Heads Hearts and Hands A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies About Eco Climate Anxiety and Environmental Education

Environmental Education Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ceer20
Heads, hearts, and hands: a systematic review of

empirical studies about eco/climate anxiety and
environmental education
Emily K. Olsen, Danielle F. Lawson, Lucy R. McClain & Julia D. Plummer
To cite this article: Emily K. Olsen, Danielle F. Lawson, Lucy R. McClain & Julia D. Plummer
(11 Feb 2024): Heads, hearts, and hands: a systematic review of empirical studies about
eco/climate anxiety and environmental education, Environmental Education Research, DOI:
10.1080/13504622.2024.2315572
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2315572
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 11 Feb 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 407
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
Environmental Education Research
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2315572
Heads, hearts, and hands: a systematic review of empirical

studies about eco/climate anxiety and environmental
education
Emily K. Olsena , Danielle F. Lawsona,b , Lucy R. McClainc and Julia D.
Plummera
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Penn State University, State College, PA, USA; bDepartment of
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Management, Penn State University, State College, PA, USA; cShaver’s Creek
Environmental Center, Penn State University, State College, PA, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Can environmental education help to mitigate learners eco/climate Received 17 May 2023
anxiety? Anxiety surrounding climate change has drastically risen Accepted 1 February
in youth in recent years. This paper aims to answer the call from 2024
Pihkala’s (2020) previous review for more concrete information on KEYWORDS
educational approaches to support learners in processing eco/cli- Eco-anxiety; climate
mate anxiety. As such, this systematic review analyzed 15 studies anxiety; youth;
from 2017 to 2022, looking at eco/climate anxiety in environmental environmental education;
education literature. The studies were thematically organized by pedagogical approaches;
their emphasis on (1) students’ and/or educators’ perspectives in emotion
each of the studies and (2) elements of the study that emphasized
the (a) heads (knowledge), (b) hands (action), or (c) hearts (emo-
tions). The findings suggest that transformative education-based
(heads, hands, heart) pedagogical approaches support learners in
processing their emotions surrounding climate change, including
their eco/climate anxiety. We conclude with recommendations for
research, practice, and policymakers.
Introduction
Climate change is a phenomenon with overall impacts expanding in scope and intensity. This
includes damage to the planet and more-than-human (i.e. non-human) organisms as well as to
human individuals and communities both physically and mentally. Physical and mental health are
interconnected in an individual and can be used to determine community health and well-being
(Clayton et al. 2021). Negative mental health impacts, including trauma and shock, post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), general anxiety, and depression, to name a few (Clayton et al. 2021). These
impacts can result from various kinds of events, including both acute and longer-term events,
for those who experience these events directly and those who learn about them (Pihkala 2019)
and are being experienced by individuals on a daily basis (IPCC 2022). These impacts are partic-
ularly harmful for young people as they can disrupt youth’s daily lives if they do not have means
CONTACT Emily K. Olsen ejo5271@psu.edu Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Penn State University, State
College, PA, USA
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The
terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their
consent.
2 E. K. OLSEN ET AL.
to cope (Diffey et al. 2022) as well as they will have to live with the impacts, physically and
emotionally, of the climate crises for the rest of their lives despite contributing very little propor-
tionally to the climate crises (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund [UNICEF] 2021).
Eco-anxiety or climate anxiety is defined as concern and worry about climate change and
can include a myriad of feelings, including anger, guilt, despair, stress, exhaustion, sadness, and
powerlessness (Clayton et al. 2021). Some researchers separate the two, suggesting that
eco-anxiety is concern or worry about general ecological crises, whereas climate anxiety is
concern or worry about climate change, specifically (Pihkala 2020a). Both the paralyzing and
the adaptative aspects of eco and climate anxiety have also been explored by researchers (Kurth
and Pihkala 2022; Marks and Hickman 2023). The lines between the two terms are often blurred,
as the term eco-anxiety has a broader definition, while the term climate anxiety often falls
under the ‘umbrella’ of eco-anxiety (Pihkala 2020a). There is a possibility that what is true for
the phenomenon of ‘eco-anxiety’ might also be true for the phenomenon of ‘climate anxiety’
as the two ‘cross-over’ (Pihkala 2020a) due to the intricate nature of the phenomenon of the
climate crisis and how it interplays with ecological crises. We acknowledge that eco-anxiety and
climate anxiety are two separate, but interconnected phenomena. Recently, more concrete
definitions have been assigned to each one; however, the terms have been used interchangeably
in literature as these phenomena have started to be explored. As such, in this literature review,
we searched for both eco-anxiety and climate anxiety so as not to overlook articles aligning
with our research interests. For the remainder of this paper, the terms ‘eco-anxiety’ and ‘climate
anxiety’ are used in the way that the cited author/s have used them, while the term ‘eco-anxiety/
climate anxiety’ (or eco/climate anxiety for brevity) is used when discussing our perspective.
Out of 10,000 youth (ages 16–25) surveyed worldwide in 2021, 59% were very or extremely
worried, and at least 84% were moderately worried about climate change (Hickman et al. 2021).
Over 50% reported feeling ‘negative’ emotions such as worry, anxiety, anger, etc., and more
than 45% said that these feelings impacted their daily life (Hickman et al. 2021). Approaches
that can help prepare our global citizenry for the realities of climate change in a way that
inspires action is of critical importance. One such approach may be through environmental
education (EE). EE is a type of education that focuses on environmental concepts, issues, and
attitudes regarding the environment while promoting stewardship of the natural world through
the acquisition of skills and participation in the resolution of environmental issues (United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] 1977). Under the umbrella
of EE are climate change education and variations of sustainability education. Most often, EE
is focused on youth, K-12, and undergraduate education; however, there are family and adult
programs as well. There are many approaches to EE including but not limited to transformative
education (including Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Youth Participatory Action Research
(YPAR)), action-based learning, experiential learning, place-based education (PBE), education for
sustainability and the environment (ESE), climate change education, and content related to the
environment that is incorporated into other subjects in formal curriculum.
Types of EE to inspire action in a changing climate

Boström et al. (2018) highlight the fact that literature on learning for sustainable development
focuses on individual learning and largely ignores collective and organizational learning. It also
neglects the importance of social context, social relations, and power in learning. The transfor-
mative learning perspective complements and partly contrasts with this literature by emphasizing
that learning is a process of examining and revising perspectives and centering social context,
social relations, and power conditions in the learning processes. Transformative education is a
holistic approach involving the head (knowledge), heart (affective), and hands (action). In this
approach, knowledge is co-constructed in a social context from prior knowledge and varying
Environmental Education Research 3
cultural perspectives (Jickling and Wals 2008). Looking at transformative education in the realm
of EE and sustainability learning, Jickling and Wals (2008) state that transformative education
is ‘…teaching students how to think than what to think’ (12) and that ‘…knowledge and under-
standing are co-constructed within a social context- new learning is shaped by prior knowledge
and diverging cultural perspectives’ (7). Looking to transformative learning can leverage holistic,
collective, and sociocultural perspectives in EE learning.
Transformative learning for sustainable development requires a deep understanding of the social,
cultural, and institutional factors contributing to unsustainability (Boström et al. 2018). Sipos, Battisti,
and Grimm (2008) discuss transformative sustainability learning (TSL), which comes from both sus-
tainability learning and transformative education philosophies, and advocates for the ‘heads, hands,
heart’ as a pedagogical organizing principle. They reference Bloom, Maisia, and Krathwhol (1964)
when describing the heads, hands, and heart, which are ‘…essentially shorthand for engaging cog-
nitive, psychomotor and affective learning domains’ (Sipos et al. 2008, 74). Examples that Sipos et al.
(2008) give for engaging in the heads, hands, and heart are planting a garden and/or preparing
food for a community gathering. These activities engage the heads though stimulating discussion
and critical thinking, the hands through physical enactment, and the heart in experiencing connec-
tion; in the case of the garden example, the connection to the more-than-human world (i.e. the
plants, soil, and animals that you might find the garden) and other humans that are planting and
preparing food for the community gathering. Transformative learning is critical for communities,
organizations, and individuals to deal with global sustainability problems, acknowledging the societal
and personal conflicts involved in such transformation (Boström et al. 2018).
PAR and YPAR can be considered under the umbrella of transformative education. The focus
of PAR/YPAR is to have community-created knowledge and action be the primary driver of
research and/or learning. The facilitator is a co-designer and co-learner in the process with the
community. The creation of PAR is informed by worldwide perspectives (with an origin in the
‘Global South’) over multiple decades starting in the 1970s (McIntyre 2008). Critical theory and
feminist theory have contributed ideologically to PAR as a theory, method, lens, and process
(McIntyre 2008). One of the most notable influencers to the creation and underlying principles
of PAR is the Brazilian adult educator Paulo Freire (McIntyre 2008). YPAR is the result of adapting
the PAR principles and design for working with youth instead of adults.
Action-based, experiential, and place-based learning are all interconnected. Experiential
learning highlights the importance of experience for learning and posits that it is central to
learning (Parry and Allison 2019). John Dewey (1938), one of the most notable influences on
experiential learning theory, stated there is ‘an intimate and necessary relation between the
processes of actual experiences and education’ (20). Action- learning is a component of expe-
riential learning due to its central role in learning and the acknowledgment that learning occurs
from the coordination of actions (Piaget 1964). Both experiential learning and action learning
can be viewed as types of place-based education (PBE). PBE is centralized to the learner’s
physical; it includes the natural and human-built environments, sociocultural concepts and issues,
as well as economics and the interconnections between those elements and focuses on pre-
paring learners to help solve the problems of today (Sobel 2013).
There are other educational approaches within EE that focus on more specific conceptual
elements, such as sustainability or climate change. Education for sustainability and the envi-
ronment (ESE) began in the late 1980s and focuses on the intersection of environmental,
sociocultural, and economic dimensions of EE (Stevenson et al. 2012). Climate change education
is separated from more generalized EE as some educators and researchers recognize that the
complexity and uncertainty that surrounds climate change may require different educational
strategies to approach the topic compared to other environmental issues (Monroe et al. 2019).
Lastly, there are multidisciplinary approaches that include EE concepts such as biodiversity,
climate change, and sustainability into the curriculum of subjects other than environmental
science, such as math, history, and literature-based classes.
Although EE has been shown to increase connection to nature and pro-environmental behav-
iors (Cheng and Monroe 2012), some researchers have hypothesized that EE may increase eco/
climate anxiety in learners as a heightened awareness of environmental issues may intensify
anxiety (Bright and Eames 2021; Hickman 2020; Pihkala 2020b). This can occur when educators
in EE are put in a position of engaging people with the ‘environmental narrative of doom and
gloom’ (Kelsey 2016, 27) due to the nature of environmental news in the media. The relationship
between EE and eco/climate anxiety is complex, as EE has been shown to also support learners
in processing eco/climate anxiety as it can play a pivotal role in learners’ lives (Verlie et al.
2020) and may also be a motivator for action (Bright and Eames 2021). As such, a clearer
understanding of the relationship between EE and eco/climate anxiety is needed.
In a recent review of eco-anxiety in EE, Pihkala (2020b) approached the connection of EE
and eco-anxiety (which includes climate anxiety) ‘in a wide manner’ (2), including some general
psychology articles from the 1980s and some EE articles from the 2000 to 2010s. The review
identified a gap in the literature regarding educational interventions for eco-anxiety and
indicates that incorporating PAR into EE and eco-anxiety research is an important lens
to pursue.
Current review
The aims and purpose of this literature review are to address how eco/climate anxiety has been
investigated in relation to the field of EE with hopes of serving as an update to Pihkala’s (2020b)
piece in two ways: (1) emphasizing empirical studies at the intersection of eco/climate anxiety
and EE and (2) highlighting where the field of EE stands regarding possible educational inter-
ventions for the mitigation of eco/climate anxiety. Given the scant research on eco/climate
anxiety in the field of EE (Pihkala 2020b; Verlie et al. 2020) alongside the broad aspects of eco/
climate anxiety itself and the multiple types of education that can be considered EE (Pihkala
2020b), the research questions guiding this review intend to capture the current state of eco/
climate anxiety in EE-related literature.
The research questions being addressed in this systematic literature review are:
1. What are the characteristics (i.e. methodological approach, participant focus, research
context, theoretical framework, year published, student age level, and approach to EE)
of the studies that address eco/climate anxiety and EE?
2. What are the main themes and patterns in the key findings of the studies in the liter-
ature that address eco/climate anxiety and EE?
Positionalities and theoretical context

