Introduction
The fight against climate change is a cornerstone of the European Union (EU) Erasmus+ program, with education recognized as a vital tool in confronting this global challenge (European Commission, 2021a). The environmental crisis confronting humanity today transcends scientific boundaries, encompassing profound social and political dimensions (Vare & Scott, 2007). As we approach the mid-2020s, the urgency of climate change and the associated loss of biodiversity necessitate an educational response, yet many schools and systems grapple with effective strategies (UNESCO, 2021). Research consistently shows that merely imparting knowledge about environmental issues is insufficient to spur meaningful change; shifts in attitudes and perceptions of the natural world are essential to catalyzing behavioral transformation (Ajzen, 1991; Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
The European Union has responded decisively through initiatives such as the European Green Deal, launched in 2019, which outlines a roadmap for sustainable development (European Commission, 2019). Moreover, its commitment has been further reinforced by policy recommendations that stress the importance of education for environmental sustainability and advocate for incorporating youth perspectives in tackling climate and biodiversity challenges—most notably, the Council Recommendation on Learning for the Green Transition and Sustainable Development (Council of the European Union, 2022a) and the Council of Europe Recommendation on Young People and Climate Action (Council of Europe, 2024). Complementing these efforts, the European Commission’s sustainability competence (GreenComp) framework provides a structured approach to fostering sustainability competencies across educational contexts (Bianchi et al., 2022).
Within this framework, the OpenPass4Climate project emerges as an innovative initiative under the Erasmus+ program, introducing an open recognition alliance system to enhance climate education. By leveraging Open Badges and the OpenPass4Climate platform, the project aims to elevate climate-related activities from awareness to actionable commitment and justice. It seeks to evaluate the tangible impacts of these efforts on advancing climate justice and to identify mechanisms that accelerate the adoption of positive behaviors. A core objective is the creation of a lifelong, portable OpenPass4Climate system, empowering individuals to engage actively in climate initiatives.
To ensure the system’s efficacy, work package 3 (WP3) focused on understanding students’ engagement with climate issues, assessing key climate commitments, and exploring perceptions of both implicit and explicit recognition mechanisms. This comprehensive study spanned four European countries (France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) and employed multiple research methods: an online survey, one-to-one interviews, national focus groups, and a transnational focus group. These efforts provide insights into youth perceptions of climate change, educational preferences, and attitudes toward open recognition systems, informing the co-design of an effective Open Badge system.
This article details the research methodology, presents findings from all study components, analyzes results within the context of contemporary European environmental and educational frameworks, and offers recommendations for the OpenPass4Climate system’s implementation. The findings aim to support the development of student-centered curricula and flexible learning pathways that bridge knowledge and action, fostering a generation of environmentally conscious citizens.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature on climate education and open recognition systems, identifying key gaps this study addresses. Section 3 details our mixed-methods methodology across four European countries. Section 4 presents quantitative survey results and qualitative findings from interviews and focus groups. Section 5 discusses these findings in relation to existing literature and policy frameworks. Section 6 concludes with implications for implementing open recognition systems in climate education contexts.
Literature review
The intersection of climate education and digital recognition systems represents an emerging field with significant potential yet substantial implementation gaps. This section synthesizes current knowledge to contextualize our empirical investigation of student engagement and perceptions.
Climate education in higher education
Climate education in European higher education faces multiple challenges. Research indicates that while environmental awareness among university students generally exceeds that of the general population (Leal Filho et al., 2021a), this awareness frequently fails to translate into action (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Uitto et al., 2015). The European Commission's GreenComp framework (Bianchi et al., 2022) provides structured competencies for sustainability education, yet implementation remains fragmented across institutions and disciplines.
Recent Eurobarometer surveys reveal concerning patterns: while 77% of EU citizens view climate change as very serious (European Commission, 2023), only 35% feel personally responsible for addressing it, and merely 24% identify education as an effective intervention (European Commission, 2020a). This suggests a critical gap between awareness and agency that educational interventions must address.
Open recognition systems in education
Digital credentials, including open badges and micro-credentials, offer promising mechanisms for recognizing diverse learning pathways essential for climate competency development. The companion scoping review from our project (Martín-Ramos et al., 2025) analyzed 70 publications on digital credentials for environmental competencies, revealing three critical gaps: first, a definitional and standardization gap: inconsistent standards across institutions undermine credential portability and recognition. Second, a trust and awareness gap: employers and educational institutions show limited understanding of digital credentials' value, restricting their currency in professional contexts. Third, and most significantly for our study, an implementation gap in climate education: of 70 publications reviewed, only 8 (11.4%) addressed environmental or climate contexts, with a complete absence of frameworks for recognizing eco-pedagogical activities (the experiential, action-oriented learning central to climate education).
Research gap and study rationale
While theoretical frameworks exist for both climate education (UNESCO, 2021) and digital credentialing (Council of the European Union, 2022b), empirical evidence on student perceptions, needs, and engagement with these systems remains scarce. No studies have systematically examined how students across different European contexts perceive the intersection of climate learning and open recognition, nor how cultural and institutional variations influence these perceptions.
Our study addresses this gap through a cross-national empirical investigation, moving beyond theoretical frameworks to understand actual student attitudes, behaviors, and requirements for effective implementation of open recognition in climate education. This evidence is essential for bridging the identified implementation gap and developing student-centered approaches to climate competency recognition. Specifically, our study makes three distinct contributions: (1) provides an empirical assessment of student perceptions across multiple European contexts, (2) examines the intersection of climate education and digital credentialing from a student-centered perspective, and (3) identifies implementation barriers and facilitators through mixed-methods evidence rather than theoretical speculation.
