diego, where this course was primarily implemented, there is a requirement for all undergraduates to engage in climate education [61], and selection bias due to self-interest may be less at play in this setting.

Third, while we can reasonably believe that the personal pro-environmental action results and reduction in CO2 emissions was driven by the BtC course given that the surveys were taken by students in the first week (pre) and last week (post) of class, without a control group we cannot completely rule out spontaneous change or other external factors. While acquiring control group data was not feasible within the scope and funding for this study, future research designs should be based on causal logic, incorporating appropriate comparison groups, and where possible, objective behavioral and physio-logical measures. Ideally, such studies would compare BtC outcomes to alternate forms of climate education, particularly those with similar student-engaged, flipped classroom designs.

Fourth, the study, like much prior research in this domain, relied on self-reported measures of pro-environmental actions and of psychological health. This reliance on self-reported data introduces potential bias, as students may have over- or under-reported their beliefs and behaviors given the context of participating in a climate-focused course and certain outcomes having socially desirable elements. While a comparison control group can mitigate some of these concerns, it would also be useful to consider objective tracking of behaviors using smartphone apps and wearables as we and others have implemented in prior research [34,62,63].

Finally, it has been shown that without broader systems changes, i.e., change in the physical infrastructure, political landscape and economic systems, it is unclear whether changes in climate beliefs and behaviors will be sustained [20,51,64,65]. One study, however, did find that pro-environmental actions were significant even five years after a climate education course [33]. In this regard, it is a limitation of our study that we could not measure systemic influences or long-term effects of behavior change, making this an important recommendation for future research. That said, the feasibility of long-term measurements needs to be carefully considered in initial course planning as many students stop responding to assessments after they graduate or simply don’t feel incentivized to respond to surveys from previous classes.

In a recent perspective [51], we emphasize that alongside bottom-up climate literacy, we need systemic change brought about by greater connectivity between involved sectors and intentional coalition-building among key stakeholders aiming towards long-term policy-making. The BtC curriculum directly addresses this challenge by a focus on interdisciplinary solutions that leverage systemic and structural change including change in economic systems, environmental policy, and governance. The course additionally emphasizes "societal transformation" as a crucial aspect of bending the curve, implying a recognition that large-scale changes in behavior, attitudes, and institutions are essential. It further explores policy and market mechanisms to incentivize technological innovation and scale clean technologies globally, and also considers climate justice as important for addressing inequities that are often rooted in systemic issues. Course discussions often focus on addressing the perceived "false choice between individual behavior change and systems change", asserting that both are essential for effective climate action. Students are encouraged to see personal responsibility and agency as well as be creative in designing solutions, while being educated on the complex interactions between individual actions and broader societal systems and structures that shape how climate change will be ad-dressed. Ultimately, meaningful progress in addressing climate change requires a combination of individual actions and systemic change. Social structures, real world incentives and the inherent characteristics of environmental resources alongside information, habits, attitudes, norms, influence how we behave and set the limits of behavior change [66]. Our outcomes did not capture these complex effects that may emerge in the long-term, but future research should examine how individual behavior shifts led by courses like BtC intersect with wider societal transformations.

2. Theoretical implications: The current draft outlines points that are already well known, even without reading your study. What is essential here is to clarify the added theoretical valueof your research. The theoretical implications should be explicitly derived from your own findings rather than restating what is already established in previous studies.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have expanded the theoretical implications section as below –

Theoretical Implications. This research contributes to established theoretical frameworks while also highlighting their limitations within a complex systems-bases context. First, it corroborates Climate Change Communication and Education Theory [37] that emphasizes the role of climate literacy in shaping understanding of climate issues and engagement in climate action. It further supports theories of behavior change such as the Theory of Planned Behavior that fundamentally proposes that attitudes drive intentions and actions [38]. That the course influences climate change beliefs that then impact pro-environmental behaviors is aligned with the Value-Belief-Norm theory [39] and generally also the Stimulus-Organism-Response framework [40]. The current research extends these theories by demonstrating how solutions-based education can serve as the stimulus to significantly increase perceived behavioral control and pro-active response that is quantifiable by the average 0.3 CO2 tons/year emissions reduction achieved per student. Yet, it highlights the limits of such individual action and the urgent need for simultaneous systemic change to achieve global climate goals.

Pedagogically, our study also contributes to Constructivist Learning Theory [41] that supports active project-based learning instead of passive knowledge-building, by demonstrating course efficacy within the specific context of climate change. The findings suggest that the BtC pedagogical model with flipped-classroom project-based learning and a focus on interdisciplinary solutions, offers a powerful mechanism for students to actively construct their own knowledge. The positive changes observed in participants' pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors highlight a key theoretical implication - that the most effective climate education is not merely about conveying facts, but about fostering a solutions-oriented mindset that empowers individuals to act. This study therefore provides a framework supporting the constructivist premise that deep, meaningful learning is an active process that translates into real-world application.

Our study also extend the importance of Eco-anxiety and Psychological Health Theories [67,68]. These theories also emphasize solution-focused education and that such education may buffer against climate distress by fostering efficacy and agency. Yet we did not find any pre-to-post course change in psychological health outcomes. This null finding underscores the importance of actively integrating mental wellbeing curricula within climate change education to alleviate eco-anxiety and distress [36,51].   