Multiple authors (Gutierrez-Bucheli et al. 2022; Lave 1991) call for acknowledgment, transparency,
and the analysis of the sociocultural context in which research is done, including literature
reviews. As such, acknowledging possible biases in the shaping of the research project is critical
for transparency (Gutierrez-Bucheli et al. 2022). Our team consists of a doctoral student, her
advisor, and two other professors in education. Broadly, collectively as authors we are White or
White-presenting, cis-gender women, grew up middle-class in the U.S., two of us are LGBTQ+,
and we all are operating out of an institution of higher education, a primarily White institution
(PWI). We all identify as educators and, as such, have an understanding of the field of education,
albeit from a Western-oriented perspective. All four of us identify or have worked as environ-
mental educators.
The identity and experiences of the author (EKO) have shaped aspects of this literature
review. The research questions and procedures of the systematic literature review followed were
influenced by an academic course on how to conduct a systematic literature review that (EKO)
took as a part of the requirements for her graduate program and reflects the Western-dominant
culture in not only science methods but education as well. EKO has experienced climate anxiety
since learning about climate change in grade school and has also been a survivor of a natural
disaster (wildfire) whose severity was increased due to climate change. This experience included
being evacuated for two weeks as well as having close family members lose their home due
to said wildfire. Therefore (EKO) knows first-hand the mental health impacts of climate change
indirectly (through learning about climate change) but also through direct impacts (surviving
a severe wildfire). Through these experiences (EKO) realized the value of community and how
it is essential for survival in the climate crises. This means that (EKO) has a focus on
community-orientated approaches when it comes to the data analysis, due to lived experiences.
All authors critically examined our findings to support the building of equity in research and
education by highlighting inequities as well as focusing on equity-based solutions. Many people
across our global society have experienced a range of eco-emotions, and the research surround-
ing eco-emotions that has been done is only just starting to come to the attention of the
broader research community. We value equity and take an anti-racist lens to this work because
often, those who suffer most of the impacts of climate change (while contributing the least)
tend to be minoritized populations (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs 2021).
We aim to position our work theoretically within the lenses of situative and socio-emotional
learning. Situated learning views learning as a social phenomenon and as the process of becoming
a member of a community of practice through participation in that community of practice (Lave
1991) and posits ‘that learning, thinking and knowing, are relations among people engaged in
activity, in, with and arising from the socially and culturally structured world’ (67). Nested within the
situated learning theory is the theory of socio-emotional learning, which involves ‘the processes
through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and
skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show
empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions’
(Weissberg and Cascarino 2013, 9). Aligning our lens within this theoretical framework provides
further transparency and robustness regarding the analysis of our literature review (Alexander 2020).
Methodology
Systematic literature reviews can be considered both a process and a product (Alexander 2020).
It is a search of the field that is done systematically to address a question of importance to a
particular field–in this case, the field of EE. First, selection criteria are made in which to ground
the search of the literature. Second, the literature is then searched for relevant articles in a
systematic way using that selection criteria to determine the relevance of the articles. Third,
literature meeting the selection criteria is then analyzed in a way that can contribute to the
field in question by offering novel insights or starting critical dialogue (Alexander 2020).
Selection criteria
The selection criteria for individual studies to be included or excluded in this systematic review
are as follows (see Table 1). Research published between 2017 and 2022 was included for two
reasons. First, we chose to start in 2017 due to the publication of the American Psychological
Association (APA) report titled, Mental Health and Our Changing Climate (Clayton et al. 2017),
Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Criteria indicator Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Year 2017 to 2022 Any research prior to 2017 or post 2022
Content Any study that includes any combination of Any study that doesn’t explicitly cover the
climate change, anxiety, eco-anxiety, climate combination of climate change, anxiety,
anxiety and environmental education eco-anxiety, climate anxiety and environmental
education
Language Studies in English Studies written in other languages besides English
Literature Type Empirical Peer Reviewed Journal Articles Non-Empirical Peer Reviewed Journal Articles
and second, because the topic of eco/climate anxiety emerged as a more prominent topic being
discussed in the field of psychology and EE, as seen in Pihkala’s (2020b)’s review.
Selection criteria regarding content included studies containing the terms ‘climate change’
and ‘anxiety.’ We only included studies focused specifically on EE in general; although there is
a hypothesis that EE may increase climate anxiety in learners, it can also support learners in
processing climate anxiety (Verlie et al. 2020). We did not include studies focused on other
types of education, nor studies focused on climate change and anxiety without an educational
focus. Broader studies have been done reviewing the field of anxiety and the ecological crises,
and on mental health and climate change (e.g. Pihkala 2020a; Ojala 2021), which are important
to use as foundational for defining eco/climate anxiety but were excluded because our focus
is on the intersection of climate anxiety and EE. We broadened our search terms to ‘climate
change,’ and ‘anxiety’ for the key journal searches. During our search, we deduced that studies
might focus on anxiety related to climate change and education without explicitly using the
word eco/climate anxiety, so the search terms were kept broad. Ultimately, any combination of
climate change, anxiety, eco-anxiety, climate anxiety, and environmental education are included.
The literature could include terms such as fear, worry, grief, and hope, as those are often emo-
tions that are interconnected with anxiety (Pihkala 2020b).
All literature included was written in English in its entirety, per the language limitations of
the authors. The type of literature included were all empirical peer-reviewed articles. Book
chapters and meta-analyses were excluded because of the potential for redundancies in findings
(Bae et al. 2021). At the time of this manuscript submission, our selection exhausted the asso-
ciated literature base related to our focus on eco/climate anxiety and environmental education.
Literature search procedures

Three types of searches were employed in this systematic literature review: a database search
(n = 17), a key journal search (n = 102), and a bibliographic search (n = 85). The database search
was employed to search broadly, and the key journal search was employed to ensure that all
the pertinent articles including eco-anxiety and climate anxiety in the field of EE were found.
The databases that were searched included ERIC (ProQuest) and SCOPUS. Google Scholar (n = 111)
was used even though it is not a database but a repository of articles from various databases.
A bibliographic search of the citations in the literature review section of Pihkala’s (2020b) yielded
no unique sources. There were 85 total citations, and four were identified as literature that
could be included; however, those four already surfaced in other search methods. We chose to
not use databases or journals from the Psychology Discipline such as PsychINFO or Childhood
and Adolescent Mental Health, as we are focusing specifically on climate anxiety in EE and
undertaking broad searches in the psychology field would potentially lead us away from the
intersection of interest. Our final search was conducted on 11th April 2023 (See Figure 1).
The search terms that were employed were different depending on the source. For broader
sources (SCOPUS: ‘eco-anxiety’ and ‘environmental education’ and Google Scholar: ‘eco-anxiety,’
‘climate anxiety,’ ‘environmental education’), the term environmental education was used in
conjunction with eco-anxiety or climate anxiety to meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria;
Figure 1. Literature search results.

From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:
The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
however, for the key journal sources, which included journals solely focused on EE, the
terms that used were ‘climate change’ ‘anxiety’ as the subject of the articles should already
be EE-focused. ‘Eco-anxiety’ and ‘climate anxiety’ were used as search terms in the Key
Journal Search as well; however, if the search yielded results, they were often duplicates
from the search using ‘climate change’ ‘anxiety’ as search terms. That search strategy was
employed to ensure thoroughness as the field has not narrowed down specific terms
regarding eco/climate anxiety yet. We found that using the search term ‘eco-anxiety’ yielded
different results from a search using ‘climate change’ and ‘anxiety’ in the journal MDPI:
Sustainability. Since a different result was obtained, it was also included in the articles
counted for review. A slightly different search strategy was employed for the database ERIC
(ProQuest). The thesaurus feature was used, and the search string included terms related
to mental health and EE (See Appendix).
A flow chart from the guidelines for systematic reviews called PRISMA (Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (PRISMA 2021) (see Figure 1) was adapted for
use in this study. After all sources were identified, the 315 articles were screened. Nineteen
duplicates were removed. The remaining two hundred and ninety-six sources were then screened
using the inclusion/exclusion criteria previously outlined. Two hundred and seventy-seven did
not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and two could not be accessed. Eight articles
were included in the final body of literature reviewed after the first screening which entailed
screening the abstracts. Nine articles were screened during the second screening, which entailed
a full-text screening, for eligibility. Four of those nine articles were included in the final body
of literature reviewed, and five were excluded for various reasons, including non-empirical (n = 2),
theoretical duplicate (n = 1), and eco-anxiety only mentioned briefly and not the focus of the
study (n = 2).
The first overall search of the literature was completed in early 2022. Due to the length of
time spent analyzing and writing, we re-searched the literature for articles that may have been
published in the last half of 2022 in order to be as up-to-date as possible. We used the search
procedures outlined above a second time and the search resulted in one additional article that
was published in late 2022 being added. Due to varied terminology some relevant articles may
not have been found in our systematic search. As a result of peer review, two articles (Dunlop
and Rushton 2022; Skilling et al. 2022) were found outside of the search procedures that were
determined to fit the criteria and to provide perspectives that would help with the understand-
ing of this intersection of the literature and so they were added to the body of the literature
reviewed. The final body of literature included 15 articles.
Analytical approach
Similar to Bjorklund (2018), an Excel database was created to record the year, authors, title,
journal published in, location research was conducted, overarching research question(s)/purpose,
student (including age group) or educator focus, type of education (i.e. Environmental and
Sustainability Education (ESE), climate change education), length of education program, emotions
mentioned in study, theoretical framework, research method, data source, major findings, and
implications as noted by the author/s. Once these general characteristics were noted, the 15
studies were read in full to analyze them for themes and subthemes.
Results
Themes were extracted and categorized from the focus of each paper and their corresponding
findings that aligned with our second research question. Across the 15 studies, we focused on
two themes:
1. A focus on students’ and/or educators’ perspectives in each of the studies.