Methods
This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to comprehensively explore student perspectives on climate change and open recognition. This methodological choice was guided by pragmatist philosophy, which emphasizes using the most appropriate methods to answer research questions rather than adhering to single paradigmatic constraints (Morgan, 2007).
Research design and rationale
The sequential explanatory design was selected for three methodological reasons. First, the quantitative phase enables broad pattern identification across national contexts, essential given the diversity of European educational systems. Second, the qualitative phase provides explanatory depth, revealing the contextual factors and reasoning behind observed patterns, critical for understanding culturally-embedded attitudes toward climate action. Third, this approach aligns with mixed-methods best practices for exploring complex educational phenomena where neither quantitative nor qualitative data alone would suffice (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).
The integration occurred at multiple points: survey results informed interview and focus group protocols, quantitative patterns guided qualitative sampling strategies, and both data types were synthesized during interpretation. This methodological triangulation enhances validity through convergent evidence while allowing divergent findings to reveal complexity (Denzin, 2012).
Survey design and theoretical framework
A 20-question survey (Annex I in the Extended Data) was administered to students from four European countries (France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain). The survey, designed by consortium members and crafted in compliance with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, collected demographic information including age, gender, education level, and country of study. Gender was determined through self-identification, with participants selecting from options including 'Male', 'Female', 'Non-binary', 'Prefer not to say', and an open text option for other gender identities. This approach aligns with best practices in gender-inclusive research design.
The survey instrument comprised 20 questions organized around seven theoretically-grounded constructs, each selected based on established environmental psychology and education research:
Climate change views (Questions 1–4): Based on risk perception theory (Slovic, 2000) and climate change communication research (Moser, 2010), these items assessed cognitive and affective dimensions of climate awareness, including threat perception, causal attribution, efficacy beliefs, and governance expectations.
Environmental values and identity (Questions 5–7): Drawing from Value-Belief-Norm theory (Stern, 2000) and the 2-MEV model (Bogner & Wiseman, 2006; Johnson & Manoli, 2010), these questions examined intrinsic environmental values, prioritization against competing values, and the values-action alignment gap documented in environmental psychology (Blake, 1999).
Personal responsibility and emotional responses (Questions 8–9): Grounded in moral norm activation theory (Schwartz, 1977) and eco-anxiety research (Pihkala, 2020), these items explored responsibility attribution and emotional responses to environmental futures, recognizing emotions as action motivators or barriers.
Social norms (Questions 10–11): Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and normative influence research (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), these questions assessed perceived descriptive and injunctive norms within peer groups and authority structures.
Eco-pedagogical activities (Questions 12–14): Informed by experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and environmental education effectiveness research (Ardoin et al., 2018), these items evaluated exposure to and engagement with formal and informal climate education.
Learning interests and training preferences (Questions 15–17): Drawing from self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and adult learning principles (Knowles et al., 2020), these questions assessed intrinsic motivation for climate learning and preferences for pedagogical approaches.
Open badges system/awareness (Questions 18–20): Based on digital credentialing research (Gibson et al., 2015) and recognition theory (Honneth, 1995), these items explored familiarity with and perceived value of alternative credentialing systems.
Response options used a 5-point Likert scale with clearly defined anchors (1=strongly disagree/very low, 5=strongly agree/very high) to ensure consistent interpretation across respondents.
The survey instrument was initially pilot tested with a group of students from Consorzio Scuola Comunità Impresa (CSCI) to assess clarity, comprehensibility, and response patterns. Feedback from this pilot phase was incorporated into the final version of the questionnaire. Internal consistency and reliability were assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.
Data collection procedures
Survey administration
The survey was administered online using Microsoft Forms (chosen for GDPR compliance and institutional accessibility) from March to May 2023. Distribution employed a multi-channel convenience sampling approach:
Institutional channels: Survey invitations were sent through official institutional email lists to all registered students at each partner institution. An email reminder was sent at 14 days post-initial invitation.
Classroom promotion: Faculty members announced the survey during lectures, providing QR codes for immediate access. This dual approach aimed to reach students who might overlook institutional emails.
Inclusion criteria: Current enrollment at partner institutions; informed consent provided.
The final sample (n = 630) comprised: high school students (primarily from Italian technical institutes affiliated with CSCI), undergraduate students (from all four countries), and postgraduate students (Master's and PhD levels, predominantly from France and Portugal).
One-to-one interviews
Interview participants were recruited through a two-stage process:
Stage 1 - Expression of interest: The final survey question asked: "Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up interview to discuss your views on climate commitments in more detail?" Interested respondents provided email addresses after reviewing data protection information.
Stage 2 - Purposive selection: From volunteers (n = 147), we selected 69 participants using maximum variation sampling (Palinkas et al., 2015) to ensure diversity in:
Gender (targeting 50% female representation)
Educational level (high school through PhD)
Survey response patterns (high/medium/low climate concern scores)
Selected participants received detailed information sheets and consent forms. Interviews were scheduled at participants' convenience, conducted in native languages via video call or in-person based on participant preference.
Interview structure: A set of 12 questions (Annex III in the Extended Data), designed by consortium members based on feedback from each partner institution’s teaching staff and students, structured the interviews into four blocks: ‘Climate change views’, ‘Eco-pedagogical activities’, ‘Learning interests and training preferences’, and ‘Open badges system/awareness’. Interviews were conducted in participants' native languages without time constraints, allowing respondents to elaborate as needed for each question.
National focus groups
Recruitment: national focus groups (n = 45 total participants) followed a stratified purposive approach:
Pool identification: Interview participants were asked about focus group interest.