 

3. Policy implications: The same issue applies here. Your recommendations for policy and management should be directly grounded in the empirical findings of your study. What insights do your results provide to policymakers and practitioners that were not apparent before your research? This needs to be clearly articulated.

Response 3:  We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have now expanded the Policy Implications section as below –

Policy Implications. The findings from this study have significant implications for future climate education policy. Our research supports recommendations for global policy initiatives to require integration of climate change solutions-focused education into all climate mitigation efforts. Specifically, policymakers should prioritize the integration of active student-engaged, project-based and interdisciplinary pedagogical approaches at all educational levels as these provide an evidence-based mechanism for translating climate knowledge into measurable pro-environmental action. A key policy recommendation is to mandate climate education initiatives that are designed to measure outcomes beyond knowledge acquisition. Thus, policymakers should require the evaluation of how these programs affect attitudes, beliefs, and quantifiable pro-environmental behaviors within the larger societal system.

Another critical area for refinement in climate education policy would be to tackle the psychological burden of climate change by administering classroom programs that are equipped to alleviate climate distress. These educational programs should directly ad-dress individual well-being through supplemental and psychological support materials. For climate education to be truly effective and sustainable, it must holistically equip youth with both the knowledge to act and the resilience to cope with climate-related distress. 

The United Nations greening education initiative aligns with certain suggestions made here and focuses on integrating environmental sustainability into education systems worldwide [69]. Indeed some countries such as Italy and New Zealand have mandated climate change education in schools, and countries such as Mexico, Argentina, and the U.K. have made important strides as well [70]. In the US, climate change education is mandated in school curricula in the states of New Jersey and Oregon [71,72]; New Jersey specifically requires that climate change be integrated across all K-12 subjects, not just science. These policy efforts are applauded and must be scaled alongside objective evaluation studies to assess the impacts of such climate education on both individual and collective action and global climate resilience.

4. References: Your reference list still needs strengthening. In my view, some of the sources cited in the implications section were unnecessary. It would be more appropriate to base your references on behavioral models and climate change research, as these are more directly aligned with your study.

Response 4: Indeed we have added more references to behavioral models in the context of climate change research in the above sections. If the reviewer has more specific suggestions, we are happy to integrate these as well.  

5. Tone of the manuscript: Finally, I strongly recommend revising the overall tone of the manuscript to make it more academically rigorous and polished.

 Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have carefully revised the manuscript to make sure the tone is academically rigorous, polished and understandable.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

thanks for revisions.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Sustainability ms 3705294
Effects of Climate Solutions Education on Youth Climate Change Beliefs...

In this paper, the authors report on the impact of the Bending the Curve (BtC) course, examining a sample of 374 Univ. of California students. They assessed climate change beliefs (CCB), personal pro-environmental actions (PA), and well-being measures at the beginning and end of the course to assess pre-to-post changes. They found the course had an impact on the first two factors (i.e., CCB, PA) but not the latter (well-being).

This is an interesting paper and education program. Providing an assessment of its efficacy not only can substantiate the value of the curriculum but it might shed light on the psychology of how people's beliefs change. There's a lot of information presented, but I think more can be done to better understand what did, and didn't, happen in the BtC program.

1) It would have been useful to have more information about the course and its "ten solutions that fall under six categories." In the end, the authors argue that some dependent variables changed and others did not, but we don't have any sense about what features of the course might be responsible. Are there ways to correlate student performance or mastery of course content with the three outcomes? Such analyses could shed much better light on WHY any changes occurred, which would be informative for evaluating BtC and helping educators in other contexts know what might be helpful in their own efforts. Right now, we don't have any insights into WHAT or WHY -- just IF.

2) The authors, presumably, used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests to see if change occurred, however, this wasn't clear and the rationale for using this particular nonparmetric test wasn't spelled out. Many readers will be unfamiliar with this signed-rank tests, and the authors need to better justify its use and especially why medians are the most appropriate approach.

3) The choice for these measures could be better spelled out. Why these specific climate change beliefs and pro-environmental actions? Can the various items be reduced (e.g., factor analysis) in a way that readers are focusing on changes in concepts or themes rather than particular items? How much control do college students have over things like installing solar panels or purchasing hybrid cars? At best, these are socially desirable possible future actions that are, presumably, years away for these students. Also, although I'm familiar with Cohen's measure of perceived stress, I have no knowledge of the well-being measures used in the current work or why more commonly-used measures weren't adopted instead (e.g., Rosenberg self-esteem). Readers don't even know whether any of these measures are reliable (e.g., no coefficient alphas were presented). It would be useful to know where the measures were reliable before trying to determine why a particular measure was or wasn't successful.

4) In addition to wanting to see how student learning might predict the outcomes of interest (see Point 1), I also wondered how the measures of interest (i.e., climate change beliefs, pro-environmental actions, well-being) predicted each other. In other words, the authors seem focused on pre-vs-post DIFFERENCES, but I think a lot (and perhaps, more) insight could be obtained by thinking about RELATIONS among these variables rather than just differences.

