ReviewiScience2025
Measuring climate knowledge: A systematic review of quantitative studies.
Review in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Education and Meat Consumption and Reduction: The Mediating Role of Climate Literacy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change is a pressing issue that necessitates a climate-literate population. This systematic literature review investigates how climate knowledge, a key component of climate literacy, is measured in scientific research. Analysis of 92 studies reveals that climate knowledge is primarily assessed as objective knowledge (facts and evidence). A minority of studies measured subjective knowledge. Most often, the target population was general adult population, followed by students and teachers. Furthermore, most studies are concentrated in North America and Europe, while climate knowledge remains underexplored in other regions. This review highlights the lack of consistency in the measurement of climate knowledge, particularly in defining its dimensions. Our findings underscore the need for future research to focus on developing a standardized, reliable, valid, and comprehensive instrument for measuring climate knowledge. This would enable the comparison of findings across different regions and populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.