2. Elements of the study that emphasized the (a) heads, (b) hands, or (c) hearts.
Across the literature, we noted that the studies either focused on student perspectives or
educator/caretaker perspectives; however, there were several more recent studies that included
both the student and the educator/caretaker perspective, highlighting the interplay between
the students and the educators in learning settings.
We also found that the studies included in this literature review emphasized the power
of transformative education as a pedagogical approach that addresses emotions, including
eco/climate anxiety in learners, especially in youth. A transformative education-based and
holistic approach to EE includes the heads (knowledge), hearts (emotions), and hands (action)
(Sipos et al. 2008). The action component was also emphasized across the studies as a
means for supporting youth and educators in addressing climate emotions, including eco/
climate anxiety.
Breadth of studies addressing eco/climate anxiety in the literature

To address our first research question, we looked at the characteristics of the studies that
address eco/climate anxiety in the literature (that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria). Overall,
there was a wide range of trends. Taken together, most studies were published in 2021, used
qualitative research designs, and focused more on students (K-12 with a more specific focus
on grades 9–12) than educators/caretakers, while the type of EE focused on was on various
forms of sustainability education or environmental and sustainability education (ESE). The research
locations were spread throughout the world relatively evenly according to number of studies
in each location; however, there is a slightly higher concentration in Australia and a largely
Western lean in terms of the dominant culture in the locations where the research takes place
in each of the studies. Table 2 summarizes the findings across all 15 articles in this review.
Publication trends
Of the fifteen studies incorporated into this review, nine articles (60%) were published in 2021,
two articles (13.3%) were published in 2019, and four articles (26.67%) were published in 2022,
leaving no studies published between 2017 and 2018, nor in 2020. There has been an upwards
trend in publishing on eco/climate anxiety in the past five years; however, from our search,
most were theoretical pieces regarding eco/climate anxiety and EE (See Table 2).
Methodological characteristics
The study design characteristics were primarily qualitative with ten articles (66.7%), using
interviews, analysis of written reflections, collaborative ethnography, video analysis of presen-
tations/performances, group discussions, and electronic questionnaires as data sources, with
one study not specifying a specific data source. Mixed methods followed with four articles
(26.67%). There was one study implementing a purely quantitative study design (6.677%) (see
Table 2).
Participant focus
Seven out of fifteen studies had a sole focus on student perspectives (46.67%), six out of twelve
focused on educator and/or caretaker (i.e. parents, caregivers, etc.) perspectives (40%), and two
studies focused on both student and educator/caretaker perspectives (13.33%) (see Table 2).
Most studies that are focused on students are focused on secondary aged students, 11–18 years
old, with seven of the studies focusing on ages 11–13 years (U.S. grades 6–8) (46.67%) and ten
of the studies focusing on ages 14–18 years (U.S. grades 9–12) (66.67%). Four studies focused
on ages 5–10 years (U.S. grades K-5) (33.33%). Additionally, one study (6.67%) focused on ages
1–4 years and two on university-level undergraduates (13.33%); one did not mention the age
group (7.7%) (see Table 2).
Approach to EE
The type of EE that was utilized and discussed in the studies was categorized into various
forms of Sustainability Education and Education for Sustainability and the Environment (ESE)
as the focus of seven of the articles (46.67%). Various fields that incorporated different ele-
ments of EE into their curriculum were the focus of three articles (20%), and Action Based
Learning (i.e. environment-related conferences, climate strikes, place-based citizen science
[PBCS]) was the focus of three articles (20%). One study focused specifically on Climate
Change Education (6.67%) and one did not mention a specific approach to EE (6.67%) (see
Table 2).
Table 2. Publication Trends in eco/climate anxiety and environmental education literature.

n (# of occurrence in
Study characteristic Data source the 15 studies) Percentage
Publication Year
2019 2 13.33%
2020 0 0.0%
2021 9 60%
2022 4 26.67%
Research Design
Qualitativeb 10 66.67%
Interviews 5 33.33%
Video analysis of performance-making/ 2 13.33%
workshops
Collaborative Autoethnography 1 6.67%
Written reflections and video analysis 1 6.67%
of public presentations
Responses from participants 1 6.67%
Content Analysis: group discussion and 1 6.67%
electronic questionnaire
Artifacts 1 6.67%
Not specified 1 6.67%
Mixed Methodsa Surveys 4 26.67%
Quantitative Questionnaire 1 6.67%
Participant Focus
Students (K-12 and Undergraduates) 7 46.67%
Educators/caretakers 6 40%
Students (K-12 and Undergraduates) 2 13.33%
and Educators
Student Age Levelsb
Ages 1–4 years old 1 6.67%
Ages 5–10 years old (US grades: k-5) 4 33.33%
Ages 11–13 years old (US grades: 7 46.67%
6–8)
Ages 14–18 years old (US grades: 10 66.67%
9–12)
Ages 18–25 (Undergraduate) 2 13.33%
Not Mentioned 1 6.67%
Approach to EE
Various forms of Sustainability 7 46.67%
Education or ESE
Various content areas that 3 20%
incorporate EE into curriculum
Action Based Learning 3 20%
(environment-related school
conference, drama workshop, and
student-led learning)
Climate Change Education 1 6.67%
Not Mentioned 1 6.67%
Research Context
Australia 3 20%
New Zealand 2 13.33%
Finland 2 13.33%
United States of America 2 13.33%
Multiple Countries across Europe: 1 6.67%
Albania, Belgium, Czech Republic,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
and the United Kingdom
England 1 6.67%
Norway 1 6.67%
Ireland 1 6.67%
Singapore 1 6.67%
Sweden 1 6.67%
Note. aHunt 2021 mentions using qualitative and quantitative methods and not explicitly mixed methods but is included
in the mixed methods category. bPercentages will add up to over 100% due to overlaps in categories across some
studies.
Research contexts
The studies included in the review occurred across the globe, with three of the articles (20%)
taking place in Australia, two of the articles (13.3%) in Finland, New Zealand, and the United
States, and one of the articles (6.67%) in Singapore, Norway, Sweden, England, Ireland each, as
well as one taking place with participants from multiple countries across Europe (6.67%). Each
country has been kept separate from others in analysis to respect the individuality of each
specific country, its values, and cultures and tying back into the theoretical framework of situ-
ated learning theory (see Table 2). Something of note regarding the research locations of these
studies is that these studies are largely occurring in a Western context, in countries where
Western culture is the dominant culture with only one study in an Asian context, Singapore.
Intertwining theoretical frameworks

Affective (hearts) and pedagogical (heads) approaches were intertwined in all 15 studies regard-
less of the stated theoretical framework (affective approach, pedagogical approach, or a com-
bined approach) since most studies looked explicitly at EE and eco-anxiety/climate anxiety and
were empirical in nature. We also found that action (hands) was present in a majority of the
pedagogical methods of the studies. We still consider the studies lacking an action component
to be of value to the field. When analyzing the pedagogical aspects of each of the studies, the
framework of situated learning theory, where learning is inherent to its socio-cultural and his-
torical context, was referenced. When analyzing the affective aspects of each of the studies,
the theoretical framework of socio-emotional learning, where emotions are deeply intertwined
with learning, was referenced. While analyzing the studies for themes, through the lens of
situated learning theory and socio-emotional learning, the pedagogical aspects of the studies
could not be separated from the affective ones. In short, all 15 articles reinforced the idea that
emotions are deeply intertwined with learning and teaching.
Combining the two frameworks–situated learning theory and socio-emotional learning–
indicates that emotions and the socio-historical context impact learning. Three main overarching
types of theories used in these studies were: (1) affective and psychologically-based (i.e. affect
theory, Boler’s Pedagogy of Discomfort, etc.), (2) pedagogical framework (i.e. Place-Based Civic
Science, The Bicycle Model of Climate Change Education, Transformative Education, etc.) and
(3) a pedagogically-based framework specifically focused on and/or included the affective and
emotions (i.e. Transformative Learning Theory and the Nature in Your Face framework).
We found that when a study used a more pedagogical lens, emotions were still embedded
in their findings. For example, Gallay et al.’s (2022) study focused solely on the pedagogical
method of Place-Based Civic Science (PBCS) to ‘explore student’s learning and dispositions
associated with their participation in civic science projects rather than to analyze PBCS as an
intervention to diminish eco-anxiety’ (41). This study did not look at EE and climate anxiety in
particular, but the findings suggest that PBCS increased students’ sense of agency and efficacy
in the face of their concerns surrounding the negative human impacts on the environment.
This study investigated a pedagogical perspective and found emotions to be deeply intertwined
into their students’ learning.
Likewise, if a study used a psychological framework initially as the main approach to the
research, such as Bright and Eames’s use of the Boler’s Pedagogy of discomfort framework (2021),
it addressed the intersection of EE and climate anxiety solely from a perspective of emotions first
(a more psychological perspective) and then ultimately ended up addressing what pedagogies
could be used to facilitate a flow of emotions through climate anxiety to resilience and active
hope. In addition, the framework of Transformative Learning Theory used by Trott (2021) and the
Nature in Your Face framework used by Löfström, Richter, and Nesvold (2021) suggest that learning
happens because of a major, and possibly upsetting or uncomfortable, emotional event. See Table
3 for an overview of the theoretical frameworks used in each study.
Themes and patterns

Our thematic analysis of the 15 articles revealed three overarching categories: (1) studies where
students were the main participants in the study, (2) studies where educators were the main
participants in the study, and (3) studies where both students and educators were participants
in the study. Each of these main themes had its own subthemes: (a) heads (cognitive and
learning dimensions) (b) hearts (affective and emotional dimensions), and (c) hands (psycho-
motor/action and behavioral dimensions). For the subtheme of heads, an analytical focus is
placed on pedagogy as it is a dimension of learning that often focuses on knowledge and
cognitive gains in informal, nonformal, and formal educational spaces. This focus on pedagogy
also addresses the need for educational interventions regarding eco/climate anxiety as denoted
by Pihkala (2020b).
As an overview, seven of the 15 reviewed studies had student participants of varying ages
from 10 years old to undergraduate students at university (Bright and Eames 2021; Gallay et al.
2022; Hunt 2021; Lehtonen and Pihkala 2021; Löfström et al. 2021; Trott 2021; Verlie 2019). Six
studies included educators/caretakers as the participants (Baker, Clayton, and Bragg 2021; Cantell
et al. 2019; Jimenez and Moorhead 2021; Ojala 2021; Skilling et al. 2022; Verlie et al. 2020), and
two studies had both educators and students as participants (Dunlop and Rushton 2022;
Finnegan 2022). If studies had all three elements (heads, hands, hearts), they were synthesized
in a combined heads, hands, and hearts subtheme. It should be noted that there is occasional
overlap with studies across the combined heads-hands-heart subtheme and the hearts subtheme,
given this paper’s focus on eco/climate anxiety and its connection to emotions (heart) and our
aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of this interplay.
Studies focusing on students (n = 7)