5) I appreciate the authors discussion of limitations, noting that focusing on college students and self-selected participants are constraints (which they are). I would have also appreciated seeing some discussion about the authors reliance on self-reported measures of pro-environmental intentions and of well-being. All of the measures, especially for students enrolled in courses on climate change, certainly have socially desirable elements to them, which could contribute to experimenter effects and self-presentational concerns that might produce the differences reported in the paper.

6) The tables and figures are redundant and consume a lot of space. The authors should pick one of these presentation approaches and not present both. 

Author Response

In this paper, the authors report on the impact of the Bending the Curve (BtC) course, examining a sample of 374 Univ. of California students. They assessed climate change beliefs (CCB), personal pro-environmental actions (PA), and well-being measures at the beginning and end of the course to assess pre-to-post changes. They found the course had an impact on the first two factors (i.e., CCB, PA) but not the latter (well-being).

This is an interesting paper and education program. Providing an assessment of its efficacy not only can substantiate the value of the curriculum but it might shed light on the psychology of how people's beliefs change. There's a lot of information presented, but I think more can be done to better understand what did, and didn't, happen in the BtC program.

Comment 1) It would have been useful to have more information about the course and its "ten solutions that fall under six categories." In the end, the authors argue that some dependent variables changed and others did not, but we don't have any sense about what features of the course might be responsible. Are there ways to correlate student performance or mastery of course content with the three outcomes? Such analyses could shed much better light on WHY any changes occurred, which would be informative for evaluating BtC and helping educators in other contexts know what might be helpful in their own efforts. Right now, we don't have any insights into WHAT or WHY -- just IF.

Response 1) The ten solutions of the Bending the Curve course are now described in the Methods Section 2.1, University course, as below.

“The course introduces ten scalable solutions that emphasize carbon neutrality and climate stability as described below, and fall under six categories: science, societal transformation, governance, economics, technology, and ecosystem management. Together, these foci create an integral approach to designing climate change solutions across multiple disciplines.

The ten BtC course solutions are (1) Bend the warming curve immediately by reducing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and sustainably by replacing current fossil-fueled energy systems with carbon neutral technologies. (2) Foster a global culture of climate action through coordinated public communication and education at local to global scales. (3) Deepen the global culture of climate collaboration by designing venues where stakeholders, community and religious leaders converge around concrete problems with researchers and scholars from all academic disciplines, with the overall goal of initiating collaborative actions to mitigate climate disruption. (4) Scale up subnational models of governance and collaboration around the world to embolden and energize national and international action. (5) Adopt market-based instruments to create efficient incentives for businesses and individuals to reduce CO2 emissions. These can include cap and trade or carbon pricing and should employ mechanisms to contain costs. In settings where these market-based structures do not credibly exist, alternative approaches such as direct regulation may be the better approach — although often at higher cost than market-based systems. (6) Narrowly target direct regulatory measures — such as rebates and efficiency and renewable energy portfolio standards — at high emissions sectors not covered by market-based policies. Create powerful incentives that continually reward improvements to bring down emissions while building political coalitions in favor of climate policy. Terminate subsidies that encourage emission-intensive activities. Expand subsidies that encourage innovation in low emission technologies. (7) Promote immediate widespread use of mature technologies such as photovoltaics, wind turbines, battery and hydrogen fuel cell electric light-duty vehicles, and more efficient end-use devices, especially in lighting, air conditioning, appliances and industrial processes. These technologies will have even greater impact if they are the target of market-based or direct regulatory solutions, and have the potential to achieve 30 percent to 40 percent reduction in fossil fuel CO2 emissions by 2030. (8) Aggressively support and promote innovations to accelerate the complete electrification of energy and transportation systems and improve building efficiency. Support development of lower-cost and new energy storage for applications in transportation, resilient large-scale and distributed micro-scale grids, and residential uses. These innovative technologies are essential for meeting the target of 80 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. (9) Immediately make maximum use of available technologies combined with regulations to reduce methane emissions by 50 percent and black carbon emissions by 90 percent, generating climate and health co-benefits. (10) Regenerate damaged natural ecosystems and restore soil organic carbon to improve natural sinks for carbon (through afforestation, reducing deforestation and restoration of soil organic carbon). Implement food waste reduction programs and energy recovery systems to maximize utilization of food produced and recover energy from food that is not consumed. Global deployment of these measures has the potential to reduce 20 percent of the current 50 billion tons of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and, in addition, meet the recently approved sustainable development goals by creating wealth for the poorest 3 billion.”

While at this time we don’t have data on student performance or mastery of course content, we believe that the project based course that refracts substantive content through the lens of student interest and passion is key to the BtC course impact. Students are not passive recipients of information but active climate solutions designers in the classroom, which increases agency and personal investment and may account in large measure for the observed impacts per the course educators. We have now incorporated this in the discussion section.  

Comment 2) The authors, presumably, used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests to see if change occurred, however, this wasn't clear and the rationale for using this particular nonparametric test wasn't spelled out. Many readers will be unfamiliar with this signed-rank tests, and the authors need to better justify its use and especially why medians are the most appropriate approach.

Response 2) Yes we have clarified that we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and provide the rationale. We also justify median summaries in the Data Analyses as below:

“Pre vs. post-course data were statistically compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, which is appropriate for comparing related samples of nonparametric data.”

