View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Conceptualizing Community-Level Environmental Literacy Using the Delphi Method

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Conceptualizing Community-Level Environmental Literacy Using the Delphi Method
Language: English
Authors: Lauren Gibson (ORCID 0000-0002-9894-0329), K. C. Busch (ORCID 0000-0002-4549-5401), Kathryn Stevenson (ORCID 0000-0002-5577-5861), Lynn Chesnut (ORCID 0000-0002-1027-0456), Bethany Cutts (ORCID 0000-0001-7879-526X), Erin Seekamp (ORCID 0000-0001-5082-1921)
Source: Environmental Education Research. 2025 31(4):718-747.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 30
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Environmental Education, Multiple Literacies, Community Education, Delphi Technique, Expertise, Attitudes, Evaluation Methods, Concept Formation
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2397595
ISSN: 1350-4622
1469-5871
Abstract: As environmental challenges increase in scope and scale, new conceptualizations for environmental literacy are needed. Specifically, notions of environmental literacy must move from those at the individual level to those at the group, or community, level. However, the concept of community level environmental literacy is underdeveloped. In this paper, we present the results of a Delphi method survey of experts, gathered to both conceptualize community level environmental literacy as well as address considerations for its measurement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1465184
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFwnwNI9jtAG8vDRHWhbwPJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDED3eeDfIE7uEWM2JAIBEICBm-Sm_DyKGVTXIBAqTPfqOV3RIenz3HRrUoT28OTyiRHX974FjydlgcSQ-daKyoxN46Y4iLezfLD91c2v-nAG8lzoiXVQEXhYOH2vbYiez-MFqKBLD09f5axBiv7jygsG3cY78Vert1pHGlu7F4BS0oP14zjVA8Oe8lhfSnNJh0K40Y8g2h1sTgf-5e2uc-vBoN18QVHh1ZaIwEUf
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184138067;eed01apr.25;2025Apr02.05:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184138067-1">Conceptualizing community-level environmental literacy using the Delphi method </title> <p>As environmental challenges increase in scope and scale, new conceptualizations for environmental literacy are needed. Specifically, notions of environmental literacy must move from those at the individual level to those at the group, or community, level. However, the concept of community level environmental literacy is underdeveloped. In this paper, we present the results of a Delphi method survey of experts, gathered to both conceptualize community level environmental literacy as well as address considerations for its measurement.</p> <p>Keywords: Community; collective; environmental literacy; learning; action; SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities</p> <p>Given the large scale of modern environmental challenges, the need for environmental action has become more pressing. Achieving environmental literacy through environmental education has been seen as one pathway to such action. Currently, most conceptualizations of environmental literacy are at the individual level, describing a single person's knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. However, to address large-scale problems, groups of people need to act together, collectively in their communities. Problematically, the field has yet to fully characterize environmental literacy at the community level nor is there clarity in how to measure it. In this paper, we will present the results of a Delphi study of experts to contribute to the development of a clear conceptualization of community level environmental literacy (CLEL) and considerations for its measurement.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-2">Background literature</hd> <p>Large-scale environmental challenges increasingly plague the planet and threaten life. Worldwide, species are going extinct at a rate up to 100 times greater than that of pre-human history (Cowie, Bouchet, and Fontaine [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>])—a rate that will likely continue to accelerate, destabilizing ecosystems and the benefits they provide to humans through ecosystem services (Daily and Matson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref2">30</reflink>]). Climate change is driving increases in sea level, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events that threaten the survival of species and the lives and livelihoods of people globally (IPCC [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]). These and other social-environmental issues are disproportionately concentrated in areas already experiencing marginalization, further escalating existing inequities (Schlosberg and Collins [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref4">62</reflink>]; Wilson et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref5">71</reflink>]). Immediate action is needed to combat these challenges and create a more habitable, just planet for all, before it may be too late (Barnosky et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref6">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Environmental education presents one avenue for pursuing positive environmental change (Ardoin et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]; Ardoin, Bowers, and Gaillard [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). With a goal of 'provid[ing] a wide range of practical skills required in the devising and application of effective solutions to environmental problems' (UNESCO [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref9">69</reflink>]), environmental education positions itself as an action-oriented field of practice. To accomplish the field's mission, environmental education organizations typically focus on building environmental literacy in learners of all ages—both in formal settings such as schools (Ardoin et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]) and in informal settings such as museums, nature centers, and everyday life (Ardoin and Heimlich [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>])—to empower them to take informed action. Environmental literacy is seen as a prerequisite of pro-environmental action, with environmentally literate individuals possessing the knowledge, dispositions, and competencies necessary to engage in environmentally responsible behavior (Hollweg et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]). For example, an environmental education initiative working to reduce household water usage might boost knowledge about water scarcity (Middlestadt et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref13">51</reflink>]), nudge learners towards a disposition of commitment to conserve water (Barata, Castro, and Martins-Loução [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]), and build skills that allow for critical thinking about which water-saving behaviors might be most appropriate (Addo, Thoms, and Parsons [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]). Similarly, climate change solutions have been primarily focused on individual behaviors (e.g. decreased energy usage, decreased meat consumption) (Kenis and Mathijs [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref16">43</reflink>]). When these factors come together to empower a person to take individual pro-environmental action—in the case of household water conservation, perhaps taking shorter showers or taking the time to repair leaky faucets—environmental literacy is seen as a means for reaching its goal.</p> <p>While individual pro-environmental behaviors are certainly a step in the right direction, they are often of insufficient impact given the complexity and scope of many environmental problems. Continuing with water as an example, even if every household worldwide cut its water use to nearly zero, the largest drain on water supplies would remain unchanged; agriculture soaks up 70% of extracted water worldwide (OECD [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref17">55</reflink>]), making individual efforts to reduce household water usage a less effective strategy in comparison. To create truly impactful change, solutions require people coming together to wield collective power greater than the power any single individual can conjure on their own. Collective action offers a way for people to come together to advance a shared goal (Clark [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>]), pushing toward solutions that match the large scale of today's environmental challenges. For example, collective action might take the shape of a grassroots campaign to regulate the quantity of water that large agricultural companies can use each year, putting pressure on the industry to develop more efficient irrigation practices so that they can save both water and money. Collective action across multiple social scales could lead to even better alignment between environmental concern and environmental action (Ostrom [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref19">57</reflink>]). In this way, collective action has the power to create system change that an individual alone could not create.</p> <p>Despite the demonstrated need for collective action documented in the environmental education literature (e.g. Gibson et al. in review; Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref20">35</reflink>]; Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]; Aguilar [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]; Clark [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]; Ardoin, Clark, and Kelsey [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]) and in other fields such as psychology and economics (e.g. Barth et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]; Ostrom and Ahn [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref26">58</reflink>]), environmental literacy and the resulting pro-environmental behaviors are largely conceptualized at the individual scale. Just two pieces of literature, both published in 2022, have worked to disentangle what environmental literacy might look like at a scale beyond that of the individual. Though each paper uses different terms, both describe similar ideas of environmental literacy beyond the individual and underscore its importance in understanding how to push toward collective action.