Focusing on studies where students were the participants (Bright and Eames 2021; Gallay et al.
2022; Hunt 2021; Lehtonen and Pihkala 2021; Löfström et al. 2021; Trott 2021; Verlie 2019), we
categorize the seven articles using the subthemes of heads, hearts, and hands.
Heads. Taken together, the studies (Bright and Eames 2021; Gallay et al. 2022; Hunt
2021; Lehtonen and Pihkala 2021; Löfström et al. 2021; Trott 2021; Verlie 2019) suggest
that there are many pedagogical approaches to environmental and climate change
education that should take into consideration thinking skills, motivation, participation,
values, identity, worldview, action, knowledge, future orientation, and operational
barriers, as well as hope and other emotions. Two studies use an arts-based approach
(Hunt 2021; Lehtonen and Pihkala 2021). Two studies physically incorporated the world
outside the classroom or a building (Gallay et al. 2022; Hunt 2021). Gallay et al. (2022),
Hunt (2021), and Lehtonen and Pihkala (2021) all mention the involvement of multiple
generations. Suggestions include talking to family and friends (Hunt 2021), bringing
multiple generations together using an arts-based pedagogical approach (Lehtonen
and Pihkala 2021), or involving adults and community organizations in the pedagogical
approach, as this can lead to greater student efficacy, empowerment, agency, and
sense of community (Gallay et al. 2022).
Hearts. Across studies, findings suggest that emotions surrounding climate change
flow in different directions at different times, and the hope is to recognize and create
space for reflection of all emotions in a way where youth can begin to become aware
of their emotions around climate change in a way that fosters agency and action.
Löfström et al. (2021) view emotions as drivers of behavior and highlight three concepts
Table 3. Theoretical and conceptual Frameworks employed in eco/climate anxiety and environmental education
literature.
Primary approach
(Affective and/or Pedagogies that included
Authors Theoretical/Conceptual framework pedagogical) an action component
Verlie et al. (2020) Affect Theory Affective based Yes
Ojala (2021) Meta-emotion philosophies, teachers’ Affective based Yes
beliefs, and critical emotion theories
Verlie (2019) Affective intra-actions Affective based Not mentioned
Lehtonen and Pihkala Psychosocial framework looking at Affective based No
(2021) eco-anxiety, tragedy, and alienation
Bright and Eames (2021) *Boler’s Pedagogy of discomfort (1999) Affective based Yes
Dunlop and Rushton (2022) *Emotions as Cognitive Appraisals Affective Based Yes
(Lazarus 1991)
Cantell et al. (2019) *Bicycle Model for Climate Change Pedagogically based Yes
Education
Gallay et al. (2022) *Place-Based Civic Science Learning Pedagogically based Yes
Hunt (2021) *Situated curriculum in SDG 14 Pedagogically based Yes
regarding ocean literacy; STEAM
place-based learning and peer to
peer networks; CoDesRes in rural
development framework
Jimenez and Moorhead *Jickling and Wals ‘Transformative Pedagogically based Yes
(2021) Education’ (2008)
Löfström et al. (2021) *Nature in Your Face Model (still in Pedagogically & No (it is noted that
development) Affective based actions are considered
but were only
touched on due to
time and resources)
Trott (2021) Transformative learning theory Pedagogically & Yes
Affective based
Skilling et al. (2022) Transformative Sustainability Learning Pedagogically & Yes
(Sipos et al. 2008, Ivanaj, Poldner, Affective Based
and Shrivastava 2014); *Snyder
(2000)’s conceptualization of Hope;
*Ojala (2016) conceptualization of
eco-anxiety.
Finnegan (2022) *Future Scenarios (O’Neill et al. 2020); Pedagogically & Yes
Hope (Snyder 2002; Ojala 2012); Affective Based
Action Competence (Breiting and
Mogensen 1999); Climate Education
Baker et al. (2021) *Meaning Focused Coping (Ojala 2012); Pedagogically & Yes
Australian Education for Affective Based
Sustainability (EfS) (Australisn
Education for Sustainability Alliance
[AESA] 2014)
Note: *Some studies did not have a clear theoretical framework, and so the conceptual framework is used.
regarding how the children in their study perceived plastic pollution: emotions, attitudes,
and perceptions. Like Ojala (2007), Löfström et al. (2021) argue that emotions regarding
climate change – especially negative ones – must be processed and that emotional
flow is a critical component of this Nature in Your Face (NIYF) framework. They make
a noteworthy point about cognitive dissonance related to plastic pollution: plastic can
be used as a tool and as something useful, but it is also detrimental to the environment.
This cognitive dissonance in individuals might need to be addressed by supporting
learners emotionally. Trott (2021) discusses affective transformation and how children
in their study reported feelings of anger and sadness regarding climate change. These
feelings prompted the children to want to take action about climate change.
Hunt (2021) only briefly mentions eco-anxiety, does not define what eco-anxiety means, and
asks only one question regarding emotions and the environment: ‘Are you afraid of what the
environment and our life might look like in the future?’ to which 91% of students said ‘yes’
(1663). There is only one question surrounding emotions in Hunt’s (2021) study: a closed-ended
question (i.e. yes or no answer), and it is a leading question as the word fear is included in
the question that might lead the students to think that they should be afraid. This result can
be misleading as only asking one closed-ended and leading question with no room for elabo-
ration does not capture the full dimensions of eco/climate anxiety. Similar to Hunt (2021), Gallay
et al. (2022) do not focus on emotions, but instead focus on the overall benefits of the peda-
gogy of place-based civic science. They discuss different emotions such as eco-anxiety, fear,
hopelessness, distress, joy, hope, and empowerment and how their students move through
some of these emotions during the implementation of the place-based civic science pedagogy
and highlight how having youth involved in the community working to find solutions to an
environmental issue in the community can help provide emotional support for youth.
Bright and Eames (2021) mention the emotional dimensions and stages of apathy, awareness,
anxiety, and anger. Apathy was described as the result of a lack of exposure to climate change
information or overexposure, leading to a ‘doom and gloom’ mentality. Awareness was described
as the early stages of learning information about climate change and how when their awareness
increased, so did the emotional rollercoaster they were experiencing in response to their
increased understanding of climate change. This emotional rollercoaster could lead the youth
to action; however, it could also lead them into a spiral of anxiety and hopelessness. Anxiety
is described as the feeling of being overwhelmed and the feeling of a ‘weight’ by the youth
and ‘implicit in these comments in not only concern for an unknown future, but also a sense
of powerlessness many youths may feel’ (7). The source of the anger that the youth participants
felt in this study came from a lack of adult awareness of climate injustice and action surrounding
the climate crises. Youth suggested that being exposed to other youth around the world, such
as Greta Thunberg, outwardly expressing anger regarding the climate crises also allowed them
to feel anger as well. This highlights the sociopolitical, cultural (youth culture), and collective
nature of emotions.
Verlie (2019) approaches emotions as affective intra-actions, ‘as something we both experience
and do (Kuby 2016), and which are generated through transcorporeal relationships with the
more-than-human world (Bozalek 2016; Ryan 2016)’ (753). Verlie (2019) discusses the six most
common emotions that the youth express: anxiety, frustration, overwhelm, grief, guilt, and hope.
Anxiety stems from the ‘certainty of unpredictability’ (754) regarding the future due to the
effects of the climate crises and ‘can disrupt our sense of security (Ojala 2016)’ (p.754). Frustration
is defined as an emotion that stems from a loss of power or agency, and the resulting feelings
of a lower sense of self as a person that can take action. Feeling overwhelmed is described as
a sense of being small, being incapable of action, or feeling like it is too late to mitigate climate
change. Guilt is described as an emotion that is internally directed with the sense that the
individual experiencing guilt has committed a wrong or failed in some way. Grief is the feeling
of the emotion of sorrow in response to the loss of a relationship. Affective adaptation (Verlie
2019), which ‘differs from and exceeds emotional resilience (Davenport 2017)’ (760) is key to
processing these emotions such as anxiety, frustration, overwhelm, grief, and hope in oneself
and to be able to then work with others and their emotional responses.
A few of these emotions also overlap with the emotions expressed by the youth in Bright
and Eames’s study (2021) but may be described in a slightly different way. An example is that
feeling overwhelmed can be seen as part of apathy, awareness, and anxiety in Bright and
Eames’s study (2021), but it stands on its own as a separate emotion in Verlie (2019). This
highlights the intertwined nature of emotions in general, as well as how different folks can
experience emotions differently. The youth in Verlie’s (2019) study also describe the emotions
as a rollercoaster, similar to the youth in Bright and Eames’s study (2021). This indicates that
the ‘negative’ or more distressing emotions are intertwined with the ‘positive’ emotions, that
managing the more ‘negative’ emotions exists alongside fostering the more ‘positive’ emotions.
Heads, hearts, and hands. Heads, hearts, and hands are interconnected in most of
the studies that focus on students. The youth in Bright and Eames’s study (2021)
stated that their emotions surrounding climate change (heart), especially their anxiety,
helped catalyze them to inquire and gain more knowledge surrounding the issue
(head) and eventually take action by becoming a climate strike leader (hands). Youth
recommended that educators should utilize more holistic pedagogies that engage
the heads, hearts, and hands in their practice. The authors note that their emotions
mediated the process of awareness to action that they went through, and critical
awareness and reflection might be ‘possible catalysts to break the anger-anxiety loop
and promote action’ (8). The pedagogical approach of PBCS engages the heads, hearts,
and hands of the students who participate, as highlighted by findings in Gallay et al.
(2022), which suggest that a place-based, community-orientated pedagogy surrounding
environmental issues (head) with the community and the students working together
(hands) is positively associated with students socioemotional development (hearts),
especially students who have been minoritized and marginalized in science and civics,
and can lead to positive feelings in the face of environmental issues.
Trott (2021) highlighted that including transformative thinking in climate change education
curricula (heads) can help students shift their perspective and lead them to ‘more
sustainability-orientated modes of thinking and action’ (17) (hands) and manage the psycho-
logical toll of climate change (hearts). The pedagogical approach in Trott (2021) called Science,
Camera, Action! involved activities that are action-orientated and hands-on, such as a PAR
method: photovoice, and youth-led action projects surrounding the issue of climate change.
The opportunities to take action (even small opportunities) provided to the children in Trott
(2021) promoted ‘positive’ emotions that offset the children’s concerns surrounding climate
change and helped the children to manage their ‘negative’ emotions. The NIYF framework
from Löfström et al. (2021) uses disruptive communication (head) to create an emotional
response in the learners (heart), which can then be supported and eventually result in the
co-creation of ideas and actionable steps (hands) at the end of the framework/pedagogi-
cal method.
Studies focusing on educators (n = 6)

