Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:37 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
30 SES 10 D: Reflections on Action in ESE Research
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper From Deflection to Action: Reclaiming Complexity Through Critical Realism in Global Citizenship Education University College London, Institute of Education Presenting Author:The aim of Global Citizenship Education (GCE) is to “be transformative, building the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that learners need to be able to contribute to a more inclusive, just and peaceful world” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 15). Naming GCE as “transformative” makes a direct connection to the work of the critical pedagogue Paulo Freire, whose pedagogy is often referenced as “one of the roots of GCE theoretical framework” (Tarozzi & Inguaggiato, 2018, p. 122). Freire developed problem-posing education, in which students and teachers jointly inquire into real-world issues through dialogue and reflection, with the aim of transformative action (Freire, 2017). The inquiring of real-world issues nowadays demands a kind of approach that engages productively with complexity, to understand a world full of uncertainties, indeterminations, contradictions, paradoxes, conflicts, and challenges (Araujo et al., 2024). As highlighted in this conference call, the world is facing interconnected problems, creating a time of poly-crisis that young people are trying to cope with. GCE therefore needs to help young people engage with this complexity in ways that stir hopeful action (Pashby & Sund, 2020), rather than defeat or deflection. As Palestinian scholars Hajir and Qato (2025) indicate, ‘complexity’ has also been invoked over the last two years to delay judgment on one epitome of crisis, the Western backed Israeli genocide in Gaza. However, embracing complexity is part of the critical pedagogue’s repertoire to work students through the interconnected ways in which they are implicated in the suffering of others, so they can see the leverage points for action and solidarity (Bryan, 2022). Thus, complexity needs to be reclaimed by critical pedagogues to help young people navigate a time of poly-crisis. The research question for this paper is: how can critical realism enable GCE to teach complexity in ways that empower students to take informed and responsible action? This question comes forward from my PhD research into the possibility of GCE as an instigator of transformative learning experiences, grounded in a critical realist ontology. Critical realism is an ontology that explores structures and mechanisms to explain our experiences. Critical realism is an ontology that explores structures and mechanisms to explain our experiences. It distinguishes the empirical (what we observe), the actual (events, observed or not), and the real (underlying, unobservable structures and mechanisms that cause events) (Buch Hansen & Nielsen, 2020). Its focus is uncovering these causal mechanisms to deepen understanding of what we observe (Isaken, 2024). For education, this means that students aim to dig below the surface to understand a phenomenon through underlying forces: structures that impact daily life (Wrigley, 2017). This ontology fits with the “pedagogy of the implicated”, which provokes students “to engage critically with their own complex entanglement [...] in transnational and transgenerational relations of ecological harm” and to recognize “a complex fusion of individual as well as state corporate forms of responsibility” (Bryan, 2022, p. 344).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used My PhD research was an Action Research (AR) in which I, as researcher and teacher, investigated my own practice. This insider’s view in a natural setting is a key feature of AR. The aim is to find practical ways forward for problems experienced in practice, which makes AR contextual since the focus is the practice of the practitioner (Kemmis et al., 2014). The goal of AR is not to generalise, but to theorise the situation of the practitioner (Elliott, 2009). The study took place while I was teaching social studies at a secondary school in the Netherlands between 2019 and 2023, with each academic year representing a separate cycle. Across three cycles, data was collected while teaching a twelve week unit grounded in GCE principles, focused on how students engaged with complexity and how this could be oriented toward informed action. In total, 39 students participated. AR aims to be democratic and participatory, as at its core AR is a pragmatic co-creation of knowledge with, not on or about, people (Bradbury, 2015). However, student voice is often reduced to a data source rather than involving students as co-creators of knowledge (Bradbury et al., 2019). My data collection followed Starkey et al.’s pedagogical research approach, collecting data through meaningful teaching and learning strategies that help students express feelings, attitudes, and opinions (Starkey et al., 2014). Data consisted of interviews, students’ written responses, and peer-to-peer conversations. Learning activities such as connection circles functioned as tools for data collection and aimed to minimize the power relationship, since students oversaw what they were willing to share. To analyze the data, I used Critical Grounded Theory (GT), an emergent methodology in which data, rather than preconceived notions, lead the investigation (Hense & McFerran, 2016). It emphasizes reflexivity and acknowledges that theorization is constructed through the researcher’s interpretations of reality (Charmaz, 2014). Critical GT aligns with a critical realist worldview because it allows for the idea that some interpretations may reflect underlying causal mechanisms more closely than others, and it supports critical engagement with power and unjust systems (Hadley, 2022). Analysis began with in vivo coding (Tarozzi, 2020). Across cycles, codes became narrower and developed into categories, supported by analytical memos that informed each subsequent action cycle. Eventually, a theory could be developed about how critical realism can enable GCE to teach complexity in ways that empower students for informed action. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The application of systems-thinking helped students to dig below the surface by mapping out the deeper structures behind observations of the issue. This didactical practice allowed students to investigate unfair structures such as capitalism and colonialism causing global issues. However, it also resulted in students having a troubled view of where there was potential for change, and their actions remained focused on individuals rather than on the relationships (interconnections) between elements. This tension between structure and agency within critical realism was centralized by Margaret Archer (2003), for which she proposed the causal efficacy of personal reflexivity. Archer (2007) defined reflexivity as “the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their (social) context and vice versa” (p.4). For Archer (2007), reflexivity is a mediating force between structural powers and human action, as this reflexive inner dialogue shapes our practices in society (p.16). To avoid a feeling of disempowerment, the practice of reflexivity could provide students with an understanding of how our actions are shaped by structures, hereby identifying enablers or constraints in the pursuit of change. Questions that could guide such a reflection could be: how can we better understand this issue? How do my identity and background shape my views about the issue? What are my biases and assumptions and how do they influence my actions? For Archer (2003) the aim of reflexivity is to ensure that we are active agents; we can take a stance towards something (p. 343). In this way, complexity can be invoked to help students work through the entangled realities of our world in poly-crisis, while avoiding deflection and a lack of responsibility. References Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, (3), 40–51. Araujo, U. F., Silva, M. A., & Arantes, V. (2024). A complexity approach for moral education inspired by Paulo Freire’s pedagogy. In Handbook of moral and character education. Routledge. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge University Press. Bourn, D., & Tarozzi, M. (Eds.). (2023). Pedagogy of hope for global social justice: Sustainable futures for people and the planet (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing. Bryan, A. (2022). Pedagogy of the implicated: Advancing a social ecology of responsibility framework to promote deeper understanding of the climate crisis. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1977979 Buch-Hansen, H., & Nielsen, P. (2020). Critical realism: Basics and beyond. Bloomsbury Academic. Freire, P. (2017). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Classics. Hadley, G. (2019). Critical grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 564–592). SAGE Publications. Hajir, B., & Qato, M. (2025). Academia in a time of genocide: Scholasticidal tendencies and continuities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 23(5), 1163–1171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2024.2445855 Heke, I., Rees, D., Swinburn, B., Waititi, T., & Stewart, A. (2019). Systems thinking and Indigenous systems: Native contributions to obesity prevention. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 15(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180118806383 Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner. Springer. Lehtonen, A., Salonen, A., Cantell, H., & Riuttanen, L. (2018). A pedagogy of interconnectedness for encountering climate change as a wicked sustainability problem. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 860–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.186 Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems. Chelsea Green Publishing. Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352 Pashby, K., & Sund, L. (2020). Decolonial options and foreclosures for global citizenship education and education for sustainable development. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 4(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3554 Tarozzi, M. (2020). What is grounded theory? (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. A. (2016). Global citizenship education and the crises of multiculturalism: Comparative perspectives. Bloomsbury Academic. UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002329/232993e.pdf Wrigley, T. (2017). “Knowledge”, curriculum and social justice. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1370381 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Implementing Action-oriented Sustainability Education at School Karlstad university, Sweden Presenting Author:Introduction & background This study investigates the effects and challenges of implementing action-oriented sustainability education in formal education. The study uses biodiversity loss exemplified through insect decline as a specific case of a major global sustainability issue that needs to be addressed according to the recent PISA 2025 science and environmental education framework (OECD, 2023). The PISA 2025 framework highlights the necessity to support learners in taking informed decisions to act, which aligns with the demands from the European sustainability competence framework Greencomp (European Commission, 2022). Hence, it is critical that learners develop action competence to tackle sustainability problems, which includes having the knowledge, confidence, and willingness to take action (Sass et al., 2020). To support school students in fostering their action competence for sustainability, education should build on holistic, pluralistic, and action-oriented approaches (Sinakou et al. 2019). Action-oriented approaches can be particularly relevant for developing students’ action competence (Sass et al., 2024). Integrating action-oriented approaches in education aligns with children’s right to know, decide and act when dealing with environmental problems (Mackey, 2012). More specifically, action-oriented approaches in the context of biodiversity loss can provide broad learning opportunities and can motivate students to take real world actions to sustain biodiversity (Christodoulou & Grace, 2024; Lampert et al., 2025). However, implementing action-orientation approaches is perceived as a particular challenge by both in-service and pre-service teachers (Boeve-de