</p> <p>Gibson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>]) detailed the findings from a day-long convening dedicated to discussing how community-level environmental literacy (CLEL) might be defined and measured. The 24 scholars in attendance largely agreed that community-level environmental literacy related to collective action in the same way that individual-level environmental literacy related to individual-level action; both forms of literacy must, by definition, precede their respective forms of action. Most of the other results of the convening, though, were points of tension rather than consensus, with ranges of how CLEL could be conceptualized and quantified depending on community and study context (Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>])'s concept of collective environmental literacy aligns strongly with that of CLEL, with agreement that this larger-scale literacy can support and help researchers to better understand the drivers of collective environmental action. The paper examines literature related to collective topics from across many disciplines and dozens of theories, weaving together the most salient of these ideas to create a working definition for collective environmental literacy. Four key characteristics of this collective environmental literacy emerged: the dynamic nature of the process, the synergy that empowers panelists to reach higher goals than they could working alone, the shared resources and knowledges needed to accomplish these goals, and the multi-scalar nature of the literacy ranging from an individual to a group (Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the extremely limited amount of literature and its theorized role in fostering large-scale environmental action, additional research is needed to clearly conceptualize CLEL. The Delphi method provides a promising way to build on the existing thought on CLEL through systematically probing the expertise of scholars across the field of environmental education. Delphi studies involve iteratively and systematically gathering the insights of experts, working to build consensus amongst the group over the duration of the study (Linstone and Turoff [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref31">47</reflink>]; Okoli and Pawlowski [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref32">56</reflink>]). This technique has been used extensively in environmental education research to understand everything from the core outcomes that unite the environmental education field (Clark et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]) to barriers elementary school educators face in teaching about the environment (Fox and Carpenter [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]). Compared to other approaches, Delphi studies serve an especially useful methodological role in the early stages of attempting to understand a new concept because it can systematically organize the reflections of a select group of experts and provide the scaffolding to move towards greater levels of agreement (Linstone and Turoff [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]). Because of the nascency of community-level environmental literacy as an idea and the potential usefulness of soliciting additional perspectives on this topic from experts in the field, a Delphi approach would be particularly useful in the case of CLEL.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-3">Research questions</hd> <p>This study uses the Delphi method to systematically gather ideas and feedback from experts across the field of environmental education to iteratively work towards greater consensus about CLEL. Given that this topic is so new to the published literature, our research seeks to build a general conceptualization of CLEL through answering the following two questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What constitutes community level environmental literacy (CLEL)?</item> <p></p> <item> What needs to be considered when trying to measure CLEL?</item> </ulist> <p>By bringing together an expert panel to help us address these broad questions, we hope to gain greater insight into how CLEL can be defined and measured, supporting future efforts to build CLEL and achieve collective environmental action.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184138067-5">The Delphi method</hd> <p>The Delphi method is a systematic technique for determining the opinion of a group of experts, also referred to as an expert panel, on a given topic, usually one seen as complex or ill-defined (Linstone and Turoff [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref36">47</reflink>]). It is defined by four major characteristics: repetition, anonymity of opinions, controlled feedback, and group statistical response (Landeta [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]). The researcher initiating the Delphi process selects a group of experts on the topic at hand, with each expert being consulted individually rather than as a group (anonymity of opinions). The researcher then gathers and analyzes the responses from all experts, and reports the aggregated relevant results back to the same group of experts (controlled feedback). The experts then respond to this aggregated information with the opportunity to revise their opinion (repetition). This process can be repeated as many times as desired; typically, the study ends when the group of experts comes to a certain level of agreement, as determined by the researcher before the study begins and as measured by one or more numerical factors (group statistical response). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of the Delphi method.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. The Delphi method.</p> <p>The Delphi method has been used for decades in the social sciences (Landeta [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]; Green [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>]), including in environmental education research in the United States (e.g. Clark et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]; Fox and Carpenter [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref41">32</reflink>]) and beyond (e.g. Seo, Ryu, and Hwang [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref42">63</reflink>]; Chou et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]; Lee and Lee [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref44">46</reflink>]; Ahmadi, Abbaspour, and Afkhami Namin [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]). It is seen as particularly useful when a question might not be able to be answered through less subjective techniques, where associated experts may not have a strong history of communication and discussion about the topic, and where it is desirable to retain anonymity and diversity of responses to ensure all voices are heard (Green [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]; Linstone and Turoff [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref47">47</reflink>]; Christie and Barela [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>]). We selected the Delphi method for this study for those very reasons, as we sought to bring a geographically- and epistemologically-diverse group of environmental education scholars together in (asynchronous) conversation about the relatively novel concept of CLEL.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-6">Selection of expert panelists</hd> <p>As is typical for Delphi method studies, this research effort used purposive sampling to determine study panelists (Hasson, Keeney, and McKenna [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref49">40</reflink>]; Palys [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref50">59</reflink>]). To be considered an 'expert' for the purposes of this study, individuals must have been engaged in scholarly discussions related to community-level environmental literacy (CLEL), collective action, community-level outcomes in the environmental space, and/or definitions of environmental literacy. This engagement could take one or more of the following forms:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> invitation to and/or participation in the 2020 Convening on Community-Level Environmental Literacy, hosted by NC State University (as described in Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref51">35</reflink>]);</item> <p></p> <item> engagement in conference sessions focused on CLEL (e.g. 2021 NAAEE Research Symposium session entitled 'Perspectives on Community-Level Environmental Literacy: Theories and Operationalization,' 2020 NAAEE Research Symposium session entitled 'Conceptualizing Community-Level Environmental Literacy');</item> <p></p> <item> publication of peer-reviewed literature and/or white papers related to the topic; and/or</item> <p></p> <item> attestation of engagement on the topic from an academic colleague who meets one or more of the above criteria.</item> </ulist> <p>Using the above criteria, we invited 43 individuals to participate in the study as experts: 22 attendees of the 2020 Convening on CLEL, 9 invitees of the 2020 Convening on CLEL who were not able to attend, 3 researchers who presented on CLEL at professional conferences, and 9 scholars who wrote about related topics in published literature. Based on recommendations from our original list of experts, we later invited an additional 43 individuals <emph>via</emph> snowball sampling (Morgan [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]). This resulted in a total of 86 scholars receiving study invitations, anticipating an acceptance rate of approximately 25-75% (Gordo [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]) with the goal of a final panel size of 15 to 35 individuals (Clayton [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>]; Gordo [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref55">36</reflink>]), as panels tend to reach saturation at approximately 30 members (Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]). We made a choice to focus on the academic community for this study as a first step to bring together theoretical conceptualizations of this understudied topic.