Selection criteria: Educational level diversity, gender balance, availability for 90-minute sessions.
Final composition: France (17 undergraduates), Italy (6 high school/vocational students), Portugal (12 mixed levels: 5 Bachelor's, 5 Master's, 2 PhD), Spain (10 undergraduate/Master's).
Sessions were conducted in-person at partner institutions (except 2 Spanish participants who joined virtually due to distance), moderated by native-speaking researchers using a semi-structured protocol.
Focus group protocol: The focus groups addressed 12 questions (Annex IV in the Extended Data) organized into four thematic blocks: ‘Climate change views’, ‘Personal responsibility and social norms’, ‘Learning interests and training preferences’, and ‘Open badges system/awareness’. Each consortium member conducted the focus group in their country using the participants' native language.
Data protection: As in the case of the one-to-one interviews, to comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements, personally identifiable information and full transcripts were only accessible to the educational institution to which students belonged, with anonymized reports shared among consortium members. This approach balanced research needs with privacy protection while enabling cross-national analysis.
Transnational focus groups
This culminating session required specific selection and procedures:
Participant selection (n = 16):
Eligibility: Previous participation in national focus groups
Selection process: Each country nominated 6–8 candidates based on English proficiency (self-assessed B2 level minimum), demonstrated engagement in climate discussions, and availability for synchronous online participation.
Final selection: Four participants per country, ensuring educational level representation (Italian high school, French undergraduate, Portuguese Master's, Spanish PhD students) and gender balance (9 female, 7 male).
Session procedures: Participants were contacted by their institutions regarding the purpose, objectives, and expected outcomes, with informed consent obtained for participation and research data use. The session used Miro (a GDPR-compliant collaborative platform) with real-time interaction features. Rather than recording the session, Miro's notes feature captured relevant information and insights during discussions, facilitating free and open dialogue while maintaining participant privacy. This approach allowed participants to express views more freely while creating a permanent visual record of the discussion through collaborative board contributions. The session lasted 2 hours with structured activities including individual reflection, small group work, and plenary discussion.
Data analysis
The analysis followed a sequential mixed-methods approach. Quantitative survey data underwent statistical analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics v.27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). For reproducibility purposes, all statistical analyses conducted in this study can be replicated using R statistical software, an open-source alternative that provides equivalent statistical capabilities.
Given the ordinal nature of Likert scale data and non-normal distributions, non-parametric statistical methods were employed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparing three or more independent groups, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Post-hoc multiple pairwise comparisons used the Conover-Iman procedure with Bonferroni correction to control for Type I error.
Annex II (Extended Data) provides mean Likert scores for all survey items by demographic groups, p-values from Kruskal-Wallis tests, mean ranks indicating relative group positions, and Conover-Iman post-hoc comparisons shown through letter notation. For non-parametric analyses of ordinal data, the mean rank differences serve as indicators of effect magnitude, with larger rank separations indicating stronger practical effects. The complete dataset and analysis are available for researchers interested in alternative analytical approaches.
Qualitative data from interviews and focus groups were subjected to thematic analysis. The integration phase employed a convergent design, wherein quantitative and qualitative findings were compared and contrasted to identify areas of convergence and divergence.
Methodological limitations and mitigation strategies
To address potential methodological limitations, several measures were implemented throughout the study design and analysis phases. The sample composition, while diverse across four countries and multiple educational levels, showed inherent limitations that required careful analytical consideration.
Regarding sample size limitations, categories with insufficient representation were excluded from the survey analysis to avoid spurious findings and maintain statistical validity. Specifically, we excluded respondents identifying as "Lifelong learner/Other" (n = 6, 1.0%), "Middle School/Junior High" students (n = 3, 0.5%), and PhD students (n = 8, 1.3%) from educational level comparisons due to their minimal representation. Similarly, for gender-based analyses, respondents selecting "Other" or "Prefer not to say" (n = 19, 3.0%) were excluded, as this heterogeneous category prevented meaningful interpretation. These exclusions, while necessary for analytical rigor, represent 5.7% of the total sample and may limit our understanding of these specific populations' perspectives.
The relationship between age and educational level presented another analytical challenge. Initial examination revealed substantial overlap between these demographic variables, with the 18-24 age group comprising primarily Bachelor's degree students (n = 194) and Master's degree students (n = 155), representing 80.8% of this age category. Similarly, the under-18 group consisted predominantly of high school students (n = 139 of 153 total). This overlap would have created multicollinearity issues in analyses including both variables. Consequently, we retained only educational level as the analytical variable, as it provided greater differentiation and more meaningful interpretation than age categories, particularly given our focus on educational contexts for climate learning.
Translation and cultural equivalence across four linguistic versions presented challenges at multiple stages. For the survey instruments, back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1970) were employed to ensure semantic equivalence, and each partner institution conducted cognitive interviews with three students before deployment to identify comprehension issues. However, subtle cultural differences in interpreting climate-related concepts may have introduced unmeasured variance. For the qualitative phases, while interviews and focus groups were conducted in participants' native languages to ensure authentic expression, subsequent translation of findings into English for cross-consortium analysis required careful attention. Review by multiple consortium members fluent in both the source language and English helped maintain accuracy and consistency, though some nuance may have been lost in translation. These linguistic considerations apply particularly to the interpretation of culturally-embedded concepts such as "personal responsibility" and "political action," which may carry different connotations across the four national contexts.
The convenience sampling approach, while pragmatic for accessing diverse student populations across four countries, limits generalizability beyond the participating institutions. Students who self-selected to participate may have stronger environmental interests than non-participants, potentially inflating engagement measures. This selection bias is partially addressed through our mixed-methods design, where qualitative data provides context for interpreting potentially inflated quantitative measures.