Studies that focused on educators are organized below, utilizing the three subthemes of heads,
hands, and heart. Six of the 15 reviewed studies had educator and/or caretaker participants
who worked with a variety of students (Baker et al.2021; Cantell et al. 2019; Jimenez and
Moorhead 2021; Ojala 2021; Skilling et al. 2022; Verlie et al. 2020).
Hearts. Taken together, these studies suggest that educators need to reflect on their
own emotions regarding climate change, as their critical emotional awareness is vital
for supporting their learners’ emotional processes. Baker et al. (2021) approached
emotions by highlighting a myriad of studies that have found a variety of emotions
in children, including concern, worry, fear, anger, sadness, hopelessness, and
disempowerment, with regard to climate change. Their findings suggested that there
was a linear association between the age of the children and the stress of the children
surrounding climate change reported by their educators/caretakers. Younger children
(ages 1–5) were reported to be significantly less stressed than 6–9-year-olds and
10–13-year-olds, with 14–17-year-olds reported to be significantly more stressed than
the other age groups. Anxiety in children was reported to come from seven sources:
extreme weather events, uncertainty about the future, harm to animals, lack of agency/
trust in adults, unsure, pollution and waste, and harm to plants/deforestation. They
also noted that parents/caretakers think that their goal is to help students find an
emotional balance and emotional coping mechanisms to deal with climate change. If
adults fail to acknowledge emotions, the authors contend that it could hide and/or
increase eco/climate anxiety in children/youth. Parents and educators must also be
aware of their own emotions surrounding climate change and the role that their
emotions and attitudes play in children’s responses to climate change.
Educators in Jimenez and Moorhead’s study (2021) repeatedly raised the importance of
addressing the mental health impacts of climate change and emphasized the importance of
‘sharing an optimistic outlook with their students’ (18). After asking their participants (educators)
to comment on the extent to which they thought their students were experiencing eco-anxiety,
the educators had perceived an increase in eco-anxiety in their students and also in themselves
as well as mentioned various emotions and feelings such as compassion fatigue, empathetic
burnout, despair, empathy, struggle, empowered, shame, fear, concern, hopelessness, lack of
agency, worry, optimism, hope, and gratitude. One of the educators in the study brought up
the point that the students first need to have the language to describe their emotions before
you can ask the students to reflect and engage with their emotions. This is a critical component
of including space to process emotions in educational practices and pedagogies. Similar to
Baker et al.’ study (2021), Jimenez and Moorhead (2021) found a linear correlation between age
and perceived levels of stress related to climate change, the educators perceived more empathic
burnout in older children/youth than in younger children. They also discussed the educators’
emotions surrounding climate change and how the educators themselves felt contradictions in
their own emotions.
Acknowledging the critical role of emotions, Ojala (2021) addressed the nuances in emotions
and the perspectives educators might have regarding emotions. There were four overarching
themes noted: (1) educators saw negative emotions as irrational, (2) educators saw them as
rational but dangerous for the ‘learning process and young people’s well-being’ (48), (3) edu-
cators see emotions as rational and positive for the learning process, and (4) educators view
emotions in a ‘complexity-based view of emotions in the learning process’ (48). Similar to Baker
et al.’ stance (2021), Ojala (2021) states that educators’ critical emotional awareness is crucial
for facilitating, responding to, and supporting learners’ emotional journey.
In Cantell et al.’ (2019) Bicycle Model on climate change education, the lamp of the bike is
a metaphor for hope and other emotions surrounding climate change. The educators in Verlie
et al.’ study (2020) used four approaches to support learners in their flow of emotions surround-
ing climate change. These approaches were synthesized into four themes: (1) engage with the
emotions; (2) validate the emotions; (3) support students by building a caring community; and
(4) empower students to identify, explore, and take individual and collective action. These
approaches were taken to cultivate ‘active hope’ in their students. ‘Active hope’ can be defined
as that ‘critical yet elusive combination of concern, inspiration, determination, and action’ (139).
Emotions are like the lamp of a bicycle and show us the way forward. Emotions should be
considered in climate change education because they have a significant impact on learning.
Similar to Verlie et al.’ work (2020), this model emphasizes the emotion of hope in particular
as ‘hope can help increase well-being, as well as drive other feelings (Snyder, Rand, and Sigmon
2002)’ (721). Participants in Cantell et al.’ study (2021) mention that the role of emotions is to
help attach information to memory, that emotions and especially hope are critical aspects of
climate change education as well as challenges in climate change education in the future, and
that educators need to consider the emotional elements of climate education. This indicates
the importance of emotions and highlights the interconnected nature of this topic.
Skilling et al. (2022) define emotions as subjective experiences that are characterized by a
range of feelings, such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and excitement. Emotions are a natural
response to various stimuli and can influence our thoughts, behaviors, and physiological
responses. Emotions can be influenced by individual factors, social interactions, and external
circumstances. They also play a crucial role in human cognition, decision-making, and overall
well-being. They follow Ojala (2016) and take on the perspective that hope as a ‘positive’ emo-
tion and anxiety/despair as a ‘negative’ emotion are closely interrelated while rejecting a simplistic
dichotomy between the two. In lines with Freire (1970), the authors also believe that both
‘positive’ emotions and ‘negative’ emotions must be involved to ground hope and create trans-
formative action. Their research found that their students were reluctant to engage with the
emotional dimensions of learning about sustainability, which mirrored their own trepidation as
educators to address the emotional dimensions due to their own feelings of inadequacy in
their ability to effectively facilitate their student’s emotional processing. The authors argue that
the dominant rational-cognitive approach to education is not sufficient, and that sustainability
education should incorporate emotional responses in both teachers and students.
Heads, hearts, and hands. While the language used is slightly different, all of these
studies advocate for an education pedagogy that not only engages students’ knowledge
and emotions but also empowers them and provides opportunities for action, especially
collective action. Ojala (2021) advocates for educators to build in pedagogical elements
(head) that create space for processing all emotions, including ‘negative’ ones, (heart),
and that promotes individual action as well as collective action (hands). This implies
that actively creating space for negative emotions in pedagogical practices can benefit
students and youth by supporting them in feeling that ‘negative’ emotions are okay,
that they are respected, taken seriously, can manage their emotions in an active way,
and can become actively engaged socially. Jimenez and Moorhead (2021) also
emphasized the importance of building students’ agency, social awareness, and
incorporating systems thinking into lessons. The study utilizes the framework of Jickling
and Wals (2008) concept of transformative education, in which ‘knowledge and
understanding to be co-constructed within a social context-new learning is shaped by
prior knowledge and diverging cultural perspectives. Such a socio-constructivist,
transformative learning mode of education is more open and provides some space for
autonomy and self-determination on the part of the learner’ (7). It is one of the few
studies in this review to analyze environmental and sustainability education embedded
into a school’s yearlong curriculum (as opposed to one-off programs or a series of
programs that last a few weeks).
Cantell et al.’ (2021) model is not a pedagogy; rather, it is a reflection on what elements of
pedagogy should be prioritized in climate change education, is a tool for educators to design
pedagogy, and can be used to reflect on their own teaching practices (head). This model
includes taking into consideration thinking skills, motivation and participation, values, identity,
worldview, knowledge, future orientation, operational barriers, and hope/other emotions, as
well as emphasizing action components. Verlie et al.’ (2020) educational approaches include
supporting and engaging student knowledge (heads) and emotions (heart) while connecting
students to a caring community and providing and empowering students with opportunities
for not only individual but also collective action (hands). The authors mention that currently,
there is little research in the practical areas of supporting students regarding their emotions
surrounding climate change which includes 1) the lack of support and resources for educators
to provide that support for their students and 2) the lack of support provided for educators’
well-being.
Skilling et al. (2022) found that ‘students’ engagement with the head dimension (the speci-
fication of problems and solutions) and their development of skills and capacities (the hands
dimension) are mediated by how they feel about the current situation and possible outcomes
(the hearts dimension)’ (15). Skilling et al. (2022) also discussed the various ways that their
pedagogical decisions incorporated skill building through an action component in their courses;
however, they note that the skills gained, and actions taken by their students, were mainly at
the individual level. Skilling et al. (2022) acknowledge that while individual action may not be
enough to combat the climate crises, students learning to take individual action may still be
an important learning experience and may lead to other forms of action, mainly collective
action in the future. Baker et al. (2021) assert that when providing resources for educators, the
resources must include educational strategies (head), support for children to find an emotional
balance/emotional coping skills (hearts), as well as providing support with action-based strat-
egies (hands), and it is essential to scale the type of support for the age of the children in
question. They conclude that sustainability education pedagogies must include spaces to process
emotions, that healing is not always linear when working to build emotional resilience, that
‘learning to live with climate change is a lifelong process’ (700), and that any resources provided
to caretakers or educators must support those caretakers and educators in supporting their
students and learners in action-based strategies as well as emotional coping mechanisms.
Studies focusing on both students and educators (n = 2)

There were two studies (Dunlop and Rushton 2022; Finnegan 2022) that included both students
and educators as participants.
Hearts. Finnegan (2022) explored student (16–18 year olds, n = 512) and teacher (n = 69)
emotions in England. The participants in Finnegan’s study (2022) were given a
questionnaire created using the Climate Change Hope Scale (CCHS), the Climate Change
Distress (CCD) scale, Climate Change Scenario Rating (CCSR) and the Self-Perceived
Action Competence for Sustainability Questionnaire (SPACS-Q). Both ‘positive’ and
‘negative’ emotions were explored in the questionnaire for students, as well as those
emotions in relation to self-perceived action competence, future outlook, and the
educational practices of their teachers. Similar to Ojala (2021), findings from Finnegan’s
study (2022) supported the fact that (constructive) hope and anxiety as climate emotions
can coexist together, suggesting that educators should hold space for the negative
emotions while maintaining a positive outlook and engaging students in thinking
about the future they want and what they can do to achieve that future.
Dunlop and Ruston (2022) examined young people’s and educators’ emotions in education
for environmental sustainability and the implications for transforming education based on
emotions expressed, emphasizing the importance of understanding a full range of psychological
responses to climate change. This study analyzes the emotional response to environmental
unsustainability in an educational context, particularly anxiety. The authors approach emotions
using the cognitive appraisal model and suggest that this model of emotions plays a crucial
role in understanding emotions related to ecological crises and coping with them. Similar to
Bright and Eames’s study (2021), youth in Dunlop and Ruston’s research (2022) expressed fear
of judgment and frustration at not being taken seriously by older generations, hindering their
ability to enact change in their schools. The authors highlighted that this can lead to feelings
of apathy and isolation.
Heads, hearts, and hands. The theme in these two studies are that systemic change and
collective action are critical and interconnected with feelings of powerlessness. The feeling
of powerlessness is related to anxiety, more specifically eco and climate anxiety, due to
the absence of a single agent to hold responsible (Dunlop and Ruston 2022).
Participants in Finnegan (2022) were asked about general educational practices with no
specific pedagogical practice that was focused on. Dunlop and Rushton (2022) facilitated online
participatory workshops with young people and educators from across Europe surrounding the
topics of geoengineering and education for environmental sustainability projects. The findings
from the workshop emphasized the need to empower individuals from an early age, while guilt
and feelings of pressure related to environmental responsibility should not be directed towards
a single person but rather address systemic change (Dunlop and Rushton 2022). Dunlop and
Rushton (2022) also found that young people feel empowered when given opportunities to
work together on solutions to climate change, but often lack the ability to take action due to
the lack of decision-making power. Dunlop and Ruston (2022) also highlight the realization that
youth and educators feel guilt, pressure, and exhaustion when expected to take individual
responsibility and actions for environmental sustainability in schools, emphasizing the need for
collective responsibility and government action. The focus on individual action and lack of
collective responsibility impacts apathy within the school community and burdens a few pas-
sionate individuals with work that should be shared equally (Dunlop and Rushton 2022).
Similar to Ojala (2021), Finnegan (2022) advocates for acknowledgment of the ‘negative’
emotions, as well as fostering a positive outlook surrounding climate change conversations and
other ecological concerns within environmental education programs, as well as focusing on
exploring collective pro-environmental action and not just individual pro-environmental action.
Emotionally responsive pedagogies necessarily involve attention to environmental action and
can involve listening, critical thinking, fostering meaningful connections between the student
and the world around them, authentic learning experiences such as using knowledge for action,
outdoor education, and learning experiences where co-creation is centered (Dunlop and Rushton
2022). These strategies are also aligned with the strategies that Verlie et al. (2020).
A holistic practice of EE
Addressing research question two, the analysis of these 15 studies positions the three themes
of transformative education (heads, hearts, and hands) as crucial pieces for transitioning to a
more holistic practice of EE research and teaching. This includes the importance of youth voices,
which are critical to and dependent on a more holistic understanding of climate emotions
(hearts). For example, Diffey et al. (2022) used a hybrid participatory action research and stake-
holder analysis which centered the voices of twenty-three, 16–29-year-olds in hopes of sharing
their climate emotions in order to ‘increase mutual understanding between people of different
ages and backgrounds, rather than to perpetuate any unhelpful blaming or shaming’ (500).
These youth share their hopes for moving forward: ‘climate action, climate-related mental health
support, intergenerational collaboration, and a radically more compassionate world more broadly
(built on systems that value the protection of people and the rest of the natural world, now
and in the future)’ (Diffey et al. 2022, 506). Centering youth voices and seeking to understand
youth voices and experiences from various locations and circumstances around the world would
not only ensure equitable representation in the literature surrounding EE and climate emotions
but may serve to let youth know that they are being heard and their perspectives are being
taken into account as many are unimpressed with the adult leaders in their societies choices
surrounding climate change and feel as if their perspectives are not being listened to (Bright
and Eames 2021; Dunlop and Rushton 2022; Hickman et al. 2021).
Discussion
This review has brought together research that has been recently done at the intersection of
EE and eco/climate anxiety. This work is critical as there is a growing interest in this intersection
among EE researchers and EE practitioners, both of which can address the growing concern of
climate change. To encourage a more holistic field of EE that blends research and practice, we
need to take into account what has been done in order to determine how to move forward.
In this literature review, we have synthesized across the field and contributed a review of how
different researchers and communities have been approaching the intersection of eco/climate
anxiety and EE in the last few years to highlight the important role of emotions within EE. Even
when researchers were not specifically looking for emotions in the EE programs that they were
researching, emotions–specifically the emotions that could be considered under the umbrella
of eco/climate anxiety–came to the surface (Gallay et al. 2022; Hunt 2021). Given that learning
and emotions, especially emotions in EE, have an intertwined nature, we emphasize the impor-
tance of moving towards pedagogical strategies that incorporate space for processing emotions,
as well as validating emotions in both EE research and practice.
The importance of providing space for emotions in EE