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-7">Description of expert panelists</hd> <p>Out of the 86 environmental education scholars invited to take part in the study, 34 completed Survey 1 (40% response rate), 28 of which participated in Survey 2 (18% attrition rate) and 25 participated in Survey 3 (11% attrition rate). The demographic characteristics of panelists remained very similar across Surveys 1, 2, and 3, with high numbers of women, scholars who identify as White, people working in the United States, and individuals holding doctoral degrees. See Table 1 for participant demographics for each survey.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographics of study participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Survey 1</td><td>Survey 2</td><td>Survey 3</td></tr><tr><td>Demographic</td><td>n (34)</td><td>%</td><td>n (28)</td><td>%</td><td>n (25)</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Man</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">26%</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">29%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">28%</td></tr><tr><td> Woman</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">74%</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">71%</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">72%</td></tr><tr><td>Race / ethnicity</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> White</td><td char=".">27</td><td char=".">79%</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">82%</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">80%</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr><tr><td> Asian or Pacific Islander</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">6%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td></tr><tr><td> Middle Eastern or South Asian</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">11%</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">12%</td></tr><tr><td> I identify another way</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr><tr><td> Multi-racial<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr><tr><td>Years of experience</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <10</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">15%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">14%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">16%</td></tr><tr><td> 11–15</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">18%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">14%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">16%</td></tr><tr><td> 16–20</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">15%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">18%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">20%</td></tr><tr><td> 21–25</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">12%</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">7%</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">8%</td></tr><tr><td> 26–30</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">24%</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">29%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">24%</td></tr><tr><td> >31</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">18%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">18%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">16%</td></tr><tr><td>Position</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Faculty</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">38%</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">32%</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">32%</td></tr><tr><td> PhD student</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">11%</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">12%</td></tr><tr><td> Practitioner</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">32%</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">39%</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">40%</td></tr><tr><td> Researcher</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">21%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">18%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">16%</td></tr><tr><td>Degree</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Masters</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">12%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">14%</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">12%</td></tr><tr><td> PhD (in progress)</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">12%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">14%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">16%</td></tr><tr><td> PhD</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">76%</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">71%</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">72%</td></tr><tr><td>Location</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> United States</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">82%</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">82%</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">84%</td></tr><tr><td> Australia</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">7%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td></tr><tr><td> United Kingdom</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">6%</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">7%</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">8%</td></tr><tr><td> Taiwan</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td></tr><tr><td>Reason for study inclusion</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 2020 CLEL convening participant</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">29%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">25%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">28%</td></tr><tr><td> 2020 CLEL convening invitee</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr><tr><td> Conference presenter</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4%</td></tr><tr><td> Publication author</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">21%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">25%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">24%</td></tr><tr><td> Referred by one of the above</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">44%</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">46%</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">44%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <sups>a</sups>Multi-racial participants were counted both as multi-racial and in the different racial categories they identified with.</p> <p>The expertise of these scholars largely centered around environmental education, in alignment with the goals of the study and the recruitment strategy discussed in 'Methods.' Within this broad field, panelists focused on topics ranging from culturally responsive and equitable evaluation practices to resilience to natural hazards to community engagement in urban communities. See Figure 2 for a world cloud of common language that the 34 experts who completed Survey 1 used to describe their specific areas of expertise.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Word cloud of self-reported areas of expertise of Delphi participants.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-8">Data collection and analysis</hd> <p>Data collection comprised three iterative surveys, delivered online <emph>via</emph> Qualtrics or as a structured interview <emph>via</emph> Zoom video conferencing. Two participants opted for the structured interview for Survey 1 and then participated in the online versions of Surveys 2 and 3. While the structured interview method may have allowed for additional elaboration and clarification between the panelists and the research team during this first survey, we do not anticipate that this choice had an impact on the overall study results. Panelists were given two weeks to complete each survey, with an additional two-week extension provided to those who had not completed the survey by the initial deadline; this aligns with general guidelines on Delphi study timelines (Uhl [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref57">68</reflink>]; Gordo [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]). See supplemental information for full text of each survey.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-9">Round 1 survey</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184138067-10">Data collection</hd> <p>Survey 1 involved open-ended brainstorming (Uhl [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref59">68</reflink>]), inviting panelists to offer their thoughts on CLEL in their own words. In line with the overarching research questions of this study, the two main questions of Survey 1 were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In your opinion, what constitutes community-level environmental literacy (CLEL)?</item> <p></p> <item> In your opinion, what needs to be considered when trying to measure CLEL?</item> </ulist> <p>In question 1, respondents were given the opportunity to complete the statement 'CLEL is...' up to 15 times in a free response format, writing a single characteristic or phrase to complete the statement each time. In question 2, respondents completed the statement 'When measuring CLEL, we need to consider...' in the same way, with 15 opportunities to respond with different considerations. In addition to answering these two content questions, we asked respondents a series of demographic questions.