“Pre vs. post-course survey data were not normally distributed, hence, were summarized as median and median absolute deviation (MAD) of responses across all subjects; this is because median rather than mean values provide a more robust measure of central tendency for nonparametric data.”

Comment 3) The choice for these measures could be better spelled out. Why these specific climate change beliefs and pro-environmental actions? Can the various items be reduced (e.g., factor analysis) in a way that readers are focusing on changes in concepts or themes rather than particular items? How much control do college students have over things like installing solar panels or purchasing hybrid cars? At best, these are socially desirable possible future actions that are, presumably, years away for these students. Also, although I'm familiar with Cohen's measure of perceived stress, I have no knowledge of the well-being measures used in the current work or why more commonly-used measures weren't adopted instead (e.g., Rosenberg self-esteem). Readers don't even know whether any of these measures are reliable (e.g., no coefficient alphas were presented). It would be useful to know where the measures were reliable before trying to determine why a particular measure was or wasn't successful.

Response 3) The specific climate change beliefs and pro-environmental actions questionnaires were taken from a prior study of climate education (Cordero et al., 2020) that has been cited. The reviewer is correct that students may not have much agency on certain pro-environmental actions surveyed but we did not want to steer away from the originally deployed versions of the scales in the previous study. Citations for the specific psychological health questionnaires used have also been provided. We have now also inserted a statement regarding survey reliability as below:

“Reliability was assessed for these Likert scale-based survey measures at baseline using the Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency, which showed high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8) for all three instruments (SWEMWS: 0.80, PSS: 0.86, BRS: 0.81). As the Likert scale range varied for individual CCB questions and PA was based on checkbox responses, Cronbach’s alpha was not calculated for these scales.”

Comment 4) In addition to wanting to see how student learning might predict the outcomes of interest (see Point 1), I also wondered how the measures of interest (i.e., climate change beliefs, pro-environmental actions, well-being) predicted each other. In other words, the authors seem focused on pre-vs-post DIFFERENCES, but I think a lot (and perhaps, more) insight could be obtained by thinking about RELATIONS among these variables rather than just differences.

Response 4) We thank the reviewer for this feedback and have added a Results section on the relationship between measures with corresponding methods added at the end of the Data Analyses section, as below:

Methods: We used linear regression models to investigate whether pre vs. post-course changes in climate change beliefs predict course-related change in pro-environmental actions and psychological health. F-statistic, significance of fit and significant model coefficients were reported.

Results: 3.6. Relationship between Outcome Measures

            Specifically, we were interested in investigating whether pre vs. post-course changes in climate change beliefs predict course-related changes in personal pro-environmental actions and psychological health. Linear regression models showed that for pro-environmental actions, enhanced climate change beliefs at post relative to pre-course predicted overall improvements in waste reduction (F-stat = 4.5, p<0.0001), energy savings (F-stat = 2.6, p = 0.01), food choices (F-stat = 5.1, p<0.0001) and carbon offsets (F-stat = 3.1, p = 0.002); transport emissions were not affected by the course and were not found to be related to CCB items. Specifically, waste reduction was predicted by CCB1 (global warming will harm future generations, ß = 0.40 ± 0.17 (standard error), p = 0.02), CCB2 (global warming will harm personally, ß = -0.22 ± 0.09, p = 0.02) and CCB4 (actions of a single individual will make a difference in global warming, ß = -0.22 ± 0.09, p = 0.02). Energy savings was predicted only by CCB7 (personal experience with the effects of global warming, ß = 0.18 ± 0.06, p = 0.004). Food choices were predicted by CCB3 (humans can reduce global warming, ß = 0.24 ± 0.12, p = 0.04), CCB4 (actions of a single individual will make a difference in global warming, ß = 0.17 ± 0.06, p = 0.002) and CCB7 (personal experience with the effects of global warming, ß = 0.20 ± 0.07, p = 0.002). And carbon offsets were only predicted by CCB6 (Most scientists think global warming is happening, ß = -0.21 ± 0.08, p = 0.008). Thus, different CCB items affected distinct aspects of personal action.

            While psychological health did not show overall significant change, enhanced climate change beliefs at post relative to pre-course also predicted alleviated stress (F-stat = 3.5, p = 0.0007) and improved wellbeing (F-stat = 2.6, p = 0.009) but not resilience. Specifically, stress reduction was predicted negatively by CCB2 (global warming will harm personally, ß = -1.78 ± 0.52, p = 0.0007) and positively by CCB3 (humans can reduce global warming, ß = 1.58 ± 0.56, p = 0.005). Improved wellbeing was significantly predicted only by CCB3 (humans can reduce global warming, ß = 1.09 ± 0.36, p = 0.003). Course-related change in personal pro-environmental actions did not relate to changes in psychological health.

Discussion: …in regression analyses we did find that strengthened climate change beliefs at post- relative to pre-course predicted enhanced pro-environmental actions as well as stress alleviation and well-being. Specifically, greater awareness of climate change driven harm to self and future generations as well strengthened belief that humans can reduce global warming and that actions of single individuals matter predicted course-related change in pro-environmental actions and psychological health.