Many authors (Baker et al. 2021; Bright and Eames 2021; Cantell et al. 2019; Finnegan 2022;
Jimenez and Moorhead 2021; Kelsey and Armstrong 2012; Lehtonen and Pihkala 2021; Löfström
et al. 2021; Ojala 2016; 2021; Pihkala 2020b; Trott 2021; Verlie 2019; Verlie et al. 2020) make
the case that EE should provide space for learners and/or educators to process their emotions
regarding climate change, including their eco/climate anxiety. Through this review, we have
found that there are many strategies educators are using to support learners in processing their
emotions surrounding climate change.
Identifying the two types of hope–constructive and denial-based–can be seen as the begin-
ning of creating strategies for educators’ awareness around their own emotions, as well as the
emotions of their students, how these emotions impact the relationships in the learning setting,
and methods for supporting their learners and themselves to process various emotions they
might have regarding climate change. We also highlight the importance of holding space for
‘negative’ emotions while maintaining a positive outlook (Dunlop and Rushton 2022; Finnegan
2022; Fraser & Brant 2013; Jimenez and Moorhead 2021; Ojala 2021). Both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’
emotional expressions are valuable in science learning settings (Hufnagel 2015), and we posit
that if educators were more open to ‘negative’ emotions, their students would more readily
engage in constructive hope.
Verlie et al.’ study (2021), in which educators utilized educational pedagogies (head) that
supported engaging student emotions (heart) and connecting students to a caring community
while also empowering students by providing opportunities for action (hands), is a more con-
crete strategy of approaches to support both educators and learners. These approaches could
applied in many different contexts, and we find them to be the most promising. We suggest
that this is where EE can be (and is starting to be) a part of the solution from an educational
standpoint, not to be conflated with professional psychological interventions from mental health
professionals. This review serves to highlight cases in which EE can support learners and edu-
cators in the processing of emotions surrounding climate change.
Potential pedagogical approaches for the future

The specific pedagogical approach that was highlighted most frequently in our review of 15
articles was transformative education. For example, Skilling et al. (2022) discussed the importance
of integrating heads, hands, and hearts in sustainability education. Put into practice, they high-
light the need to transform mindsets, behaviors, and institutions to achieve sustainability. The
article emphasizes the importance of emotions and values in sustainability learning and calls
for more research into teaching methods that promote a holistic learning experience. Böstrom
et al. (2018) also highlighted transformative learning as a mode for deep understanding of the
social, cultural, and institutional factors that contribute to unsustainability. In this way, trans-
formative learning is interactional, long-term, and cumbersome, taking place within existing
institutions and social practices while also transcending them.
The Science, Camera, Action! activities highlighted by Trott (2021) put forth a pedagogical
approach that was based on the ‘Heads, Hands, and Hearts’ model of Transformative Sustainability
Learning (TSL) (Sipos et al. 2008). A PAR method, photovoice, was used, and led to knowledge
being co-constructed, critical dialogue, and taking action. An implication from Trott (2021) is
that critical reflection and action can help mitigate the psychological toll of climate change
awareness (which includes eco/climate anxiety) and help contribute to learners’ overall health
and well-being. Therefore, PAR, including YPAR, could be seen as a theory, framework, method-
ological approach, and lens to pursue further research on pedagogical approaches that support
learners in their emotional flow regarding climate change and help mitigate eco/climate anxiety.
Although the activities used in Trott’s (2021) study align with TSL, Trott uses a theoretical
approach of transformative learning theory (Mezirow 1978, 1981), which is a learning theory
that comes from the adult education field and has been critiqued by other scholars in the field
of adult education (Clark and Wilson 1991) and responded to by Mezirow (1991) addressing
those critiques. We acknowledge that other pedagogical approaches highlighted in these studies
can be considered transformative education or transformative sustainability learning (TSL);
however, we argue that distinction depends on their implementation and how well the curric-
ulum and instructional methods center the heads, hands, and hearts.
Identifying a need for more diverse voices in the academic literature surrounding eco/
climate anxiety and environmental education
The critical lens we bring to this work also sheds light on the noticeable Western lean within
the context of this body of research. Although there are individuals from minoritized commu-
nities globally working at this intersection and/or are working in the field of psychology on
emotions related to climate change such as Uchendu (2022) and Ogunbode (2022), we argue
that there is a clear lack of diverse voices at this intersection of eco/climate anxiety and EE in
the academic literature.
Taking into account the nuances of the 15 studies, including the global locations, research
participants, and type of research, we argue that it is crucial to support the inclusion of more
diverse voices in the academic literature surrounding eco/climate anxiety in EE. It is especially
crucial if the context of the research is in a Western-dominant culture versus a non-Western-dom-
inant culture, especially given the evidence that this research involves emotions, which are
shaped by the values and norms of a particular culture (Ahmed 2015; Boler 1999). A majority
of the studies included in this literature review took place in the global ‘North,’ such as the
United States, Europe, and Australia (e.g. Baker et al. 2021; Bright and Eames 2021; Cantell et al.
2019; Dunlop and Rushton 2022; Finnegan 2023; Gallay et al. 2022; Hunt 2021; Lehtonen and
Pihkala 2021; Löfström et al. 2021; Ojala 2021; Skilling et al. 2022; Trott 2021; Verlie 2019; Verlie
et al. 2020). However, the studies situated in the global ‘South’ were still led by researchers
associated with institutions in the global ‘North’ (e.g. Jimenez and Moorhead 2021). Applying
a critical lens to where and when the studies have taken place, the location where the research
studies were completed are consolidated in a few countries, likely due to the fact that eco and
climate anxiety are a more recent focus of research and that one or two prominent scholars in
a single country could contribute to multiple publications originating from a single country.
Further, the majority of the studies (60%) were published in 2021. This could be due to COVID-19,
which likely halted or delayed research in this area due to precautionary health and safety
measures such as social distancing and online education. When thinking about the approach
to emotions, a predominately Western cultural approach is applied in the studies used for this
literature review.
The research at this intersection of eco/climate anxiety and EE is expanding quickly; we
advocate for future studies to include more diverse contexts (i.e. other forms of education
[Höhle and Bengtsson 2023]) and diverse voices (i.e. research from non-western countries [Gan
and Gal 2023]) to more fully understand the phenomena of eco/climate anxiety and climate
emotions. It is well-known that within research literature, the White, Westernized voices with
various degrees of higher education are prioritized, likely due to White researchers having
greater resources with which to conduct research, and by leveraging Westernized research
methods that have been more traditionally accepted by the academy. Put simply, the greatest
impacts of climate change are being felt by communities of Color and it is often those com-
munities’ voices that are left out of academic conversations. We posit that inclusion and recog-
nition of grassroots and community-led research perspectives can foster more diverse and
equitable solutions for communities around the globe to develop regenerative solutions to thrive.
Perspectives and voices needed in the conversation to move forward equitably