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>From the 34 panelists, we received 247 open-response answers to our question about CLEL conceptualization (an average of approximately 7 responses per expert) and 203 ideas on what to consider when measuring CLEL (about 6 responses per scholar). Responses to each of the two main questions were collated, anonymized, and presented in randomized order for qualitative analysis. Two coders performed iterative collaborative coding manually (Cornish, Gillespie, and Zittoun [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref60">23</reflink>]) in an insider/outsider team approach (Louis and Bartunek [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>]; Thomas, Blacksmith, and Reno [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref62">67</reflink>]; Court and Abbas [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref63">24</reflink>]). One coder was the lead author of the project and had published on CLEL in the past, and the other coder was a scholar in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education with more limited exposure to past CLEL discussions. These two differing areas of expertise allowed for both contextual interpretation of the responses based on past CLEL discussions and publications (the 'insider' perspective) as well as inductive, context-free interpretation of the qualitative data without bringing in the assumptions gathered from past CLEL work (the 'outsider' perspective) (Louis and Bartunek [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref64">48</reflink>]). Independently, the two researchers inductively coded the same half of responses into themes (Thomas [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref65">65</reflink>]), each coder creating a list of themes present in the responses to the question about CLEL conceptualization and a separate list of themes present in responses to the question about CLEL measurement consideration. After this individual analysis, the two coders came together to compare and contrast their coding, discussing the reasoning behind their assignments of codes for each line of data, and their definitions for each code that emerged (Cornish, Gillespie, and Zittoun [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]). The researchers reconciled any differences in their coding choices and their codebooks, resulting in a mutually-agreed-upon codebook with shared definitions for each theme, and then coded the rest of the data independently. They then came together again, repeating the process of reconciling codes and codebooks, until they reached consensus on a final list of themes that emerged from each of the two questions in Survey 1 (Cornish, Gillespie, and Zittoun [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-12">Round 2 survey</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184138067-13">Data collection</hd> <p>Survey 2 presented the themes developed from analysis of Survey 1 responses for panelists to consider. Panelists were provided with the theme name, a description of that theme, and several examples of word-for-word participant responses that were coded as belonging to that theme. Themes were presented in random order, anonymously, and without information on the frequency with which the theme appeared so as to avoid privileging certain voices over others and to increase inclusion of diverse perspectives (Christie and Barela [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>]). Survey respondents were then asked to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale from 'strongly disagree' (-3) to 'strongly agree' (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>), the degree to which they feel that the presented theme aligns with their conceptualization of CLEL and its measurement. They were then encouraged to elaborate on their stated level of agreement in an open-response format and specify whether they felt anything was incorrect or missing from the description of the theme.</p> <p>After reacting to each theme individually, respondents were asked to consider the themes all together. Panelists rated the level of importance of each theme as part of a complete conceptualization of CLEL (for themes related to the first research question) or a complete list of measurement considerations for CLEL (for themes related to the second research question) on a 7-point Likert scale from 'not at all important' (-3) to 'extremely important' (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>). They were also invited to provide comments on whether they felt any themes were missing from the list or whether they had any final thoughts they wished to share.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-14">Data analysis</hd> <p>To determine the level of consensus on the themes presented in Survey 2, we calculated mean and standard deviation of 1) the level of agreement that the panelists expressed that each theme fit into their conceptualization of CLEL or its measurement and 2) the level of importance the panelists expressed each theme held in the complete conceptualization of CLEL or its measurement considerations. Higher means and lower standard deviations were seen as desirable and indicative of greater agreement on the themes, with a standard deviation of 1.5 or lower considered to be a threshold for adequate consensus (Christie and Barela [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]; Giannarou and Zervas [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref72">33</reflink>]). As a secondary measure of consensus, we also calculated the percentage of respondents who reported a value of 2 or 3 on the scale of −3 to 3 (corresponding to 'agree' or 'strongly agree' for questions of agreement, and 'very important' or 'extremely important' for questions of importance). If more than half of the respondents (≧51%) reported these high values, we considered adequate consensus to be reached (Giannarou and Zervas [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref73">33</reflink>]). Themes that met both of this criterion and the standard deviation cutoff were considered to have reached strong consensus.</p> <p>In addition to calculating quantitative levels of consensus, we qualitatively analyzed the open-ended feedback received about agreement with each theme and about what might be missing or incorrect on each theme. Each piece of feedback was read, and concerns that arose multiple times were grouped together for use in Survey 3.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-15">Round 3 survey</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184138067-16">Data collection</hd> <p>Survey 3 presented the quantitative level of consensus reached in Survey 2 and proposed modifications based on the qualitative feedback received. We presented conceptualization themes first, beginning with the themes that had the highest mean value of importance and lowest standard deviations, and continuing on to the themes with lower levels of stated importance and higher standard deviations. With each theme, we provided the original theme name and description followed by the mean and standard deviation of the theme's importance. We then summarized the panelists' qualitative feedback received about the theme, proposing specific changes to the theme name and/or description to address any identified issues. We ended by offering a full modified version of the theme name and description that incorporated all feedback.</p> <p>After reading all of the above information for a specific theme, panelists were asked the same 7-point Likert scale questions they were asked in Survey 2 regarding how much they agreed that the modified theme aligned with their conceptualization of CLEL and how important they felt the theme was in a complete conceptualization of CLEL. They were also asked to what extent they agreed that the modified theme put forward in Survey 3 was an improvement upon the original theme presented in Survey 2. This process was repeated for measurement considerations of CLEL.</p> <p>In addition to detailing the individual themes related to CLEL conceptualization and measurement, Survey 3 attempted to integrate all themes into a coherent framework about CLEL (similar to the approach used in Clark et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]). Panelists reacted to this synthesis statement by rating the degree to which the statement aligned with their conceptualization of CLEL (again on a 7-point Likert scale). Lastly, panelists were given the option of adding any final open-ended thoughts on the themes or on the study as a whole at the end of the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-17">Data analysis</hd> <p>The levels of agreement and theme importance received in Survey 3 were analyzed in the same manner as Survey 2. The same measures of consensus were applied to the synthesis framework.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184138067-19">Research question 1: conceptualization of CLEL</hd> <p>Through iterative refinement of ideas from each survey, seven main themes emerged for a complete conceptualization of CLEL:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a focus on socio-ecological topics relevant to the community,</item> <p></p> <item> connection,</item> <p></p> <item> collectively-held knowledge and skills,</item> <p></p> <item> inclusion of the community's diverse perspectives,</item> <p></p> <item> aimed at collective action,</item> <p></p> <item> commitment to a shared goal, and</item> <p></p> <item> a dynamic capacity.</item> </ulist> <p>In what follows, the development of each of these themes is described (see Table 2) and the agreement statistics are presented (see Table 3).</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptions of conceptualizations of CLEL (RQ 1), surveys 2 and 3.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Survey 2</td><td>Survey 3</td></tr><tr><td>Conceptualization theme</td><td>Conceptualization description</td><td>Conceptualization theme</td><td>Conceptualization description</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>A focus on environmental issues</td><td>CLEL holds environmental issues as its core subject matter.</td><td>A focus on socio-ecological topics relevant to the community</td><td>CLEL recognizes that social and environmental systems are inextricably linked and that the socio-ecological challenges and opportunities that arise from them must therefore be addressed jointly. CLEL focuses on the specific socio-ecological topics that are relevant to the community of focus.</td></tr><tr><td>Connection</td><td>CLEL is driven by connection--both peoples' connection with each other and peoples' connection with the environment around them. When discussing this relational concept, some respondents brought up that connecting across generations (intergenerational learning) may be especially powerful in facilitating CLEL.