Comment 5) I appreciate the authors discussion of limitations, noting that focusing on college students and self-selected participants are constraints (which they are). I would have also appreciated seeing some discussion about the authors reliance on self-reported measures of pro-environmental intentions and of well-being. All of the measures, especially for students enrolled in courses on climate change, certainly have socially desirable elements to them, which could contribute to experimenter effects and self-presentational concerns that might produce the differences reported in the paper.

Response 5) We thank the reviewer for this comment, and have incorporated this point as a limitation in the Discussion section as below:

“the study, like much prior research in this domain, relied on self-reported measures of pro-environmental actions and of psychological health. All of the measures, especially for students enrolled in courses on climate change, have some socially desirable elements, which could contribute to the outcomes observed. While a comparison control group can mitigate some of these concerns, it would also be useful to consider objective tracking of behaviors using smartphone apps and wearables as we and others have implemented in prior research [27,52,53].”

Comment 6) The tables and figures are redundant and consume a lot of space. The authors should pick one of these presentation approaches and not present both. 

Response 6) Per the reviewer’s suggestion, we have decided to keep the tables as they tabulate all responses to the climate change beliefs and pro-environmental actions surveys, and the figures are now presented only as supplementary information.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Effects of Climate Solutions Education on Youth Climate Change Beliefs and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The University of California's Bending the Curve Course" discusses how a climate education course affects young students in three main areas: 1) climate change beliefs, 2) personal pro-environmental factors, 3) psychological health. The results show positive effects on (1) and (2) but no discernible effects on (3). 
According to the paper, "our findings provide evidence that solutions-based climate education can be an important strategy  to enhance individual climate change awareness as well as personal pro-environmental actions that lead to significant individual carbon footprint reduction, with potential for widespread scale-up."
The paper is well executed. The introduction motivates the paper well. The experiment is well explained, and the results are clearly discussed. 
Below, I point out a few minor issues to improve in the manuscript: 
(1) The paper explains which measures measure climate change beliefs (reference 23). Explain and motivate this choice and not others. The same should be done for pro-environmental actions.
(2) Three surveys (references 32, 33, and 34)  were employed in the case of "Psychological Health." Explain and motivate these choices. 
(3) The results are promising, but I wonder how long the effects will last. More discussion of the course's lasting effects would be an important addition to the current paper's contribution. Further research can discuss how to make climate change education have lasting effects. 
(4). The authors acknowledge some apparent limitations. I did not understand why the experiment was not constructed using causal logic and a control group to properly consider the course's effects on the main three aspects. Explain this choice and how further research could improve our understanding of the potential causal effects of climate change education on human behavior. 
Overall, the paper is an important contribution to the literature. 

Author Response

The paper "Effects of Climate Solutions Education on Youth Climate Change Beliefs and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The University of California's Bending the Curve Course" discusses how a climate education course affects young students in three main areas: 1) climate change beliefs, 2) personal pro-environmental factors, 3) psychological health. The results show positive effects on (1) and (2) but no discernible effects on (3). 
According to the paper, "our findings provide evidence that solutions-based climate education can be an important strategy  to enhance individual climate change awareness as well as personal pro-environmental actions that lead to significant individual carbon footprint reduction, with potential for widespread scale-up."
The paper is well executed. The introduction motivates the paper well. The experiment is well explained, and the results are clearly discussed. 

Below, I point out a few minor issues to improve in the manuscript: 

Comment 1) The paper explains which measures measure climate change beliefs (reference 23). Explain and motivate this choice and not others. The same should be done for pro-environmental actions.

Response 1) We thank the reviewer for this comment, and have added these motivations to the Survey Methods:

Climate Change Beliefs - “It queried knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about climate change and was specifically adopted as it has been previously used in the context of studying the impact of climate education on students.”

Pro-environmental Actions – “This survey was used because it quantitatively links survey responses to individual carbon footprint, hence, providing an important objective measure for climate action.”

Comment 2) Three surveys (references 32, 33, and 34)  were employed in the case of "Psychological Health." Explain and motivate these choices. 

Response 2) We have now provided the motivation in the Survey Methods as below:

“These surveys were used as they have been previously shown to have sound psycho-metric properties, i.e., are valid and reliable measures. Further, outcomes of climate-related stress, well-being and resilience are all relevant to a psychological and mental health framework for climate resilience [41].”

Comment 3) The results are promising, but I wonder how long the effects will last. More discussion of the course's lasting effects would be an important addition to the current paper's contribution. Further research can discuss how to make climate change education have lasting effects. 

Response 3) We thank the reviewer for this comment and have added this point to the limitations in the Discussion section as below:

“Finally, it has been shown that without broader systemic changes, for example in the physical infrastructure and political landscape, it is unclear whether changes in climate behaviors and beliefs will be sustained [20,41,52,53], although one study indeed showed that pro-environmental actions were significant even five years after a climate education course [26]. In this regard, it is a shortcoming of the study that no long-term effects were measured, which is also an important recommendation for future research; yet, its feasibility needs to be carefully considered in initial course planning as many students stop responding to assessments after they graduate or simply don’t feel incentivized to respond to surveys from previous classes.”   