Finally, we acknowledge that convenience sampling may introduce selection bias toward environmentally engaged students, as those who self-selected to participate likely have stronger environmental interests than non-participants. While this potentially inflates engagement measures, our mixed-methods design partially addresses this limitation by providing qualitative context that helps interpret the quantitative findings.
Results
Survey findings
Reliability and sample characteristics
The survey garnered responses from 630 participants, with demographic analysis (Figure 1) revealing that 69% fell within the 18–24 age bracket. Gender distribution showed 60% female respondents compared to 37% male respondents. The sample's educational composition included Bachelor's degree students (35%, with 150 from Spain, 43 from France, and 27 from Portugal), A-level students (34%, predominantly from Italy), and Master's degree students (28%, with 134 from France, 19 from Portugal, and 18 from Spain).
Figure 1. Profile of the survey respondents.
The survey's internal consistency, assessed through Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.847) and standardized Cronbach's alpha (0.848), demonstrated strong reliability in measuring latent factors among subjects.
Climate attitudes and values
Climate change views (questions 1–4; Annex II in the Extended Data, Tables S1 and S2)
Respondents expressed significant concern about climate change (mean=4.0/5), with strong consensus acknowledging human activities as major contributors (4.4/5). Participants generally believed in an individual capacity to impact climate change (3.7/5) and strongly endorsed government intervention (4.4/5). Statistical analysis revealed:
Significantly higher scores among female students across all four questions
Higher concern levels among university students compared to other educational levels
Country-level variations, with Italian students showing the lowest scores and Portuguese students consistently the highest
Environmental values and identity (questions 5–7; Annex II in the Extended Data, Tables S1 and S2)
Environmental protection received high importance ratings (4.5/5), though prioritizing it over economic growth garnered less support (3.8/5). Respondents reported medium-high alignment between actions and environmental values (3.6/5), with notable variations:
Female students showed the highest scores for environmental values items
No significant gender differences in action alignment
Master's students and French students reported the lowest alignment
Portuguese students demonstrated the highest alignment scores
Personal responsibility and emotional responses (questions 8–9; Annex II in the Extended Data, Tables S1 and S2)
Results showed a moderate sense of responsibility for reducing climate change effects (3.2/5), with:
Significantly higher scores among female respondents
Lowest scores among French students
Highest scores among Portuguese students
General lack of hope about the environmental future (2.6/5)
Greater optimism among the youngest respondents and Portuguese/Italian students
Social norms (questions 10–11; Annex II in the Extended Data, Tables S1 and S2)
Participants reported medium levels of environmental concern in their social circles (2.9/5), with:
Highest scores among Master's students
Lower perceptions (2.4/5) of environmental care by authority figures
Lowest scores in France
Highest scores in Italy and Portugal
Educational engagement
Eco-pedagogical activities (questions 12–14; Annex II in the Extended Data, Tables S3 and S4)
Formal climate change training was rated as moderate (3.2/5), while informal education scored slightly higher (3.5/5). Key findings included:
Higher scores among female and Master's students
Higher participation rates in France and Portugal
Low overall participation in eco-pedagogical activities (2.3/5)
Learning interests and training preferences (questions 15–17; Annex II in the Extended Data, Tables S3 and S4)
Students showed moderate-to-high interest in climate-related learning (3.8/5), with:
Strong support for formal curriculum integration (4.1/5)
High endorsement of informal learning effectiveness (4.1/5)
Higher scores among female and Master's level students
Particularly strong interest in France and Portugal
Open recognition systems
Open badges system/awareness (questions 18–20; Annex II in the Extended Data, Tables S3 and S4)
Results indicated:
Moderate valuation of climate-related learning recognition (3.5/5)
Limited motivation for earning open badges (3.2/5)
Neutral stance on employability impact (3.0/5)
Higher optimism among Portuguese students (3.5/5)
Statistical analysis revealed significant country-level differences for 12 out of 20 items, emphasizing the importance of considering national contexts in implementation strategies.
Interview and focus group findings
One-to-one interviews
Participant profiles
The interviews involved 69 participants across four countries:
France: 17 respondents (14 females, 3 males), primarily second-year Environmental Engineering and Agri-Food degree students
Italy: 23 respondents (14 males, 9 females) aged 17–18, representing diverse educational fields including Administration, Finance, Marketing, Agriculture, and others
Portugal: 10 Master's level students (5 females, 5 males) from the School of Business and Economics
Spain: 19 respondents (11 females, 8 males) across undergraduate (11), Master's level (3), and PhD-level (5) programs
Common themes across countries
Pressing environmental issues emerged as a primary concern, with climate change universally recognized as the most critical issue. Participants specifically highlighted global warming, CO2 emissions, pollution across multiple domains (air, water, soil), deforestation, biodiversity loss, and waste management challenges.
Individual actions were emphasized across all interviews, with participants identifying key behavioral changes such as reducing meat consumption, using public transportation, practicing recycling, raising awareness through education, and adopting responsible consumption habits.
Participants across countries supported regulatory measures and environmental taxes to drive change, emphasizing the role of politicians, governments, and corporations. Most respondents reported receiving climate-related training through both formal university courses and informal methods such as workshops and documentaries.
Country-specific insights
Italian participants provided detailed insights into local waste management practices and emphasized the need for improved energy efficiency systems. French students demonstrated a strong interest in innovative sustainability solutions and emphasized the importance of robust government policies. Portuguese respondents highlighted community-driven initiatives and advocated for comprehensive educational reforms. Spanish participants showed clear preferences for experiential and practical learning methods, with a strong dislike for purely online learning formats.