</td><td>Connection</td><td>CLEL is driven by connection–both peoples' connection with each other and peoples' connection with the environment around them. Social networks, social capital, and relationships are key drivers of CLEL, and the process of CLEL can also strengthen these connections.</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge / skills</td><td>CLEL requires a degree of knowledge, awareness, understanding, and/or wisdom. It also requires to critically analyze and act on that knowledge. Knowledge and skills involved in CLEL can be distributed throughout the community; in other words, not everyone needs to have the same degree or type of knowledge and skills. Some of the skills required for CLEL that were brought up in Survey 1 included systems thinking skills and communication skills.</td><td>Collectively-held knowledge and skills</td><td>CLEL requires a degree of knowledge and skills to be present in the community. These knowledges and skills need not necessarily be present in or shared amongst all members of the community. Instead, they can be distributed throughout the community. In other words, not everyone needs to have the same degree or type of knowledge and skills, so long as the knowledge and skills can be found somewhere within the community. Areas of focus include but are not limited to systems thinking, communication skills, and knowledge of how the community impacts and is impacted by the local environment.</td></tr><tr><td>Mindfulness around power</td><td>Because of its scale, CLEL inherently affects and is affected by power dynamics. CLEL must be inclusive of diverse voices and identities within the community, embracing multiple perspectives including Indigenous ways of knowing. CLEL must be justice-oriented and decolonized, and intentional effort and coordination is required to make it so.</td><td>Inclusion of the community's diverse perspectives</td><td>CLEL is justice-oriented. It requires the community to embrace diverse voices and identities within the community and equitably give voice to these perspectives when making decisions on socio-ecological topics relevant to the community. Doing this requires a knowledge of, and willingness to navigate and at times subvert and dismantle, systems of power in the community. Perspectives to keep in mind are as far too numerous to list out in full, but they may include Indigenous ways of knowing, decolonial approaches, and other knowledges sparked by individuals' unique lived experiences.</td></tr><tr><td>Behavior / action</td><td>CLEL isn't just knowledge or beliefs; taking action based on these other CLEL components is a necessary part of this literacy. These actions may be oriented towards policy (civic engagement) or focused on a community problem outside of the policy sphere. The ultimate aim of CLEL is collective action, which is of a different scale than individual behaviors--though some survey respondents reminded us that collective action still involves individuals.</td><td>Aimed at collective action</td><td>CLEL's ultimate end goal is to take effective collective action on socio-ecological topics that the community identifies as important. The action itself could be considered to be either a component of CLEL or its outcome; regardless, the orientation of CLEL towards collective action remains the same.</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes / feelings</td><td>CLEL involves the affective in addition to the more concrete knowledge and skills previously mentioned. In this theme, words like values, norms, motivations, intentions, dispositions, ethics, trust, responsibility, and respect came up frequently amongst survey respondents. All of these play a role in supporting or hindering CLEL.</td><td>Commitment to a shared goal</td><td>Members of the community must be collectively committed to addressing a shared goal related to one or more local socio-ecological topics. Though this does not require all community members to share the same set of values, it does require the community to possess a level of collectively-held efficacy and agency related to creating change.</td></tr><tr><td>A continuous, iterative process</td><td>CLEL is more of a process than an endpoint, shifting and adapting as the community and community needs evolve. Flexibility is key in allowing for this adaptation over time.</td><td>A dynamic capacity</td><td>CLEL isn't static. Instead, it is a dynamic capacity due to the ever-changing nature of a given community, its environment, and the connections between and within these elements.</td></tr><tr><td>Interdisciplinary</td><td>CLEL bridges disciplines and subject areas, intertwining environmental issues with social issues, political challenges, economic hardships, and more. This can be seen in formal interdisciplinary work (i.e. learning about environmental topics in social studies classrooms or math courses), in discussion of environmental issues, and more.</td><td>[Removed]</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Agreement levels on CLEL conceptualization (RQ 1) themes, surveys 2 and 3.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Theme</td><td>Conceptualization Question A: How much do you agree that this theme fits into your conceptualization of CLEL?</td><td>Conceptualization Question B: How important is this theme as part of a complete conceptualization of CLEL?</td><td>Conceptualization Question C: How much do you agree that the modified theme is an improvement on the original theme?</td></tr><tr><td>Survey 2 original theme</td><td>Survey 3 modified theme</td><td>Survey 2 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 2 % agree</td><td>Survey 3 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 3 % Agree</td><td>Survey 2 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 2 % agree</td><td>Survey 3 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 3 % agree</td><td>Survey 3 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 3 % agree</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Focus on environmental issues</td><td>Focus on socio-ecological topics relevant to community</td><td char=".">2.31 (1.04)</td><td char=".">83%</td><td char=".">2.56 (0.77)</td><td char=".">92%</td><td char=".">2.39 (0.88)</td><td char=".">89%</td><td char=".">2.64 (0.49)</td><td char=".">100%</td><td char=".">2.48 (0.87)</td><td char=".">92%</td></tr><tr><td>Connection</td><td>Connection</td><td char=".">2.35 (0.85)</td><td char=".">85%</td><td char=".">2.44 (0.71)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.43 (0.84)</td><td char=".">86%</td><td char=".">2.60 (0.58)</td><td char=".">96%</td><td char=".">2.36 (0.70)</td><td char=".">88%</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge/skills</td><td>Collectively-held knowledge and skills</td><td char=".">2.38 (0.90)</td><td char=".">90%</td><td char=".">2.48 (0.59)</td><td char=".">96%</td><td char=".">2.11 (1.07)</td><td char=".">75%</td><td char=".">2.32 (0.95)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.36 (0.70)</td><td char=".">88%</td></tr><tr><td>Mindfulness around power</td><td>Inclusion of the community's diverse perspectives</td><td char=".">2.21 (0.98)</td><td char=".">76%</td><td char=".">2.24 (1.05)</td><td char=".">80%</td><td char=".">1.96 (1.20)</td><td char=".">64%</td><td char=".">2.32 (0.95)</td><td char=".">84%</td><td char=".">2.12 (1.17)</td><td char=".">76%</td></tr><tr><td>Behavior/action</td><td>Aimed at collective action</td><td char=".">1.89 (1.48)</td><td char=".">70%</td><td char=".">1.76 (1.56)</td><td char=".">80%</td><td char=".">2.14 (1.04)</td><td char=".">79%</td><td char=".">2.28 (0.98)</td><td char=".">80%</td><td char=".">1.88 (1.39)</td><td char=".">76%</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes/feelings</td><td>Commitment to a shared goal</td><td char=".">1.96 (1.20)</td><td char=".">71%</td><td char=".">1.96 (1.27)</td><td char=".">76%</td><td char=".">1.89 (1.07)</td><td char=".">68%</td><td char=".">2.12 (1.17)</td><td char=".">76%</td><td char=".">2.00 (1.53)</td><td char=".">84%</td></tr><tr><td>A continuous, iterative process</td><td>A dynamic capacity</td><td char=".">2.39 (0.79)</td><td char=".">89%</td><td char=".">1.92 (1.19)</td><td char=".">72%</td><td char=".">2.33 (0.83)</td><td char=".">85%</td><td char=".">1.84 (1.21)</td><td char=".">72%</td><td char=".">1.84 (1.31)</td><td char=".">68%</td></tr><tr><td>Interdisciplinary</td><td>[Removed]</td><td char=".">2.21 (1.10)</td><td char=".">82%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td char=".">2.14 (1.11)</td><td char=".">75%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td char=".">1.68 (1.25)</td><td char=".">60%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184138067-20">Focus on socio-ecological topics relevant to the community</hd> <p>In Survey 1, Delphi panelists noted that CLEL holds environmental issues as its core subject matter. For instance, one panelist stated that CLEL is 'based on the environmental issues pertinent to the boundaries of the community.' Not only are environmental issues the topic, but they also defined it as a purpose for CLEL. As one expert wrote, CLEL is 'a community norm of desiring and working toward improved environmental quality.' Another stated that CLEL is 'essential to sustainable resource management in a growing population.'</p> <p>For Survey 2, this theme was named <emph>A Focus on Environmental Issues</emph>. Panelists agreed (89%) that this theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.39, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.88), and 83% agreed that it matched their own conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.31, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.04). Experts did offer some suggestions for refinement. In particular, several pointed out that use of the word 'issue' or 'problem' suggests that CLEL might be at odds with asset-based framing related to socio-ecological systems. Another point was that focusing the theme on 'environmental' topics might miss the opportunity to emphasize the degree to which social and environmental challenges are inextricably intertwined. Additionally, this framing implies focus on the environment being the problem (rather than the humans who are driving environmental change being the problem). Lastly, these socio-ecological topics must be relevant to the community to be a focus of CLEL.