Comment 4). The authors acknowledge some apparent limitations. I did not understand why the experiment was not constructed using causal logic and a control group to properly consider the course's effects on the main three aspects. Explain this choice and how further research could improve our understanding of the potential causal effects of climate change education on human behavior. 

Response 4) We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have now elaborated on this point in the discussion as below:

“while we can reasonably believe that the personal pro-environmental action results and reduction in CO2 emissions was driven by the BtC course given that the surveys were taken by students in the first week (pre) and last week (post) of class, without a control group we cannot completely rule out spontaneous change or other external factors. While acquiring control group data was not feasible within the scope and funding for this study, future research designs should be based on causal logic and compare BtC outcomes to alternate education, ideally with a similar flipped classroom student-engaged course design.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I have read your manuscript. Please find my comments below.

I believe the title of the article is too lengthy. It would be beneficial to revise the title to make it shorter and more comprehensible.

A significant portion of the keywords overlaps with the title, which is unusual. It would be advisable to replace some of these words.

The first sentence of the abstract is inaccurate. Climate change is not solely attributed to fossil fuels; for instance, deforestation also plays a role. It is important to present scientific facts throughout the text with greater precision.

Additionally, in lines 15 and 16, you state that the impacts of climate education on behavior have not been examined. I believe this assertion is incorrect. A search would reveal numerous studies on this topic. This claim seems to stem from a lack of thorough literature review. It would be beneficial to accurately identify and articulate the research gap based on existing literature to clarify the novelty of your work.

The abstract does not mention the methods of data collection and analysis.

The introduction does not adequately focus on the research topic. Rather than emphasizing behaviors and beliefs, you seem to concentrate on the subjective effects of climate change. The literature review regarding the impacts of climate change on behavior, climate education, and the role of beliefs or attitudes in shaping behavior has not been adequately addressed. Recent studies have explored the effects of educational programs on individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as how their understanding of climate change influences their actions, which have been overlooked in your research.

The manuscript lacks a theoretical framework. It is unclear on what theoretical basis this study is conducted.

The methods for determining sample size and sampling are not described.

The two-step method for assessing the validity of the questionnaire is not explained. Furthermore, after data collection, the validity and reliability of the research instruments were not examined. The data analysis section does not clarify the methodology used.

The discussion section requires strengthening. The results are not adequately compared with previous studies, and the findings are not thoroughly discussed. Limitations are briefly mentioned in one paragraph, and implications in another, but separating these two diminishes the depth of the discussion.

It is necessary to articulate both theoretical and policy implications.

The article lacks a conclusion section.

Wishes

Author Response

Comment 1) I believe the title of the article is too lengthy. It would be beneficial to revise the title to make it shorter and more comprehensible.

Response 1) Per the reviewer’s request, the title has been shortened to Effects of Solutions-centered Climate Education on Youth Beliefs and Behaviors: UC Bending the Curve course.

Comment 2) A significant portion of the keywords overlaps with the title, which is unusual. It would be advisable to replace some of these words.

Response 2) Per the reviewer’s request, keywords have been replaced to be unique from the title.

Comment 3) The first sentence of the abstract is inaccurate. Climate change is not solely attributed to fossil fuels; for instance, deforestation also plays a role. It is important to present scientific facts throughout the text with greater precision.

Response 3) We have deleted the problematic sentence in the abstract.

Comment 4) Additionally, in lines 15 and 16, you state that the impacts of climate education on behavior have not been examined. I believe this assertion is incorrect. A search would reveal numerous studies on this topic. This claim seems to stem from a lack of thorough literature review. It would be beneficial to accurately identify and articulate the research gap based on existing literature to clarify the novelty of your work.

Response 4) We agree with the reviewer and apologize for the oversight. We specifically aimed to emphasize climate solutions-focused curricula. We have changed the problem sentence to “Yet, there is a lack of empirical research explicitly studying the effects of climate solutions focused education.”

Comment 5) The abstract does not mention the methods of data collection and analysis.

Response 5) We have clarified in the abstract that in this study we are ‘comparing pre- versus post-course survey based data’.

Comment 6) The introduction does not adequately focus on the research topic. Rather than emphasizing behaviors and beliefs, you seem to concentrate on the subjective effects of climate change. The literature review regarding the impacts of climate change on behavior, climate education, and the role of beliefs or attitudes in shaping behavior has not been adequately addressed. Recent studies have explored the effects of educational programs on individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as how their understanding of climate change influences their actions, which have been overlooked in your research.

Response 6) We thank the reviewer for this guidance. We have now added the following statements to the Introduction:

“Climate-specific education has been shown to foster positive attitudes towards the environment [21] and enhance belief in the existence, causes and potential impacts of climate change [22]. Climate education can further increase individual willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors, such as recycling, reducing energy consumption, and support for climate-friendly policies [23].” 

Comment 7) The manuscript lacks a theoretical framework. It is unclear on what theoretical basis this study is conducted.

Response 7) We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have added the following theoretical motivation to the Introduction section:

“The theoretical framework for this study is interdisciplinary, i.e., based on Climate Change Communication and Education Theory [30], which emphasizes the role of climate literacy in shaping public understanding and engagement, as well as psychological theories of behavior change, including the Theory of Planned Behavior [31], which proposes that attitudes influence intentions and actions and Constructivist Learning Theory [32], which suggests that learners build understanding through active engagement and reflection, which is key in climate education programs.”