National focus groups
Participant distribution
The national focus groups comprised:
France: 17 undergraduate students (14 females, 3 males)
Italy: 6 vocational and high-school students (3 females, 3 males)
Portugal: 12 students (7 females, 5 males) across Bachelor's (5), Master's (5), and PhD (2) levels
Spain: 10 undergraduate and Master's level students (8 females, 2 males)
Key findings
Participants across all countries acknowledged the severity and urgency of climate change, citing issues such as global warming, extreme weather events, pollution, and biodiversity loss. There was strong consensus regarding climate change's impact on future generations, particularly concerning food security, health issues, economic instability, and increased migration.
Education emerged as crucial in fostering environmental awareness and promoting sustainable practices. Participants advocated for integrating environmental education into school curricula from an early age, ensuring comprehensive approaches beyond superficial treatment of topics.
Country-specific variations revealed:
Italian participants emphasized economic consequences, particularly agricultural impacts
French participants discussed eco-anxiety and psychological effects
Portuguese participants focused on greenwashing issues and corporate transparency
Spanish participants provided detailed insights into local climate impacts
International focus group
The transnational focus group involved 16 students (4 per country) representing different educational levels. Discussions focused on badge design, implementation preferences, and potential concerns.
Badge design and comprehension
Participants critiqued the badge design, noting readability challenges with white text on light backgrounds. They suggested green and orange hues to reflect nature and confidence, respectively, alongside clearer classification descriptions and refined graphics and logo sizes for visual clarity.
Implementation recommendations
For implementation, they advocated user-friendly features, such as progress-tracking tools and detailed tutorials, as well as highlighting training hours in metadata for EU-wide recognition. They also proposed gamification (e.g., weekly challenges) and integration with LinkedIn and university transcripts to enhance utility.
Potential concerns
Participants raised concerns about employer preferences for traditional certificates, uncertainty about badge value in job applications, and risks of superficial learning focused on badge acquisition rather than genuine knowledge gain. They emphasized the need for technical support and guidance for organizations implementing the badge system.
These findings provided insights for developing the badge system's design and implementation strategy while highlighting important considerations for ensuring its effectiveness and credibility.
Discussion
The multi-method approach of this study provides robust insights into youth climate attitudes, educational preferences, and perceptions of open recognition systems. Building on prior European research, such as the Special Eurobarometer 501 (European Commission, 2020a) and 538 (European Commission, 2023), the findings reveal both encouraging trends and persistent challenges in climate education and competency development, particularly within educational contexts and among younger populations.
When comparing our Likert scale means (1-5) with Eurobarometer percentage data, we interpret scores above 4.0 as indicating that approximately 80% of respondents lean toward agreement (since 4.0 represents the "agree" point on our scale), while scores around 3.0 suggest neutral or mixed responses. This interpretation allows approximate comparison with Eurobarometer's binary percentage findings, though we acknowledge these are different measurement approaches. Furthermore, our student sample represents a specific subpopulation (younger, currently engaged in education) and comparisons with general population surveys should be understood as exploratory rather than definitive.
The methodological approach of interpreting Likert means as probability distributions follows established psychometric conventions (Norman, 2010). This enables meaningful comparison with binary response formats while acknowledging inherent measurement differences. Our approach aligns with recommendations for cross-survey comparisons in environmental attitude research (Dunlap et al., 2000).
Environmental attitudes and climate awareness
Concerning the first construct on 'Climate change views', a comparison of our survey results with the Eurobarometer findings reveals important insights into youth climate attitudes within the broader European context. Our student respondents demonstrated high climate concern (Q1, mean=4.0/5), which aligns with but intensifies the general public sentiment captured in Eurobarometer 538 (QC2, 'How serious a problem do you think climate change is at this moment?'), where 77% of EU citizens view climate change as a very serious problem. Country-specific trends (Portugal, 4.48 > France, 4.11 > Spain, 3.91 > Italy, 3.76) were quite consistent with those obtained in the Eurobarometer 538 (Portugal, 89% > Spain, 86% > France, 85% > Italy, 83%), with Portugal and Italy ranking first and last, respectively.
This pattern of heightened concern among students compared to the general population aligns with literature documenting the relationship between educational attainment and environmental awareness. Meyer (2015) found that each additional year of education increases climate concern, while Poortinga et al. (2019) identified longer formal education as a strong predictor of climate action readiness. Our findings extend this work by demonstrating that this educational effect persists even within student populations, with Master's students showing significantly higher engagement than undergraduate peers.
The OpenPass4Climate survey (Q2) provided unique insight into students' strong belief in human responsibility for climate change (4.4/5 overall, with Portugal's highest at 4.8/5), a perspective not directly measured in the Eurobarometer surveys.
When examining individual roles in tackling climate change (Q3), student respondents showed a stronger belief in individual impact (3.7/5) compared to the relatively low percentages in Eurobarometer 538 (QC3, 'In your opinion, who within the EU is responsible for tackling climate change?'), in which only 35% of respondents (EU27-average) felt personally responsible for tackling climate change. This suggests that students may feel more empowered than the general population. Interestingly, Portugal showed the highest belief in our survey (3.98/5), and lower than the EU27 average (28%) in the Eurobarometer, while Italy showed the lowest belief in both surveys (3.57/5 and 20%, respectively).