</p> <p>To address these concerns for Survey 3, the theme title was changed to <emph>Focus on Socio-ecological Topics Relevant to the Community</emph> and the description was expanded. 92% of panelists saw these changes as an improvement (<emph>M</emph> = 2.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.87). All (100%) panelists agreed that the modified theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.64, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.49) and 92% stated that it matched their own conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.56, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.77). These agreement averages were higher than in Survey 2 and the standard deviation was lower, indicating greater consensus.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-21">Connection</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists offered several statements about the role of relationships in CLEL. For example, one panelist stated that CLEL is about 'relationship building.' CLEL is 'an interactive 'art' that requires we engage with those around us' and involves 'discussing environmental issues with family, friends, neighbors (those in your community).' The term 'connection' was emphasized, as one participant stated, CLEL is 'a shared capacity to leverage connections and social networks.' When discussing this relational concept, some respondents noted that connecting across generations (e.g. intergenerational learning) may be especially powerful in facilitating CLEL.</p> <p>In Survey 2, this theme was presented as <emph>Connection</emph>, in which CLEL is driven by connection—both peoples' connection with each other and with the environment. There was broad agreement on this theme with only limited feedback. Eighty-six percent of panelists agreed that this theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.43, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.84) and 85% stated that it matched their own conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.35, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.85). Some of the suggested revisions pertained to key words missing from the description, such as relationships, networks, and social capital. In addition, some panelists felt that connection may be an outcome of CLEL rather than a driver.</p> <p>In Survey 3, the theme description was changed to reflect these concerns. Eighty-eight percent of the panelists agreed that these modifications were an improvement on the original (<emph>M</emph> = 2.36, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.70). Most panelists (96%) agreed that the modified theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.60, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58) and 88% that it matched their own conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.44, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.71).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-22">Collectively-held knowledge and skills</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists mentioned 'knowledge' more generally, such as one participant who wrote that CLEL is 'a reflection of knowledge, skills and abilities that are organized for collective benefit.' However, panelists also mentioned specific types of knowledge. For example, one stated that CLEL is 'knowledge of ecosystems impacted by the community members.' Some panelists emphasized the collective knowledge and skills in a community context, pointing to a 'collective knowing' and the 'positive development of skills and attributes to include a joint identification of issues and analysis and evaluation of these in a critical way, as part of a group.'</p> <p>From these statements, this theme was initially called <emph>Knowledge and Skills</emph>, defined as the degree of knowledge and skills needed for CLEL. It was noted that this knowledge and skills can be distributed throughout the community; in other words, not everyone needs to have the same degree or type of knowledge and skills. In Survey 2, there was very strong agreement on this theme; 90% of panelists agreed that this theme matched their own conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.38, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.90) and was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.11, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.07). Open-ended comments focused on the way that knowledge and skills exist as collective and distributed in nature.</p> <p>In response, for Survey 3, the theme name was changed to add <emph>Collectively-held</emph> and the modified description also emphasized the collective nature. Once again, panelists (88%) agreed that the modified theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.32, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.95) and 96% agreed that it matched their own conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.49). Eighty-eight percent of the panelists agreed that these modifications were an improvement on the original (<emph>M</emph> = 2.36, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.70).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-23">Inclusion of the community's diverse perspectives</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists noted that, because of its scale, CLEL inherently affects and is affected by power dynamics. Therefore, CLEL must be inclusive of diverse voices and identities within the community, embracing multiple perspectives including Indigenous ways of knowing. One panelist stated 'CLEL considers the assets and strengths of different cultures, races, sexual orientations, gender identities, social groups, religious traditions, classes, ages, abilities, language groups, and religious traditions in bringing about change that addresses environmental quality and long-term sustainability.' CLEL must be justice-oriented and decolonized, and intentional effort and coordination is required to make it so.</p> <p>Initially, this theme was called <emph>Mindfulness around Power</emph>. In Survey 2, panelists (64%) noted that while the ideas included in the description were somewhat important for a complete conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 1.96, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.20) and 75% stated that it matched their own (<emph>M</emph> = 2.21, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.98), the name of the theme was not worded well. For example, 'power' can mean many different things, and as the description is written, this theme feels more like it centers on diversity, equity, and inclusion than power. Also, 'mindfulness' isn't strong enough; diverse perspectives need to be given the power to impact decision-making related to community issues. Panelists also noted that there are many ways of thinking that should be given voice when making decisions about socio-ecological topics—too many perspectives to list each individually by name.</p> <p>In Survey 3, the theme name was modified to <emph>Inclusion of the Community's Diverse Perspectives</emph> and the description was intended to more clearly center diversity. Seventy-six percent of panelists agreed that the revised theme name and description were an improvement (<emph>M</emph> = 2.12, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.17). In Survey 3, 84% of panelists agreed that the ideas included in the description were important for a complete conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.32, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.95) and 80% stated that it matched their own (<emph>M</emph> = 2.24, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.05)</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-24">Aimed at collective action</hd> <p>While CLEL includes knowledge or beliefs, taking action is also a necessary component. For instance, in Survey 1, a panelist stated that CLEL is 'taking action in your community on environmental issues.' However, the ultimate aim of CLEL is <emph>collective</emph> action, which is of a different scale than individual behaviors. As one panelist directly stated: CLEL is 'action oriented; with a focus on collective (community) action, rather than individual action.' Furthermore, this action can take on many forms. CLEL is 'taking the form of collective action towards a common environmental problem.' These forms of collection action may be oriented towards policy (civic engagement) or focused on a community problem outside of the policy sphere.</p> <p>In Survey 2, panelists offered divergent feedback on this theme, initially named <emph>Behavior/Action</emph>. While 79% of panelists agreed that this theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.14, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.04), open-ended comments generally split into two perspectives: collective action as <emph>a component of</emph> CLEL or collective action as <emph>an outcome of</emph> CLEL. Another concern raised by panelists focused on the difference between <emph>explicit</emph> action versus <emph>capacity</emph> for action. Some panelists mentioned that decision-making may be an important idea to center here rather than (or in addition to) action. For instance, perhaps a community with high levels of CLEL may decide, after careful deliberation, that the appropriate 'action' to take on a community challenge is to take no action.</p> <p>In Survey 3, the theme name was modified to <emph>Aimed at Collective Action</emph> to emphasize collective action and the description was changed to account for the concerns raised in Survey 2. This theme continued to garner weaker consensus among panelists, as evidenced by lower agreement scores and higher standard deviations. Seventy-six percent of panelists agreed that the modifications improved the theme (<emph>M</emph> = 1.88, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.39); 80% of panelists agreed that the new theme matched their own personal conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 1.76, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.56) and is important for a complete conceptualization (<emph>M</emph> = 2.28, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.98).