Comment 8) The methods for determining sample size and sampling are not described.

Response 8) We have now added the sample size calculation in the first para of the Methods:

“The sample size for this study was adequately powered to detect small effect size differences in pre- vs. post-course outcomes (Cohen’s d>0.15) statistically compared be-tween two dependent means (matched pairs) at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 0.8 power, calculated using G*Power software [33].”

For clarifying sampling, we have added: “class students were requested to complete the pre- and post-course surveys at the beginning and at the of the course, respectively”

Comment 9) The two-step method for assessing the validity of the questionnaire is not explained. Furthermore, after data collection, the validity and reliability of the research instruments were not examined. The data analysis section does not clarify the methodology used.

Response 9) We used all previously published questionnaires that have also been used in the context of climate education for youth (Cordero et al., 2020), hence, the two-step process for newly designed questionnaires, i.e., establishing face validity and pilot testing was not conducted. To demonstrate reliability we have now included the Cronbach’s alpha measure for the questionnaires in the Methods section, as below:

“Reliability was assessed for the Likert scale-based survey measures at baseline using the Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency, which showed high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8) for all three instruments (SWEMWS: 0.80, PSS: 0.86, BRS: 0.81). As the Likert scale range varied for individual CCB questions and PA was based on checkbox responses, Cronbach’s alpha was not calculated for these scales.”

Comment 10) The discussion section requires strengthening. The results are not adequately compared with previous studies, and the findings are not thoroughly discussed. Limitations are briefly mentioned in one paragraph, and implications in another, but separating these two diminishes the depth of the discussion.

Response 10) We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have now added more discussion comparing our findings to previous studies as below. Limitations have also been expanded based on suggestions from all reviewers; as this makes for a very long limitations paragraph, the implications para has been kept separate.

Added discussion: “Prior research has indeed shown that environmental education and enhanced climate change knowledge increases environmental responsibility that further mediates interest in carbon neutrality [48,49]. Research also shows that climate education that includes ethical considerations promotes critical thinking skills to resist climate-related misinformation and manipulation and to some extent stimulates deeper involvement in climate and sustainability actions [50].”

Comment 11) It is necessary to articulate both theoretical and policy implications.

Response 11) We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have now incorporated theoretical and policy implications within the final para of the discussion, as below:

“The theoretical implications of this work are that it corroborates Climate Change Communication and Education Theory [30] that emphasizes the role of climate literacy in shaping understanding of climate issues and engagement in climate action. It further confirms theories of behavior change such as the Theory of Planned Behavior [31], which proposes that attitudes influence intentions and actions. The policy implications of this work are recommendations for future policy initiatives to require integration of climate change solutions education into all climate mitigation efforts. Indeed some countries such as Italy and New Zealand have mandated climate change education in schools, and countries such as Mexico, Argentina, and the U.K. have made important strides as well [56]. In the US, climate change education is mandated in school curricula in the states of New Jersey and Oregon [57,58]. These policy efforts are applauded and must be scaled alongside objective evaluation studies to assess the impacts of such climate education on both individual and collective action and global climate resilience.”

Comment 12) The article lacks a conclusion section.

Response 12) We thank the reviewer for this comment. The last para of the discussion is now explicitly labeled as the Conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Sustainability ms 3705294v2
Effects of Climate-Centered Solutions Education on Youth Climate Change Beliefs...

As a reviewer on the original submission, I found that the authors incorporated many, but not all, of my previous comments. I appreciated the extra details about the 10 facets of the program, the elaboration on the use of Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests in the paper, the coefficient alphas presented, the elimination of the redundant figures, and the additional discussion about the potential for social desirability to operate in the work.

Some areas, though, went unaddressed. For example, I wanted to see the authors explore data reduction (e.g., factor analysis) instead of treating each climate change belief item as a freestanding, unique snowflake. If they all just boil down to one or two factors, the presentation of the data would be clearer and, more important, we could understand themes in the responses that "hang together." Not exploring factor analysis and overall correlations among the measures are real missed opportunities for clarity and for understanding "what it all means." 

I appreciate the regressions that, essentially, looked at how shifts in climate change beliefs predicted outcomes (in essence, though, these are just partial correlations with time one measures effectively covaried out). That's taking some steps down the path to understand internal relations in the dataset, but the authors could go further (e.g., correlational analyses). Relatedly, there was no discussion of predictions for this analysis (or for that matter, for any of the analyses presented), which forces the reader to have to try to construct the reasoning on the fly. For example, what aspects of the work leverage Theory of Planned Behavior and what specific predictions with these data follow from its application -- I don't see any role here involving subjective norms or for perceived control, so it's not clear to me exactly how TPB is revealed in this work? At best, it seems to be attitudes predicting behavior, but if that's all, practically any theory makes that prediction (and there are limits there too; see Fazio's critiques of Ajzen and Fishbein). 