Our students' strong endorsement of government intervention (4.4/5) substantially exceeds Eurobarometer 538's (QC3) finding that only 56% of EU citizens primarily assign responsibility to governments. This generational difference aligns with Han and Ahn's (2020) analysis of youth climate movements, which identified a fundamental shift from individual responsibility narratives toward demands for systemic change. The Fridays for Future movement exemplifies this transition, with young people explicitly rejecting individualized solutions in favor of structural transformation. This also connects with strong support for coordinated intervention, with Eurobarometer 501 (QA8) showing that 70% of the respondents favor joint EU decision-making on environmental issues. As for country differences, Portuguese students' strong support in our survey (4.63/5) contrasts with the lower support in Eurobarometer 538's QC3 (47% and 52% for national governments and the EU, respectively), while Italy's lowest scores in both surveys are consistent.
With regard to the ‘Environmental values and identity’ construct, the relationship between environmental values and actions revealed interesting patterns across surveys. Younger populations demonstrated heightened endorsement of environmental protection (Q5, 4.5/5) compared to national averages: in Eurobarometer 501 (QA1, ‘How important is protecting the environment to you personally?’), only 53% (EU-27 average value) of the respondents chose ‘very important’. The highest score among Portuguese students (4.75/5) aligns with the results from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023 survey, where Portugal ranked better (522±2.6) than Italy (517±3.7) and France (511±4.3) in terms of ‘Students Value Environmental Preservation’ (von Davier et al., 2024).
However, despite strong endorsement of environmental protection, alignment between values and actions was moderate (Q7, 3.6/5), highlighting a ‘value-action gap’ (Uitto et al., 2015). This phenomenon is well-documented, with Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) identifying its roots in psychological barriers (e.g., perceived lack of efficacy), structural constraints (limited sustainable options), and social factors (conflicting norms). Our qualitative data enrich this framework: students explicitly articulated feeling "overwhelmed" by the magnitude of climate change while questioning whether "small actions even matter", classic symptoms of psychological distance and efficacy doubts (Gifford, 2011).
This disconnect finds parallels in broader European data. For instance, in Eurobarometer 538 (QC5, ‘Have you personally taken any action to fight climate change over the past six months?’), only 63% of the respondents said ‘yes’, with concrete actions varying significantly (QC6). Similarly, in Eurobarometer 501 (QA9), 67% of the respondents recognized that they were not doing enough as citizens to protect the environment. Interestingly, Italy’s highest action-value alignment in our survey (3.71/5) contrasts with its lowest value in Eurobarometer 538 (52%), suggesting that this gap may be narrowing among the country's more environmentally aware youth populations.
For the ‘Personal responsibility and emotional responses’ construct, a dimension not covered in the Eurobarometer surveys, our survey shows students felt only moderately responsible for reducing the negative effects of climate change (Q8, 3.2/5), with a lower value than the one indicated above for Q3 on how much individuals can make a difference in addressing climate change (3.7/5). This further supports that they predominantly place the onus for climate action on governments while underestimating potential individual responsibility and contributions. Regarding the hopefulness about the future of the environment (Q9), they were mostly pessimistic (2.6/5). This prevailing sense of hopelessness about the environment's future is consistent with their perception of those in leadership positions within their countries, who they consider can make a difference, as indifferent to environmental issues (see below).
Analysis of the ‘Social norms’ construct reveals that respondents in our survey considered that people in their social circle cared less than them about the environment and climate change (Q10, 2.9/10 vs. Q5, 4.5/5), which does not align with the actual perception in their countries according to Eurobarometer 538 QC2 (83 to 89% of respondents considered climate change a very serious problem). Their view on how much people in positions of responsibility (national government, regional government) in their country care and take action to protect the environment and climate change yielded a very low value (Q11, 2.3/5). This aligns with Eurobarometer 538 (QC7), in which 67% (EU27-average) of the respondents believed their governments are not doing enough, and with Eurobarometer 501 (QA9), in which 72% and 68% of the respondents considered that their national governments and the EU were not doing enough to protect the environment.
As for other aspects not analyzed in the Eurobarometer surveys, gender differences emerged in our survey, with female respondents consistently scoring higher on environmental values, aligning with established research (McCright, 2010; McCright & Xiao, 2014; Zelezny et al., 2000), though Portugal's uniformly high scores suggest cultural and educational contexts may mitigate such disparities.
The educational level also emerged as a significant factor in environmental engagement. Master's students showed the highest rates of climate awareness and advocacy, which aligns with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) analysis of how specialized education enhances pro-environmental behavior, particularly among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) graduates (Nair-Bedouelle, 2021).
Eco-pedagogical activities, learning interests, and training preferences
Results from the 'Eco-pedagogical activities' construct indicate that students rated their informal climate change education (Q13, 3.5/5) more highly than their formal training (Q12, 3.2/5). This preference for informal learning sources mirrors Eurobarometer 501's QA4 findings, where respondents primarily relied on television news (66%) and the internet (38%) for environmental information rather than formal educational channels. The higher scores for perceived climate change training in France (Q12, 3.51/5; Q13, 3.66/5), with Portugal ranking second, do not align with the results from the TIMSS 2023 survey where Portugal ranked better (520±2.9) than Italy (504±3.8) and France (492±3.6) in terms of ‘Average Environmental Knowledge’ score (von Davier et al., 2024).
Despite high interest in climate-related learning (Q15, 3.8/5), participation in eco-pedagogical activities was low (Q14, 2.3/5). This participation gap mirrors the findings from Eurobarometer 501, in which eco-pedagogical activities (e.g., attending a workshop about environmental issues or a collective beach or park cleanup) showed consistently low engagement rates across member states (7% EU-27 average). Moreover, in Eurobarometer 501’s QA10, providing more information and education was only chosen as an effective way of tackling environmental issues by 24% of the respondents.