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-25">Commitment to a shared goal</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists noted that CLEL involves affective aspects in addition to the more concrete knowledge and skills previously mentioned. Words like 'values,' 'norms,' 'motivations,' 'intentions,' 'dispositions,' 'ethics,' 'trust,' 'responsibility,' and 'respect' came up frequently amongst survey respondents. In particular, panelists stressed that these attitudes are <emph>shared</emph> among a community. For instance, CLEL is 'a group of people sharing multiple values (altruistic, biospheric, egoistic) for the environment.' CLEL is 'a shared attitude that self, human societies, and non-human nature are interconnected' and is 'shared valuation of the natural and built environments in the region.' All of these attitudes play a role in supporting or hindering CLEL.</p> <p>Survey 2 gathered divergent feedback on this theme, initially called <emph>Attitudes and Feelings</emph>. Only 71% agreed that this conceptualization matched their own (<emph>M</emph> = 1.96, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.20) and only 68% agreed that this theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 1.89, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.07). The majority of comments presented a tension. While a degree of shared attitudes and feelings within the community is crucial to transform collective knowledge and skills into collective action, specifying that a community must have shared values is antithetical to the idea of respecting a diversity of values and perspectives. It's important that people end up with a shared common goal, but the way they get there–valuing economics, nature's intrinsic beauty, human health, environmental justice, etc.–does not have to be shared. Furthermore, there was the suggestion that perhaps 'attitudes/feelings' is not the right word to describe this theme, instead more focus on collectively-held efficacy and agency rather than shared values.</p> <p>In Survey 3, modifications resulted in the revised theme name, <emph>Commitment to a Shared Goal,</emph> and its description emphasized collective attitudes and beliefs. Eighty-four percent of panelists agreed that the modifications improved the theme (<emph>M</emph> = 2.00, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.53). Seventy-six percent of panelists agreed that the new theme matched their own personal conceptualization of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 1.96, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.27) and is important for a complete conceptualization (<emph>M</emph> = 2.12, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.17).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-26">A dynamic capacity</hd> <p>In Survey 1, CLEL was described as more of a process than an endpoint, shifting and adapting as the community and community needs evolve. For instance, panelists wrote that CLEL is 'dynamic, changing as changes in knowledge occur' and 'flexible enough to wrestle with novel issues.' CLEL is 'a process' 'made up of decisions or components that can be revised by the community as needed over time.'</p> <p>In Survey 2, this theme was called <emph>Continuous Iterative Process</emph>. Panelists overwhelmingly agreed that CLEL is dynamic and, accordingly, must leave room for flexibility and adaptability in definition and measurement. Eighty-nine percent of panelists agreed that this theme agreed with their own personal conceptualization (<emph>M</emph> = 2.39, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.79) and 86% agreed this theme was important for a complete conceptualization (<emph>M</emph> = 2.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.83). However, there was some concern about the idea that CLEL was a process. Rather, panelists suggested that CLEL itself is a capacity–one that is built up by a continuous, iterative process as the original theme suggests, but not a process itself.</p> <p>In response, the revised theme name and description in Survey 3 emphasized the dynamic nature. However, there was some continued divergence; only 68% agreed that this modified name was an improvement on the initial one (<emph>M</emph> = 1.84, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.31).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-27">Interdisciplinary</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists suggested that CLEL is 'multifaceted' and 'intersectional (social, economic, environmental, political, cultural).' It 'requires that environmental learning is incorporated across grades and subjects in formal schooling' and 'involves having EL topics covered in more than just K-12 settings.'</p> <p>As such, the theme of <emph>Interdisciplinary</emph> acknowledged that CLEL bridges disciplines and subject areas, intertwining environmental issues with social issues, political challenges, economic hardships, and more. This can be seen in formal interdisciplinary work (i.e. learning about environmental topics in social studies classrooms or math courses), in discussion of environmental issues, and more. Although there was fairly good numerical agreement on this theme in Survey 2 (75% agreed this was important; <emph>M</emph> = 2.14, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.11), feedback from this theme and other themes suggested that this may not be a stand-alone theme. Instead, it seems to already be covered within other themes (e.g. a focus on socio-ecological topics relevant to the community, and connection). Additionally, some feedback noted that this wording is very 'formal education' heavy, implying (likely incorrectly) that CLEL is centered in schools and universities. In response, this theme was removed and the interdisciplinary nature of CLEL was highlighted throughout the other themes.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-28">Research question 2: considerations for measurement of CLEL</hd> <p>Through iterative refinement of ideas in each survey, 7 main themes emerged for considerations when measuring CLEL:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> inclusivity,</item> <p></p> <item> indicators,</item> <p></p> <item> researcher purpose and positionality,</item> <p></p> <item> community bounds,</item> <p></p> <item> community components,</item> <p></p> <item> community connections, and</item> <p></p> <item> community processes.</item> </ulist> <p>In what follows, the development of each of these themes is described fully (see Table 4) and the agreement statistics are presented (see Table 5).</p> <p>Table 4. Descriptions of considerations for measurement of CLEL (RQ 2), surveys 2 and 3.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Survey 2</td><td>Survey 3</td></tr><tr><td>Measurement theme</td><td>Measurement description</td><td>measurement theme</td><td>Measurement description</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Inclusivity</td><td>CLEL measurement strategies need to be inclusive of varied values, life experiences, ways of knowing, and stakeholder perspectives. Because of the pluralistic nature of communities, this may require a certain level of acknowledging and embracing difference and disagreement. It may also help to engage the community members themselves in the measurement process.</td><td>Inclusivity</td><td>CLEL measurement strategies need to be inclusive of varied values, life experiences, ways of knowing, and stakeholder perspectives. Because all communities are impacted by inequitable power structures acting within and/or upon them, CLEL measurement efforts must counteract these power structures in order to lift up less privileged perspectives. Additionally, the pluralistic nature of communities necessitates that communities and researchers expect and embrace a level of difference and disagreement.</td></tr><tr><td>Indicators</td><td>Measuring CLEL requires researchers to be clear about how they are defining and operationalizing indicators of CLEL (the components defined in the first section of this survey). For example, researchers should be clear about how they are defining knowledge--is it distributed unevenly across the community, or does everyone need to have the same level of knowledge? Is it enough to have knowledge, or are other attitudes, motivations, or values necessary? Is the researcher measuring CLEL as a continuous process or as an endpoint that a community reaches once they get to a certain level of these indicators or a certain goal is achieved?</td><td>Indicators</td><td>Measuring CLEL requires clarity in the definitions and operationalizations of the indicators of CLEL. For example, there must be clarity in how knowledge is defined--can it be distributed unevenly across the community and leveraged collectively, or does everyone need to have some baseline level of knowledge? Is it enough to have knowledge, or are other attitudes, motivations, or community norms necessary? Is CLEL being measured as a continuous process or as an endpoint that a community reaches once they get to a certain level of these indicators or collective action is undertaken?</td></tr><tr><td>Researcher purpose / motivation</td><td>Because a researcher's motivation for measuring CLEL impacts how they go about doing so, it is important to reflect upon this motivation and how it may impact the measurement processes and/or results. Is the purpose to be able to compare across communities? To help a community reach a certain collective impact goal? To understand the starting point of a community's literacy so that you can measure change? Something else?</td><td>Researcher purpose and positionality</td><td>Because a researcher's positionality and motivation for measuring CLEL impacts how they carry out and interpret the research, it is important for them to acknowledge and reflect upon this both before starting the research and periodically throughout the research process. Ultimately, CLEL belongs to the community, and the researcher should ensure that their own research priorities or evaluation efforts do not impede the goals of serving the community's needs and answering the community's questions.