Including more diverse perspectives includes youth voices. Youth voices should have a space
and place in this curriculum design and research (Bright and Eames 2021), especially since
there is research that has shown when given a more significant role in design and taking on
a more ‘adult’ role, youth tend to feel a greater sense of belonging and sense of agency in
the actions they can take to make a difference in their lives and the lives of their community
(Flanagan et al. 2010; Kasumagic 2008; Rogoff 2003). This is where PAR as a theory, method,
framework, and lens for both the design of curriculum (i.e. Trott 2021) and research (i.e. Diffey
et al. 2022) can come into play. PAR is collectively community-based, action-orientated, and
transformative by design. Therefore, it is ideally positioned to support learners and educators
in the emotional flow and processing of emotions surrounding climate change and mitigation
of eco/climate anxiety, as well as provide space for youth voices and perspectives to be rec-
ognized and valued.
Another example a perspective that is needed is a critical community-engaged pedagogy
as a transformative practice for environmental justice education (Cachelin and Nicolosi 2022).
Drawing on Calderon (2014), the authors define environmental justice education as challenging
students to recognize the interconnectedness of the physical environment with cultural, political,
economic, and historical factors; urge them to examine their understanding of environmental
racism and the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on communities of color;
and, challenge them to confront their privileged conceptions of the environment, which per-
petuate inequity and erase Indigenous perspectives. The authors (Cachelin and Nicolosi 2022)
aim to share the successes and challenges of critical community-engaged teaching in preparing
students to address environmental injustice and highlight student responses to critically oriented
community-engaged learning projects that revealed transformative experiences. In this way, the
authors state that ‘The power inherent in critical CEL can attend to challenges in understanding
the production and maintenance of environmental racism and oppressions while harnessing
practical anxiety through collective action’ (2022, 505). Climate change is increasingly becoming
evident in communities around the globe, and a community approach (i.e. Cachelin and Nicolosi
2022; Diffey et al. 2022; Dunlop and Rushton 2022; Gallay et al. 2022; Trott 2021) is what is
needed to ensure equity, especially since the effects of climate change, both physically and
mentally, will vary in type and severity from area to area and community to community.
The reality that most of the research covering climate anxiety and EE has been conducted
in countries where the dominant culture is Western or andro-European contributes to a lack of
knowledge on climate anxiety in a global context. Climate change is a global issue and therefore
the emotions surrounding climate change should be looked at through more than just the lens
from one culture, especially a culture that has contributed in high proportions to climate change
(compared to other cultures). This is where collective pedagogies, andragogies, and research
strategies such as PAR/YPAR, critically community-engaged pedagogies, and other various col-
lective strategies that involve emotional processing can help inform the understanding of
emotions related to climate change and, more specifically, climate anxiety. By centering the
focus on communities and looking through the lens of emotions as being social or relational,
we assume that emotions are not solely ‘in’ a person but have an ‘aboutness’ and are related
to a subject/object (Ahmed 2015; Campos et al. 2011; Dewey 1894; Nussbaum 2001; Shields
2002; Solomon 2000) as well as can be considered political (Ahmed 2015; Berlant 1997; Boler
1999; Brown 1995; Butler 1997).
Limitations
A limitation of this study is that the field of EE lacks common keywords and definitions regard-
ing emotions surrounding climate change (Pihkala 2020b). As such, there were most likely
articles that were missed. The narrow scope of the topic of climate anxiety and EE, as a specific
branch of the education field, likely limited the number of results. Only the words (in any
combination) climate change, anxiety, eco-anxiety, climate anxiety, and environmental education
were used in the search. Other forms of environmental education, such as education for sus-
tainability and climate change education, were not explicitly included in the search terms, as
other words such as ecological distress or climate distress were not included in the search
terms. It is possible that this could have limited the scope of the search. Another limitation
was the focus solely on empirical publications and not including any theoretical publications.
Given the global nature of climate change and therefore eco/climate anxiety, there may be
articles published in other languages that were not included due to the authors’ language
limitations beyond English. We acknowledge that another limitation of the study involves the
location of the research studies, due to the fact that eco-anxiety is a more recent term within
the research literature and that one or two prominent scholars in a single country likely would
contribute to multiple publications originating from a single country. The predominantly Western
and global ‘North’ approach in this review is a limiting factor in the study, and it is essential
to recognize this as a limiting factor when we consider climate emotions as a whole. Our
timeline of studies was also limited, given the measures put in place to mitigate the impacts
of COVID-19, as well as its physical and mental impacts that may have resulted in relatively
fewer studies being published in 2022.
Since 2022, there have been many articles surrounding different aspects of eco/climate
anxiety that have been published in the EE field and beyond. Empirical articles published in
2023 include Gan and Gal (2023) and Beasy et al. (2023). Both studies could provide a valuable
perspective on this topic as Gan and Gal (2023) cover students emotional responses to an
environmental education program, while Beasy et al.’ study (2023) discusses educators’ experi-
ences navigating the affective dimensions of climate change education. This review is not
all-encompassing and is intended to be a continuation of the discussion for researchers to think
about how to approach the intersection of pedagogical methods, EE, and eco/climate anxiety
as well as to highlight some specific EE related pedagogical methods that are already being used.
Conclusion
Studies are calling for climate change educators to develop strategies that embrace (Bright and
Eames 2021) and validate emotions (Hickman 2020; Ojala 2021; Verlie et al. 2020) surrounding
climate change in response to rising eco and climate anxiety. Climate educators are also encour-
aged to incorporate an action (individual and collective) component to their practice (Baker
et al. 2021; Bright and Eames 2021; Cantell et al. 2021; Dunlop and Rushton 2022; Finnegan
2022; Gallay et al. 2022; Jimenez and Moorhead 2021; Löfström et al. 2021; Ojala 2021; Skilling
et al.2022; Trott 2021; Verlie et al. 2020). Practitioners should also work through their emotions
surrounding climate change, developing their ‘critical emotional awareness’ (Ojala 2021, 50) to
respond to learners’ emotions more professionally in the workplace. A change in curricula and
pedagogical methods can be supported by researchers by having researchers focusing on
studying the most effective educator/teacher professional development models and frameworks
for facilitating educators and teachers to help process their own climate emotions, after which
they will be more capable of helping to facilitate their student’s emotional processes surrounding
climate change. This can be developed from what is already known from the literature, including
what is covered in this literature review. This can empower educators and teachers to address
their own emotions surrounding climate change (including climate anxiety), so they may start
working with their learners to help them process their climate anxiety. This work should be
done with a culturally responsive framework, as emotions are mediated and regulated differently
across different cultures (Ahmed 2015; Boler 1999) and are social or relational (Campos et al.
2011; Dewey 1894; Nussbaum 2001; Shields 2002; Solomon 2000).
The implications of this could be that EE moves from a problem identification model of climate
change education to one that is more holistic and fosters not only identification of problems and
issues surrounding climate change but one that embraces education for transformation by includ-
ing support for the emotional and mental health aspects of climate change, fostering community
and relationships through emotional processing and subsequent steps of action that follows that
processing. The field of EE could benefit immensely from a change in educational models to
include educational models such as the ones mentioned in the studies covered in this literature
review. Recommendations for policymakers are to place a value on socio-emotional learning and
create policies that emphasize fostering emotional regulation strategies that are culturally respon-
sive in children and youth, explicitly surrounding climate anxiety, in our education systems.
Additionally, policymakers should support the call for the integration of climate change information
across standardized curricula in the United States and across the globe. This is a global and
national health crisis and EE and education, in general, have the power to be part of the solution.
Youth are increasingly anxious and worried about their futures (Hickman et al. 2021). Don’t we,
at the very least, have the responsibility to talk about it?
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Emily K. Olsen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0270-0559
Danielle F. Lawson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6326-2257
Lucy R. McClain http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6027-4703
Julia D. Plummer http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4144-7864
References
*= Article included in systematic review
Ahmed, S. 2015. The Cultural Politics of Emotion (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & CRC Press.
Alexander, P. A. 2020. “Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews.” Review
of Educational Research 90 (1): 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
Australian Education for Sustainability Alliance. 2014. Education for Sustainability and the Australian Curriculum
Project: Final Report for Research Phases 1–3. Melbourne, Australia: AESA.
Bae, C. L., D. C. Mills, F. Zhang, M. Sealy, L. Cabrera, and M. Sea. 2021. “A Systematic Review of Science Discourse
in K–12 Urban Classrooms in the United States: Accounting for Individual, Collective, and Contextual Factors.”
Review of Educational Research 91 (6): 831–877. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042415
*Baker, C., S. Clayton, and E. Bragg. 2021. “Educating for Resilience: Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Children’s
Emotional Needs in Response to Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 27 (5): 687–705. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1828288
Beasy, K., C. Jones, R. Kelly, C. Lucas, G. Mocatta, G. Pecl, and D. Yildiz. 2023. “The Burden of Bad News: Educators’
Experiences of Navigating Climate Change Education.” Environmental Education Research 29 (11): 1678–1691.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2238136
Bjorklund, P. 2018. “Undocumented Students in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature, 2001 to 2016.” Review
of Educational Research 88 (5): 631–670. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318783018
Bloom, B. S., B. B. Maisia, and D. R. Krathwhol. 1964. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Two Volumes: The Affective
Domain & the Cognitive Domain). New York: David McKay & Co.
Boler, M. 1999. Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Boström, M., E. Andersson, M. Berg, K. Gustafsson, E. Gustavsson, E. Hysing, R. Lidskog, et al. 2018. “Conditions
for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Review and Approach.” Sustainability
10 (12): 4479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124479
Bozalek, V. 2016. “A Political Ethics of Care Perspective in Researching Emotions.” In Methodological Advances
in Research on Emotion and Education, edited by M. Zembylas and P. A. Schutz, 191–202. Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Breiting, S., and F. Mogensen. 1999. “Action Competence and Environmental Education.” Cambridge Journal of
Education 29 (3): 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764990290305
*Bright, M. L., and C. Eames. 2021. “From Apathy through Anxiety to Action: Emotions as Motivators for
Youth Climate Strike Leaders.” Australian Journal of Environmental Education 38 (1): 13–25. https://doi.
org/10.1017/aee.2021.22
Cachelin, A., and E. Nicolosi. 2022. “Investigating Critical Community Engaged Pedagogies for Transformative
Environmental Justice Education.” Environmental Education Research 28 (4): 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
504622.2022.2034751
Calderon, D. 2014. “Speaking Back to Manifest Destinies: A Land Education-Based Approach to Critical Curriculum
Inquiry.” Environmental Education Research 20 (1): 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.865114
Campos, J. J., E. A. Walle, A. Dahl, and A. Main. 2011. “Reconceptualizing Emotion Regulation.” Emotion Review 3
(1): 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380975
*Cantell, H., S. Tolppanen, E. Aarnio-Linnanvuori, and A. Lehtonen. 2019. “Bicycle Model on Climate Change
Education: Presenting and Evaluating a Model.” Environmental Education Research 25 (5): 717–731. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1570487
Cheng, J. C.-H., and M. C. Monroe. 2012. “Connection to Nature: Children’s Affective Attitude toward Nature.”
Environment and Behavior 44 (1): 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
Clark, M. C., and A. L. Wilson. 1991. “Context and Rationality in Mezirow’s Theory of Transformational Learning.”
Adult Education Quarterly 41 (2): 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848191041002002
Clayton, S., C. M. Manning, M. Speiser, and A. N. Hill. 2021. Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts,
Inequities, Responses. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, and ecoAmerica.
Clayton, S., C. M. Manning, K. Krygsman, and M. Speiser. 2017. Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts,
and Guidance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, and ecoAmerica.
Davenport, L. 2017. Emotional Resiliency in the Era of Climate Change: A Clinician’s Guide. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan Company.
Dewey, J. 1894. “The Theory of Emotion: Emotional Attitudes.” Psychological Review 1 (6): 553–569. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0069054
Diffey, J., S. Wright, J. O. Uchendu, S. Masithi, A. Olude, D. O. Juma, L. H. Anya, et al. 2022. “Not about us without
us” – The Feelings and Hopes of Climate-Concerned Young People around the World.” International Review of
Psychiatry 34 (5): 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2022.2126297
Dunlop, L., and E. A. C. Rushton. 2022. “Education for Environmental Sustainability and the Emotions: Implications
for Educational Practice.” Sustainability 14 (8): 4441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084441
*Finnegan, W. 2022. “Educating for Hope and Action Competence: A Study of Secondary School Students and
Teachers in England.” Environmental Education Research 29 (11): 1617–1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.
2022.2120963
Flanagan, C., T. Stoppa, A. Syvertsen, and M. Stout. 2010. “Schools and Social Trust.” In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta,
& C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth (pp. 307–329). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
*Gallay, E., M. Furlan Brighente, C. Flanagan, and E. Lowenstein. 2022. “Place-Based Civic Science – Collective
Environmental Action and Solidarity for Eco-Resilience.” Child and Adolescent Mental Health 27 (1): 39–46. https://
doi.org/10.1111/camh.12537
Gan, D., and A. Gal. 2023. “Student Emotional Response to the Lesser Kestrel Environmental and Sustainability