This dramatic difference between our students' valuation of educational interventions, particularly their strong support for formal curriculum integration (Q16, 4.1/5) and informal pathways (Q17, 3.8/5), and the general population's skepticism reveals a critical perception gap. Monroe et al. (2019) suggest this reflects experiential differences: those currently in education systems better understand pedagogical potential, while older generations may view education through outdated transmissive models that indeed show limited effectiveness for behavior change. This interpretation is supported by research showing that effective climate change education relies on active, participatory, and personally relevant strategies rather than traditional information transmission approaches.
National focus groups underscored these preferences, with students advocating for hybrid learning models that combine theoretical knowledge with practical, community-based activities. This aligns with the European Commission’s emphasis on flexible learning pathways (European Commission, 2021a) and the GreenComp framework’s call for holistic sustainability education that fosters critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration (Bianchi et al., 2022).
Open recognition systems: bridging theory and practice
The identified value-action gap suggests that recognition systems could incentivize action, even though the initial survey showed that students only moderately valued recognition for completing climate-related learning activities (Q18, 3.5/5) and showed even less interest in open badges as a motivation tool to learn about climate-related topics (Q19, 3.2/5). As subsequently evidenced during the one-to-one interviews and national focus groups, this was partly due to the students’ limited understanding of the open badges system and its value for recognizing and showcasing climate-related learning achievements (underscoring the need for targeted awareness campaigns and educational initiatives regarding its purpose and applications) and partly due to real-world applicability concerns, a notion supported by the transnational focus group’s emphasis on quality assurance, institutional credibility, and alignment with existing qualification frameworks. Participants expressed concerns about employer recognition of badges, technological barriers (e.g., lack of access to digital platforms in rural areas), and the risk of superficial learning if badges are awarded without rigorous assessment. These challenges resonate with broader EU competency framework efforts (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2025) and UNESCO’s call for transformative education that fosters deep, meaningful engagement (UNESCO, 2021).
On the question of employability (Q20, 3/5), the survey's neutral perception contrasts with evidence from the World Economic Forum's 2023 Future of Jobs Report, which indicates growing employer recognition of sustainability-focused credentials (Di Battista et al., 2023). This discrepancy aligns with critiques of poor institutional communication about credential portability (Oliver, 2022). However, Portuguese students were more optimistic (3.5/5), which may be tentatively attributed to Portugal’s comprehensive digital education strategy, particularly the Digital Transition Action Plan (PDE) adopted in 2020, which the European Schoolnet highlighted as a transformative System Change Case Study (Wastiau et al., 2024). This initiative, complemented by the National Digital Skills Initiative e.2030 (INCoDe.2030) and the Portuguese government's strategic funding of Universidade Aberta, has created an integrated approach to digital micro-credentials and open education for certifying competencies (Griffiths et al., 2024). Such coordinated national efforts align with and advance broader EU initiatives to embed Open Badges in educational frameworks (Council of the European Union, 2022b; EQAR, 2023).
Addressing these concerns will require careful design, ensuring that badges are credible, user-friendly, and integrated with existing educational and professional frameworks. For example, badges could be aligned with the European Qualifications Framework (European Commission, 2018) to enhance their recognition across borders. The European Council’s emphasis on whole-institution approaches (Council of the European Union, 2022a) provides a supportive context for such developments, encouraging universities to adopt open recognition systems as part of their sustainability strategies.
Policy implications
The research findings advocate for coordinated policy interventions across European, national, and institutional levels to advance climate education and open recognition systems. Each level presents distinct challenges and opportunities that must be addressed through carefully crafted policy frameworks.
At the European level, the European Union must establish comprehensive frameworks that balance standardization with national adaptability. This requires developing quality assurance mechanisms for open badge systems that set minimum standards while allowing flexibility for national and regional adaptation (Council of the European Union, 2022b). These mechanisms should ensure alignment with existing European qualification frameworks (European Commission, 2018) while supporting accessibility through multilingual resources and platforms. The EU must also provide funding for digital infrastructure, particularly in underserved regions, and establish standardized protocols for badge portability across member states. Integration with broader EU initiatives is crucial, including alignment with European Green Deal educational objectives (European Commission, 2019) and coordination with the Digital Education Action Plan implementation to support cross-border recognition of climate-related credentials.
National-level policy development should focus on the systemic integration of climate education and recognition within existing educational frameworks. Curriculum development requires thoughtful integration of climate competencies into national frameworks, with consideration given to increasing mandatory climate education hours (UNESCO, 2022). Additionally, assessment frameworks must evolve to recognize both formal and informal learning pathways. Teacher preparation represents another crucial area for national policy intervention, as highlighted by Redman et al. (2018). Countries should establish systematic professional development programs and create support networks for teaching staff, providing necessary resources for eco-pedagogical activities. Recognition systems at the national level must create clear pathways for validating informal learning and establish mechanisms for incorporating open badges into national qualification systems, with quality assurance processes aligned with EU standards (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, 2025).
At the institutional level, educational organizations require policy support for implementing comprehensive approaches to climate education and recognition (Breiting et al., 2005; Higgs & McMillan, 2006; Leal-Filho et al., 2021b; Mathar, 2015). Organizational strategy should embrace whole-institution approaches to climate education while establishing partnerships with environmental organizations (UNESCO, 2021). Institutions must develop clear policies for recognizing external learning and integrating sustainability across academic programs. Infrastructure development demands significant attention, with investments needed in digital platforms for badge issuance and verification, alongside technical support systems for users. Quality assurance at the institutional level requires robust assessment criteria and verification processes for badge issuance, supported by careful documentation of learning outcomes.