 

Author Response

Comment 1) As a reviewer on the original submission, I found that the authors incorporated many, but not all, of my previous comments. I appreciated the extra details about the 10 facets of the program, the elaboration on the use of Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests in the paper, the coefficient alphas presented, the elimination of the redundant figures, and the additional discussion about the potential for social desirability to operate in the work.

Some areas, though, went unaddressed. For example, I wanted to see the authors explore data reduction (e.g., factor analysis) instead of treating each climate change belief item as a freestanding, unique snowflake. If they all just boil down to one or two factors, the presentation of the data would be clearer and, more important, we could understand themes in the responses that "hang together." Not exploring factor analysis and overall correlations among the measures are real missed opportunities for clarity and for understanding "what it all means." 

I appreciate the regressions that, essentially, looked at how shifts in climate change beliefs predicted outcomes (in essence, though, these are just partial correlations with time one measures effectively covaried out). That's taking some steps down the path to understand internal relations in the dataset, but the authors could go further (e.g., correlational analyses). Relatedly, there was no discussion of predictions for this analysis (or for that matter, for any of the analyses presented), which forces the reader to have to try to construct the reasoning on the fly. For example, what aspects of the work leverage Theory of Planned Behavior and what specific predictions with these data follow from its application -- I don't see any role here involving subjective norms or for perceived control, so it's not clear to me exactly how TPB is revealed in this work? At best, it seems to be attitudes predicting behavior, but if that's all, practically any theory makes that prediction (and there are limits there too; see Fazio's critiques of Ajzen and Fishbein). 

Response 1) We are grateful to the reviewer for appreciating our previous revision. As per the reviewer’s recommendation, we performed data reduction using principal component analysis (PCA), which revealed that up to 5 PCs were necessary to explain the variance in the 8 climate change belief variables per inspection of the scree plot of PCs and cumulative variance explained of 90%. The 5 PCs respectively explained 29%, 25%, 18%, 12% and 6% of variance. Thus, reducing 8 climate change belief items to 5 PCs does not appear to be fruitful, and we have stated this in the manuscript CCB results section:

“Notably, we also attempted to reduce CCB data to few key components using principal component analysis, but the results suggested that up to 5 factors were necessary to explain 90% of the data variance; given this large number of components, we chose to report outcomes for each CCB item separately.”

We also explored factor analysis but this also yielded a similar outcome that more than 2 factors were needed to explain the data.

Per the reviewer’s suggestion, we have now also integrated predictions for all analyses in the Methods section. “Pre vs. post-course comparisons were performed as we predicted course-driven enhancement of climate change beliefs, greater personal pro-environmental actions and potentially improved psychological health at post-course per the theories mentioned in the Introduction section.”

For the regression analyses we state, “Here, we predicted that change in climate change beliefs would strengthen pro-environmental action, and potentially such change in attitudes would also enhance psychological health.”

Regarding TPB, it is clear that the reviewer has much in-depth knowledge about the topic and we thank the reviewer for guiding us to Fazio’s critique of TPB. We agree that we cannot make any nuanced claims about subjective norms or perceived behavioral control. Yet TPB, in its updated 2011 version is understood to broadly link attitudes to behavior per Fishbein and Ajzen’s 2011 book, Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Hence, we have updated this citation in the Introduction & Discussion and now generally align our theoretical framework to “ psychological theories of behavior change that propose attitudes drive behavior [31]”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The responses and changes are satisfactory.

Author Response

Comment 1: The responses and changes are satisfactory.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for approving our responses and changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I reviewed the revised manuscript. Unfortunately, the authors do not appear to have made a serious effort to address the required revisions. A substantial portion of the reviewers' comments has not been adequately incorporated into the manuscript. For instance, in response to several points raised about the abstract, only a few words were added without meaningful improvement. The authors were explicitly asked to include distinct sections on the theoretical framework, theoretical implications, and practical implications. However, instead of developing these as comprehensive and clearly delineated sections, they were only briefly and superficially mentioned in the text. In my view, despite the revisions, the manuscript still does not meet the quality standards required for publication.

wishes

Author Response

Comment 1) I reviewed the revised manuscript. Unfortunately, the authors do not appear to have made a serious effort to address the required revisions. A substantial portion of the reviewers' comments has not been adequately incorporated into the manuscript. For instance, in response to several points raised about the abstract, only a few words were added without meaningful improvement. The authors were explicitly asked to include distinct sections on the theoretical framework, theoretical implications, and practical implications. However, instead of developing these as comprehensive and clearly delineated sections, they were only briefly and superficially mentioned in the text. In my view, despite the revisions, the manuscript still does not meet the quality standards required for publication.

Response 1) We beg to differ with the reviewer on this comment; indeed we made our best efforts to respond to all of the reviewer’s comments as comprehensively as possible. We integrated all of the reviewer’s specific comments in the first revision. 25% of the abstract was modified to exactly align with the reviewer’s comments, which is a substantial change for a short abstract.

We explicitly added a section on the theoretical framework in the last paragraph of the introduction and the theoretical and practical implications are robustly discussed in the conclusion section. These additions follow the journal format for sections as well. As this is primarily an empirical study, more extensive writing on these points and extrapolation is not justified. If the kind reviewer has further specific critiques that they would like us to address, we would be happy to revise per their guidance.