Pauw, 2022; Duifhuis et al., 2025), since they often require to leave the safe space of the classroom and to engage instead in real-world actions. There is also a discrepancy and a challenge in teachers’ knowledge of what action competence is, as well as in their ability to plan for and enact it in teaching. Key objectives In summary, research highlights a discrepancy between the relevance of action-oriented approaches for students, and perceived challenges of integrating action-oriented approaches by educators. Therefore, the presented study investigates both on students’ perspectives and teachers’ perspectives in the context of biodiversity education, using insect decline as a specific example for biodiversity loss. The study aims to answer the following research questions: RQ 1: How does the action competence for conservation of school students change during a teaching intervention focusing on insect conservation? RQ 2: Which potentials and challenges do teachers perceive in implementing action-oriented teaching approaches within the context of biodiversity education? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methods: The study is conducted in a formal school context in Sweden, involving both lower secondary and upper secondary schools, with students aged 12–19 years. Four schools (n=198) have already finished the teaching intervention in spring and autumn 2025, three additional schools will participate in the intervention in spring 2026. The schools volunteered to teach about insects and insect decline in the context of biodiversity loss, by following a teaching program called “Living with insects”. This program highlighted connections to the curriculum, sustainable development goals addressed, and inspirations for taking own actions for insects and biodiversity at school. To support teaching, the program linked to potential online sources for concrete lesson plans (e.g., Actions for Insects, see www.actionsforinsects.com) and instructions on how to take specific actions (e.g., building bee hotels, changing green spaces at school, informing others). The program provided schools freedom on how to implement their teaching interventions, and on which actions they want to engage in. A series of webinars was organized for the participating teachers to highlight different possible action approaches, and to provide relevant content knowledge and about the theoretical framework of action competence. The study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data consists of pre- and post-tests before and after the intervention. The test instrument measures a) attitudes towards insects, and b) students’ self-perceived action competence. In this contribution, we focus mainly on the self-perceived action competence, which was measured using the self-perceived action competence for insect conservation scale (SPACIC-scale) (Lampert et al., 2023), which includes items related to students’ knowledge, their confidence to engage in actions, and their willingness to act. The qualitative data consists of semi-structured group interviews, which were conducted with students and teachers at three of the participating schools several weeks after the intervention. The interviews with both groups focused on insects and biodiversity loss, experiences of working with action-oriented approaches, the teaching materials in general, and finally potential improvements of teaching. The quantitative data is analysed using IBM SPSS to calculate descriptive statistics, conduct repeated-measures ANOVAs. ANOVAs were calculated for students’ attitudes towards insects, as well as for the SPACIC scale including the dimensions of knowledge, confidence, and willingness, with interacting explanatory variables Group and Timing to compare different schools and to measure changes from pre-test to post-test. The qualitative data analysis uses a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings & Conclusions Preliminary quantitative findings suggest that students’ knowledge increased as a result of the intervention in all groups from pre-test to the post-test. Students’ confidence to take actions remained stable overall. The willingness for taking action decreased from pre- and post-intervention slightly but not significant overall. The quantitative results also show that the school groups perform very differently and that one small school had significant increases for all three dimensions of knowledge, confidence, and willingness. The preliminary qualitative findings from the student interviews indicate that few students experienced the component of action-orientation within their teaching. Instead, the students reported that instructional time was largely devoted to discussions about what could be done rather than to the implementation of concrete activities. The teacher interviews validate this pattern and highlight time restrictions and organizational obstacles as reasons for not engaging in real world conservation actions. In summary, the results show mixed effects of the teaching interventions implemented by the schools. The only overall positive effects are visible for the knowledge dimension, leading to an overall increase of students’ self-perceived action competence. However, no positive changes for confidence and willingness were observable overall. A potential explanation for these developments is the reported focus on theoretical learning about actions instead of actual action-taking at schools, which was reported by both students and teachers. This theoretical approach could have supported knowledge, but not confidence or willingness for action taking. The study underscores that teachers struggle to integrate action-oriented approaches in their teaching, despite having access to concrete action ideas, and receiving support through webinars. Potentially, further support structures are needed to facilitate action-oriented teaching at school to draw on the full potential of these approaches, which aligns with the findings of other international scholars (e.g., Duifhuis et al., 2025; Sass et al., 2024). References References: Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Berglund, T., & Gericke, N. (2022). Teachers’ ESD self-efficacy and practices: A longitudinal study on the impact of teacher professional development. Environmental Education Research, 28(6), 867–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2042206 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be (com) ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 1-6. Duifhuis, P., van Dijk, G., & Savelsbergh, E. Pre-service science teachers’ visions on education for sustainable development – tensions, underlying beliefs, and experiences. International Journal of Science Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2025.2546459 European Commission: Joint Research Centre, GreenComp, the European sustainability competence framework, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/13286 Mackey, G. (2012). To know, to decide, to act: the young child’s right to participate in action for the environment. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 473-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.634494 Christodoulou, A., & Grace, M. (2024). Becoming ‘Wild Citizens’: Children’s Articulation of Environmental Citizenship in the Context of Biodiversity Loss. Science & Education, 1-29. Lampert, P., Goulson, D., Olsson, D., Piccolo, J., & Gericke, N. (2023a). Sustaining insect biodiversity through Action Competence—An educational framework for transformational change. Biological Conservation, 283, 110094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110094 Lampert, P., Olsson, D., & Gericke, N. (2023b). A research instrument to monitor people's competence to sustain insect biodiversity: the Self-Perceived Action Competence for Insect Conservation scale (SPACIC). International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2023.2281931 OECD. (2023). PISA 2025. https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/ Sass, W., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Gericke, N., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2020). Redefining action competence: The case of sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1765132 Sass, W., De Maeyer, S., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2024). Effectiveness of education for sustainability: the importance of an action-oriented approach. Environmental Education Research, 30(4), 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2229543 Sinakou, E., Donche, V., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Designing Powerful Learning Environments in Education for Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability, 11(21), 5994. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215994 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Young People's Sustainability Agency Profiles from Three Countries: Implications for Environmental Education 1: University of Eastern Finland, Finland; 2: Finnish Environment Institute Presenting Author:The current societal landscape is defined by environmental threats and social turmoil. In this wicked poly-crisis, young people, in particular, are in a difficult position. The effects of climate change and biodiversity loss are expected to increase in the future, piling up on young people. At the same time, young people are encouraged to become future agents of change, but their agency is constrained by various structures and forces (Mustalahti et al., 2023). Despite these constraints, young people have demonstrated their sustainability agency in many ways. Not only have we witnessed the rise of collective youth-led movements, but research has also identified the transformative potential of young people’s everyday activism (Skovdal & Benwell, 2021). Koskela & Paloniemi (2023) defined sustainability agency as the overall desire and associated competencies to undertake actions of different modes to contribute to sustainability at various levels and scales. In young people’s sustainability agency, variability is key. The actions of young people range from behavioural modifications, such as changing one’s diet and cycling instead of driving, to social actions, such as discussing with peers and engaging in prominent collective movements (Oinonen & Paloniemi, 2023). Among young people, the reactions to the sustainability crisis vary from denial (Urberg & Öhman, 2025) to fully engaged activism (Sloam et al., 2022). This study contributes to the growing body of research on young people’s response to sustainability issues by asking: what is young people’s sustainability agency like? The research question is explored using latent profile analysis (LPA) on survey data from three European countries: Finland, England, and Italy. In addition to identifying sustainability agency profiles, the goal is to extrapolate beyond the specific profiles and countries to show the depth and breadth of young people’s sustainability agency. By recognising these overall trends, interventions and educational approaches can be adjusted to better support young people’s agency in a time of poly-crisis. Although similar LPA studies have been conducted before (e.g., Veijonaho et al., 2024), they have not considered young people’s agency profiles in a comprehensive way—including action competence and different modes of action. The agency of young people is more than their competencies, bounded by various structures and forces. Thus, it is crucial to analytically consider qualitatively different action types that reflect one’s stance towards these structures. Furthermore, previous studies have emphasised young people’s perceptions of climate change, which is but one, albeit dominant, issue within the broader poly-crisis discourse. Finally, comparative studies across countries have been rare. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study relies on three sets of cross-sectional survey data that were collected independently. The first sample (n = 939, age = 15–29) was collected via a Finnish online panel in 2021 (Oinonen & Paloniemi, 2023). The second sample (n = 492, age = 15–19) was collected by distributing a survey to a dozen English secondary schools in 2021 (Finnegan, 2021). The third sample (n = 667, age = 12–20) was collected by randomly contacting Italian schools in 2022 (Feraco et al., 2025). These countries form an interesting combination of varying contexts in Europe, representing both Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, and Mediterranean countries. The surveys included the Self-Perceived Action Competence Questionnaire (Olsson et al., 2020) which comprises 12 items that cover the three sub-constructs of action competence: knowledge of action possibilities, confidence in one’s own influence, and willingness to act. In addition, the surveys included items reflecting private sphere sustainability behaviours and collective sustainability actions (Oinonen & Paloniemi, 2023). These constructs were used as a proxy for sustainability agency, considering both latent capacities (action competence) and manifest actions (behaviours and actions), amounting to five latent variables. Latent profile analysis (LPA) is a technique for identifying latent groups within a population. The analysis classifies people into profiles that share a pattern of responses on a set of theoretically meaningful variables (Ferguson et al., 2020). In LPA, covariances are decomposed to highlight relationships among individuals, as opposed to studying relationships among variables, such as in factor analysis. After screening the datasets and assessing measurement invariance, full measurement models were specified for each country. For each latent variable, factor scores were extracted using the “ten Berge” method which preserves the correlation patterns (Logan et al., 2022). Next, LPA models were iteratively evaluated using the MLR estimator in MPlus (version 8.10). To avoid local maxima, the number of starting values was increased until the best log-likelihood value was replicated. Multiple fit criteria were inspected, including information criteria indices, entropy, smallest profile size, bootstrap likelihood ratio test, and Lo, Mendell, and Rubin test. Content, interpretability, and meaningfulness of the profiles were also assessed in relation to theory. Finally, the retained models were interpreted by examining the patterns of the profiles. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Between the countries, the number of profiles ranged from four to six. However, some recurring patterns emerged. First, level differences of sustainability agency existed in all the countries (three to four profiles). The emergence of level differences aligns with the action competence literature—individuals who perceive more action competence are also more likely to take action for sustainability (Sass et al., 2020). However, in the English and Finnish models, these major trends were complemented by two additional profiles. Within these samples, 13–16% of the respondents perceived either low or average levels of action competence, but they nevertheless reported engaging in collective sustainability action, such as protest, more often than the average level. The opposite trend was also observed: 14–22% of the respondents had either average or higher-than-average levels of action competence, but they rarely participated in collective action. These findings can be explained by factors such as eco-anxiety, over-confidence bias, and variability in sustainability perceptions. For environmental and sustainability education, the results of this study imply the need to be aware of and sensitive to the different patterns of agency and to adjust educational approaches accordingly. For example, young people who perceived low levels of action competence but already engage in sustainability action may benefit from approaches that support their self-efficacy and highlight dealing with uncertainty and worry. On the other hand, young people who express willingness and confidence but hardly participate in collective action may benefit from action-oriented approaches. References Feraco, T., Carbone, E., Cramarossa, G., & Meneghetti, C. (2025). The role of social, emotional, and behavioral skills for nature connectedness, action competence, and proenvironmental behaviors in adolescence. Environmental Education Research, 31(6), 1224-1239. Ferguson, S. L., G. Moore, E. W., & Hull, D. M. (2020). Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(5), 458–468. Finnegan, W. (2023). Educating for hope and action competence: a study of secondary school students and teachers in England. Environmental Education Research, 29(11), 1617–1636. Koskela, I. M., & Paloniemi, R. (2023). Learning and agency for sustainability transformations: building on Bandura’s theory of human agency. Environmental Education Research, 29(1), 164–178. Logan, J. A., Jiang, H., Helsabeck, N., & Yeomans-Maldonado, G. (2022). Should I allow my confirmatory factors to correlate during factor score extraction? Implications for the applied researcher. Quality & Quantity, 56(4), 2107–2131. Mustalahti, I., Tokola, N., Pakarinen, V., & Siltovuori, V. (2023). Intergenerational learning: from responsibilisation of young people towards sustainable well-being. In Honkatukia P. & Rättilä T. (eds.), Young people as agents of sustainable society: reclaiming the future. London & New York: Routledge, 75–93. Oinonen, I., & Paloniemi, R. (2023). Understanding and measuring young people’s sustainability actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 91, 102124. Olsson, D., Gericke, N., Sass, W., & Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2020). Self-perceived action competence for sustainability: The theoretical grounding and empirical validation of a novel research instrument. Environmental Education Research, 26(5), 742–760. Sass, W., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Gericke, N., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2020). Redefining action competence: The case of sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 292–305. Skovdal, M., & Benwell, M. C. (2021). Young people’s everyday climate crisis activism: new terrains for research, analysis, and action. Children's Geographies, 19(3), 259–266. Sloam, J., Pickard, S., & Henn, M. (2022). Young people and environmental activism: The transformation of democratic politics. Journal of Youth Studies, 25(6), 683–691. Urberg, L., & Öhman, J. (2025). Resisting sustainable development: an analysis of young people’s online discussions. Journal of Youth Studies, 28(7), 1021–1037. Veijonaho, S., Ojala, M., Hietajärvi, L., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2024). Profiles of climate change distress and climate denialism during adolescence: A two-cohort longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 48(2), 103–112. | ||