These policy recommendations align with key EU frameworks, including the European Skills Agenda's emphasis on transversal skills recognition (European Commission, 2020b), the Digital Education Action Plan's promotion of innovative learning tools (European Commission, 2021b), and the European Green Deal's focus on environmental sustainability education (European Commission, 2019). Successful implementation requires careful attention to several critical factors. Policymakers must maintain a delicate balance between standardization and contextual flexibility while ensuring equitable access to recognition systems. Support for technological infrastructure development must be coupled with building credibility through robust quality assurance, such as the European Blockchain Service Infrastructure (EBSI). Furthermore, policies should foster collaboration between educational institutions and industry to enhance the value and recognition of climate-related credentials.
Implementation should follow an evidence-based approach while remaining adaptable to emerging needs and technological developments in digital credentialing. The findings from this study suggest that effective policy frameworks must address both the technical aspects of open badge systems and the broader educational and social contexts in which they operate (Bianchi et al., 2022). As climate education evolves and digital recognition systems mature, policies must remain responsive to changing needs while maintaining high standards for quality and accessibility.
Limitations and future research directions
This study has several limitations that future research should address. As detailed in the ‘Methodological limitations and mitigation strategies’ subsection, several methodological constraints, including convenience sampling and excluding small categories, should be considered when interpreting these findings. The sample's skew toward higher education students may limit generalizability to other educational contexts.
Furthermore, a significant limitation of our survey design is the absence of systematic measures for political engagement and collective action. While we assessed individual behavioral changes and perceptions of government responsibility, we did not explicitly measure participation in climate protests, petition signing, contacting elected officials, or other forms of political activism. This omission is particularly notable given that our target demographic (18–24-year-olds) has been central to global climate movements like Fridays for Future. Although our qualitative data captured some political dimensions (including voting preferences, activism strategies, and collective pressure tactics), the lack of quantitative measures prevents us from fully understanding how educational engagement relates to political mobilization. This omission is particularly consequential given our finding of a substantial value-action gap. The absence of political action measures may partially explain this gap, as collective political engagement represents a critical pathway between environmental values and systemic change that our study design failed to capture.
Additionally, the rapid evolution of digital credentialing systems means that attitudes toward open badges may shift as these tools become more widespread.
Future research should therefore explore:
– Longitudinal impacts of open recognition systems on learning outcomes.
– Comparative effectiveness of different badge implementation strategies.
– Intersection of climate competencies with other key EU competency frameworks.
– The relationship between climate education and political mobilization, including how recognition systems might validate and encourage collective action alongside individual behavioral changes.
– Role of emerging technologies, like blockchain, in credential verification to enhance security and trust.
Another critical avenue for future inquiry stems from our findings on national context variations. We observed that Portugal consistently showed the highest climate engagement and Italy the lowest—patterns consistent with Eurobarometer data. Future research should move beyond this observation to investigate the underlying causes of these differences. Institutional theory (Scott, 2014) offers a valuable lens for this work, suggesting an exploration of distinct national "climate cultures." For instance, comparative case studies could analyze how the interplay of regulatory frameworks, normative expectations, and cultural-cognitive schemas shapes environmental engagement in different countries. Investigating whether Portugal's success in renewable energy has created positive feedback loops between policy and public perception would be a valuable line of inquiry within this theoretical framework.
Our findings underscore the complex interplay between environmental attitudes, educational preferences, and recognition systems in supporting climate competency development. Success will require carefully coordinated efforts across policy domains and stakeholder groups, with particular attention to maintaining a balance between standardization and contextual flexibility.
Conclusions
The OpenPass4Climate research reveals critical insights for developing effective climate education and open recognition systems in European higher education. The study across four countries demonstrates that while students show strong climate awareness, there remains a significant gap between knowledge and action. This gap presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the development of open badge systems.
The findings suggest three key areas requiring immediate attention for the successful implementation of the OpenPass4Climate initiative:
First, educational systems must bridge formal and informal learning pathways. Our research demonstrates that students value both structured academic approaches and experiential learning opportunities, suggesting that open badge systems should recognize and validate both forms of learning.
Second, badge system design must prioritize credibility and usability. The focus group findings emphasize that successful implementation requires clear institutional backing, robust quality assurance mechanisms, and user-friendly interfaces. These elements are essential for ensuring that badges hold value for both academic progression and professional development.
Third, implementation strategies must account for national and cultural contexts while maintaining European-wide standards. The significant variations in climate attitudes and educational preferences across countries indicate the need for flexible frameworks that can adapt to local contexts while ensuring consistent quality and recognition.
Looking ahead, the OpenPass4Climate initiative must work within existing European educational frameworks while pushing boundaries to create innovative recognition systems. The focus should be on developing badges that not only acknowledge learning but actively encourage engagement with climate issues through practical action.
The path forward requires a coordinated effort from educational institutions, policymakers, and stakeholders to create meaningful change in climate education. Success will depend on maintaining the delicate balance between standardization and flexibility, ensuring that open badges serve as effective tools for recognizing and promoting climate competency development across Europe.
Ethics and consent
This research was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Technical Directorate for Privacy Matters, with approval from the Data Protection Officer of the University of Valladolid (Reference Number: UVA/26/2023) on September 21, 2023. The study was conducted in accordance with the University of Valladolid's Ethical Code, approved by the Governing Council on July 22, 2022.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants through the online survey platform, where participants were informed that, by taking the survey, they indicated they had read and understood the data protection and consent statement and agreed to participate. For focus groups and interviews, participants provided verbal consent after reviewing data protection information. All participants were informed of data confidentiality measures and their rights under GDPR requirements, including the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Data were anonymized during analysis and reporting to protect participant identities.