Education Program.” Environmental Education Research 29 (1): 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2
139354
Gutierrez-Bucheli, L., A. Reid, and G. Kidman. 2022. “Scoping Reviews: Their Development and Application in
Environmental and Sustainability Education Research.” Environmental Education Research 28 (5): 645–673. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2047896
Hickman, C. (2020). We need to (find a way to) talk about … Eco-anxiety. Journal of Social Work Practice, 34(4),
411–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2020.1844166
Hickman, C., E. Marks, P. Pihkala, S. Clayton, R. E. Lewandowski, E. E. Mayall, B. Wray, C. Mellor, and L. van Susteren.
2021. “Climate Anxiety in Children and Young People and Their Beliefs about Government Responses to Climate
Change: A Global Survey.” The Lancet Planetary Health 5 (12): E 863–e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2542-5196(21)00278-3
Höhle, J. V., and S. L. Bengtsson. 2023. “A Didactic Toolkit for Climate Change Educators: Lessons from Constructive
Journalism for Emotionally Sensitive and Democratic Content Design.” Environmental Education Research 29 (11):
1659–1677. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2182746
Hufnagel, E. 2015. “Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Emotional Connections and Disconnections to Climate
Change in a Science Course.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52 (9): 1296–1324. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.21245
*Hunt, L. 2021. “Ocean Literacy and Youth – Integrating a Place-Based SDG 14 Intervention into Irish Secondary
School Curriculum.” International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education 10 (1): 1659–1666. https://doi.
org/10.20533/ijtie.2047.0533.2021.0204
IPCC. 2022. “Summary for Policymakers.” [H.-O. Portner, €D. C. Roberts, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor,
A. Alegrıa, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V. €Moller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In €Climate Change 2022: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Portner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. €Mintenbeck, A. Alegrıa,
M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V. M €oller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)], (pp. 3–33). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.001
Ivanaj, V., K. Poldner, and P. Shrivastava. 2014. “Hand/Heart/Head: Aesthetic Practice Pedagogy for Deep Sustainability
Learning.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2014 (54): 23–46. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2014.ju.00005
Jickling, B., and Arjen E. J. Wals. 2008. “Globalization and Environmental Education: Looking beyond Sustainable
Development.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 40 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701684667
*Jimenez, J., and L. Moorhead. 2021. “Don’t Say It’s Going to Be Okay’: How International Educators Embrace
Transformative Education to Support Their Students Navigating Our Global Climate Emergency.” Education
Sciences 11 (10): 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100593
Kasumagic, L. 2008. “Engaging Youth in Community Development.” International Review of Education 54 (3–4):
375–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-008-9095-y
Kelsey, E., and C. Armstrong. 2012. “Finding Hope in a World of Environmental Catastrophe.” In Learning for
Sustainability in Times of Accelerating Change, edited by Arjen E. J. Wals and Peter Blaze Corcoran, 187–200.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Pub.
Kelsey, E. 2016. “Propagating Collective Hope in the Midst of Environmental Doom and Gloom.” Canadian Journal
of Environmental Education 21: 23–40.
Kuby, C. R. 2016. “Emotions as Situated, Embodied, and Fissured: Methodological Implications of Thinking with
Theories.” In Methodological Advances in Research on Emotion and Education, edited by M. Zembylas and P. A.
Schutz, 125–136. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Kurth, C., and P. Pihkala. 2022. “Eco-Anxiety: What It is and Why It Matters.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 981814.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981814
Lave, J. 1991. “Situated Learning in Communities of Practice.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited
by L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (1st ed. pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Lazarus, R. S. 1991. “Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion.” The American Psychologist
46 (8): 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
*Lehtonen, A., and P. Pihkala. 2021. “Encounters with Climate Change and Its Psychosocial Aspects through
Performance Making among Young People.” Environmental Education Research 27 (5): 743–761. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504622.2021.1923663
*Löfström, E., I. Richter, and I. H. Nesvold. 2021. “Disruptive Communication as a Means to Engage Children in
Solving Environmental Challenges: A Case Study on Plastic Pollution.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 635448. https://
www.frontiersin.org/article/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635448
Marks, E., and C. Hickman. 2023. “Eco-Distress is Not a Pathology, but It Still Hurts.” Nature Mental Health 1 (6):
379–380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00075-3
Mezirow, J. 1978. “Perspective Transformation.” Adult Education 28 (2): 100–110. https://doi.
org/10.1177/074171367802800202
Mezirow, J. 1981. “A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education.” Adult Education 32 (1): 3–24. https://doi.
org/10.1177/074171368103200101
Mezirow, J. 1991. “Transformation Theory and Cultural Context: A Reply to Clark and Wilson.” Adult Education
Quarterly 41 (3): 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848191041003004
McIntyre, A. 2008. Participatory Action Research. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Monroe, M. C., R. R. Plate, A. Oxarart, A. Bowers, and W. A. Chaves. 2019. “Identifying Effective Climate Change
Education Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Research.” Environmental Education Research 25 (6): 791–812.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842
*Ojala, M. 2021. “Safe Spaces or a Pedagogy of Discomfort? Senior High-School Teachers’ Meta-Emotion Philosophies
and Climate Change Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 52(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
0958964.2020.1845589
Nussbaum, M. C. 2001. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ogunbode, C. A., R. Doran, D. Hanss, M. Ojala, K. Salmela-Aro, K. L. van den Broek, N. Bhullar, et al. 2022. “Climate
Anxiety, Wellbeing and Pro-Environmental Action: Correlates of Negative Emotional Responses to Climate
Change in 32 Countries.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 84: 101887. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen-
vp.2022.101887
Ojala, M. 2005. “Adolescents’ Worries about Environmental Risks: Subjective Well-Being, Values, and Existential
Dimensions.” Journal of Youth Studies 8 (3): 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260500261934
Ojala, M. 2007. “Confronting Macrosocial Worries: Worry about Environmental Problems and Proactive Coping
among a Group of Young Volunteers.” Futures 39 (6): 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.11.007
Ojala, M. 2012. “How Do Children Cope with Global Climate Change? Coping Strategies, Engagement, and
Well-Being.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (3): 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.004
Ojala, M. 2016. “Facing Anxiety in Climate Change Education: From Therapeutic Practice to Hopeful Transgressive
Learning.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 21: 41–56.
Ojala, M., A. Cunsolo, C. Ogunbode, and J. Middleton. 2021. “Anxiety, Worry, and Grief in a Time of Environmental
and Climate Crisis: A Narrative Review.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46 (1): 35–58. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022716
O’Neill, B. C., T. R. Carter, K. Ebi, P. A. Harrison, E. Kemp-Benedict, Kasper Kok, Elmar Kriegler, et al. 2020.
“Achievements and Needs for the Climate Change Scenario Framework.” Nature Climate Change 10 (12): 1074–
1084. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00952-0
Parry, J., and P. Allison. 2019. Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education: Traditions of Practice and Philosophical
Perspectives. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/pensu/detail.action?docID=5851250.
Piaget, J. 1964. “Part I: Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget Development and Learning.” Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 2 (3): 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Pihkala, P. 2019. “The Cost of Bearing Witness to the Environmental Crisis: Vicarious Traumatization and Dealing
with Secondary Traumatic Stress among Environmental Researchers.” Social Epistemology 34 (1): 86–100. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1681560
Pihkala, P. 2020a. “Anxiety and the Ecological Crisis: An Analysis of Eco-Anxiety and Climate Anxiety.” Sustainability
12 (19): 7836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836
Pihkala, P. 2020b. “Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Education.” Sustainability 12 (23): 10149. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su122310149
PRISMA. 2021. Welcome to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) website!.
http://www.prisma-statement.org/.
Rogoff, B. 2003. The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, K. 2016. “Incorporating Emotional Geography into Climate Change Research: A Case Study in Londonderry,
Vermont, USA.” Emotion, Space and Society 19: 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2016.02.006
Shields, S. A. 2002. Speaking from the Heart. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sipos, Y., B. Battisti, and K. Grimm. 2008. “Achieving Transformative Sustainability Learning: Engaging Head, Hands
and Heart.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9 (1): 68–86. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14676370810842193
Skilling, P., F. Hurd, M. Lips-Wiersma, and P. McGhee. 2022. “Navigating Hope and Despair in Sustainability Education:
A Reflexive Roadmap for Being with Eco-Anxiety in the Classroom.” Management Learning 54 (5): 655–679.
13505076221098957. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076221098957
Snyder, C. R., K. L. Rand, and D. R. Sigmon. 2002. “Hope Theory: A Member of the Positive Psychology Family.” In
Handbook of Positive Psychology, edited by C. R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez, 257–276. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sobel, D. 2013. Place-Based Education Connecting Classrooms and Communities. Great Barrington: The Orion
Society.
Solomon, R. C. 2000. “The Philosophy of Emotions.” In Handbook of Emotions, edited by M. Lewis and J. Haviland,
3–16. New York: Guilford.
Stevenson, R. B., M. Brody, J. Dillon, and A. E. J. Wals. 2012. International Handbook of Research on Environmental
Education. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
*Trott, C. D. 2021. “Climate Change Education for Transformation: Exploring the Affective and Attitudinal Dimensions
of Children’s Learning and Action.” Environmental Education Research 28 (7): 1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.108
0/13504622.2021.2007223
Uchendu, J. O. 2022. “Eco-Anxiety and Its Divergent Power Holds: A Youth Climate Activist’s Perspective.” South
African Journal of Psychology 52 (4): 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/00812463221130586
United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. 1977. Tbilisi declaration (1977). https://
www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html.
United Nations International Children ‘s Emergency Fund [UNICEF]. 2021. The Climate Crisis is a Child Rights Crisis:
Introducing the Children’s Climate Risk Index. New York, NY: United Nations Children’s Fund.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2021. 2020 in review: Climate impacts in the
least developed countries. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/2020-review-climate-impacts-least-developed-
countries#:~:text=The%20least%20developed%20countries%20(LDCs,the%20worst%20from%20its%20impacts.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2021. U.S. Surgeon General issues advisory on youth mental health
crisis further exposed by COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/12/07/us-surgeon-general-issue
s-advisory-on-youth-mental-health-crisis-further-exposed-by-covid-19-pandemic.html.
*Verlie, B., E. Clark, T. Jarrett, and E. Supriyono. 2020. “Educators’ Experiences and Strategies for Responding to
Ecological Distress.” Australian Journal of Environmental Education 37 (2): 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/
aee.2020.34
*Verlie, B. 2019. “Bearing Worlds: Learning to Live-with Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 25 (5):
751–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1637823
Weissberg, R. P., and J. Cascarino. 2013. “Academic Learning + Social-Emotional Learning = National Priority.” Phi
Delta Kappan 95 (2): 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500203
Appendix
Search String for ERIC (ProQuest): (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Depression (Psychology)’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Mental
Health’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Anxiety’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Resilience (Psychology)’) OR MAINSUBJECT.
EXACT(‘Anxiety Disorders’)) AND (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Outdoor Education’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Marine
Education’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Biodiversity’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Sustainable Development’) OR
MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Therapeutic Recreation’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Recreational Activities’) OR MAINSUBJECT.
EXACT(‘Conservation (Environment)’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Environmental Education’) OR MAINSUBJECT.
EXACT(‘Ecology’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Global Education’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Recreation’) OR MAINSUBJECT.
EXACT(‘Adventure Education’)) AND noft(climate change) AND PEER(yes).

Heads Hearts and Hands A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies About Eco Climate Anxiety and Environmental Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heads Hearts and Hands A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies About Eco Climate Anxiety and Environmental Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heads Hearts and Hands A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies About Eco Climate Anxiety and Environmental Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Education Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ceer20

Heads, hearts, and hands: a systematic review of

Emily K. Olsen, Danielle F. Lawson, Lucy R. McClain & Julia D. Plummer

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2315572

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 11 Feb 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 407

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Heads, hearts, and hands: a systematic review of empirical

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Types of EE to inspire action in a changing climate

Positionalities and theoretical context

Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Literature search procedures

Figure 1. Literature search results.

1. A focus on students’ and/or educators’ perspectives in each of the studies.

Breadth of studies addressing eco/climate anxiety in the literature

Table 2. Publication Trends in eco/climate anxiety and environmental education literature.

Intertwining theoretical frameworks

Themes and patterns

Studies focusing on students (n = 7)

Studies focusing on educators (n = 6)

Studies focusing on both students and educators (n = 2)

The importance of providing space for emotions in EE

Potential pedagogical approaches for the future

Perspectives and voices needed in the conversation to move forward equitably

You might also like