</td></tr><tr><td>Understanding community bounds</td><td>To measure community-level environmental literacy, we need to be clear about how we are defining the community in which we are working. Survey respondents talked about how communities can be bounded in many ways--by geography, by identity, by association, etc. Several people also emphasized that a community can change over time, as can its bounds, calling for flexibility on the researchers' part.</td><td>Understanding community bounds</td><td>To measure community-level environmental literacy, the community needs to be clearly defined and bounded. The community itself should have the lead voice in this process; in other words, the boundaries of the community should reflect the community's understanding of itself. Communities can be bounded in many ways–by geography, by identity, by association, and more. A community and its membership can also shift over time, which requires flexibility and regular revisiting of the community definition on the researchers' part.</td></tr><tr><td>Understanding community components</td><td>Measuring CLEL requires understanding the makeup of the community. Study participants discussed three broad types of community components: people, institutions, and the physical environment. A researcher should familiarize themselves with these different elements of the community to more effectively measure CLEL.</td><td>Understanding community components</td><td>Effectively measuring CLEL requires understanding the makeup of the community. Key parts of the community include its tangible components–such as people, institutions, and the physical environment–as well as more abstract concepts—like community norms, power structures, and history (including past injustices). While all of these listed components will not necessarily be present in all communities, CLEL measurers should spend time before engaging in the evaluation process identifying and familiarizing themselves with the components that are relevant to their specific community. Given the dynamic nature of a community and the elements that comprise it, these components should also be revisited throughout the measurement effort.</td></tr><tr><td>Understanding community connections</td><td>Given that this type of literacy is driven by connection, understanding the nature of social connections within the community of interest is important to effectively measuring CLEL.</td><td>Understanding community connections</td><td>Given that CLEL is driven by connection, understanding the nature of social connections within the community of interest is important to effectively measuring this type of literacy. Some forms of connection to investigate include social cohesion, the distribution of social capital, and the structure of social networks, including which "nodes" might have power as connectors or gatekeepers of knowledge or action. It is also important to understand which community components might be disconnected from each other and why; this becomes all the more important if connecting those components might afford more opportunities for effective collective action. Tools such as social network analysis and measurement of diffusion of innovation can be helpful in understanding these complex, dynamic connections.</td></tr><tr><td>Understanding community processes</td><td>Community processes, both civic and otherwise, impact how a community builds CLEL. It is therefore important to understand these processes to better understand the context in which CLEL is created (or limited).</td><td>Understanding community processes</td><td>Community processes, both civic and otherwise, impact how or whether a community builds CLEL. It is therefore important to understand these processes to better understand the context in which CLEL is created (or limited). Examples of community processes include the political processes that allow for community involvement in decision-making and, equally importantly, those that do not allow for community involvement either through intentional exclusion or through a lack of established inclusionary processes.</td></tr><tr><td>Understanding community needs</td><td>Finally, it is key to understand what a community wants as well as what might prevent them from achieving these goals. Measurement strategies can then be tailored accordingly.</td><td>[Removed]</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5. Agreement levels on themes for measurement of CLEL (RQ 2), surveys 2 and 3.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Theme</td><td>Measurement Question A: How much do you agree that this theme is important to consider when measuring CLEL?</td><td>Measurement Question B: How important is this theme as part of a complete list of considerations when measuring CLEL?</td><td>Measurement Question C: How much do you agree that the modified theme is an improvement on the original theme?</td></tr><tr><td>Survey 2 original theme</td><td>Survey 3 modified theme</td><td>Survey 2 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 2 % agree</td><td>Survey 3 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 3 % agree</td><td>Survey 2 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 2 % agree</td><td>Survey 3 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 3 % agree</td><td>Survey 3 mean (SD)</td><td>Survey 3 % agree</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Inclusivity</td><td>Inclusivity</td><td char=".">2.61 (0.63)</td><td char=".">93%</td><td char=".">2.60 (0.58)</td><td char=".">96%</td><td char=".">2.50 (0.75)</td><td char=".">93%</td><td char=".">2.32 (1.11)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.40 (0.65)</td><td char=".">92%</td></tr><tr><td>Indicators</td><td>Indicators</td><td char=".">2.39 (0.74)</td><td char=".">93%</td><td char=".">2.32 (0.85)</td><td char=".">96%</td><td char=".">2.25 (0.80)</td><td char=".">79%</td><td char=".">2.28 (1.34)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">1.88 (1.30)</td><td char=".">84%</td></tr><tr><td>Researcher purpose/ motivation</td><td>Researcher purpose and positionality</td><td char=".">2.07 (0.87)</td><td char=".">74%</td><td char=".">2.08 (0.91)</td><td char=".">80%</td><td char=".">1.82 (1.28)</td><td char=".">71%</td><td char=".">1.96 (1.40)</td><td char=".">80%</td><td char=".">2.12 (0.93)</td><td char=".">80%</td></tr><tr><td>Community bounds</td><td>Community bounds</td><td char=".">2.14 (1.04)</td><td char=".">79%</td><td char=".">2.32 (0.75)</td><td char=".">92%</td><td char=".">2.11 (1.07)</td><td char=".">71%</td><td char=".">2.16 (1.11)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.16 (1.37)</td><td char=".">80%</td></tr><tr><td>Community components</td><td>Community components</td><td char=".">2.04 (1.08)</td><td char=".">77%</td><td char=".">2.60 (0.50)</td><td char=".">100%</td><td char=".">2.14 (0.97)</td><td char=".">79%</td><td char=".">2.32 (0.95)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.48 (0.59)</td><td char=".">96%</td></tr><tr><td>Community connections</td><td>Community connections</td><td char=".">2.57 (0.57)</td><td char=".">96%</td><td char=".">2.32 (1.03)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.43 (0.74)</td><td char=".">86%</td><td char=".">2.40 (0.96)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.08 (1.26)</td><td char=".">84%</td></tr><tr><td>Community processes</td><td>Community processes</td><td char=".">2.42 (0.77)</td><td char=".">82%</td><td char=".">2.20 (0.76)</td><td char=".">88%</td><td char=".">2.14 (0.93)</td><td char=".">79%</td><td char=".">2.28 (0.98)</td><td char=".">92%</td><td char=".">2.28 (0.79)</td><td char=".">88%</td></tr><tr><td>Community needs</td><td>[Removed]</td><td char=".">2.29 (0.90)</td><td char=".">79%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td char=".">2.14 (1.21)</td><td char=".">79%</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td char=".">2.08 (0.86)</td><td char=".">88%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184138067-29">Inclusivity</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists emphasized that CLEL measurement strategies need to be inclusive of varied values, life experiences, ways of knowing, and stakeholder perspectives. For instance, when measuring CLEL, 'traditional knowledge systems should also be taken into consideration' and 'we need to consider how to value the contributions of underrepresented people and others who have been unheard and/or ignored when it comes to environmental issues.' Because of the pluralistic nature of communities, this may require a certain level of acknowledging and embracing difference and disagreement. It may also help to engage the community members themselves in the research process: 'we need to consider whether/how the community can collaboratively be involved in the measurement.'</p> <p>In Survey 2, this theme had a very high level of consensus amongst respondents. Ninety-three percent of panelists indicated that this aspect was important to consider (<emph>M</emph> = 2.61, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.63). Several respondents brought up the idea of how power needs to be discussed alongside inclusivity–not just power dynamics within the community, but also power structures that act upon the community from the outside.</p> <p>In response, the description was modified in Survey 3, to emphasize the role of power dynamics and the capacity of CLEL to counteract them. Ninety-two percent of panelists agreed that these modifications improved the theme (<emph>M</emph> = 2.40, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.65).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-30">Indicators</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists stated that 'definitions must be clear' when operationalizing indicators of CLEL (i.e. the components defined in the first section of this survey). For example, researchers should be clear about how they are defining outcomes because 'we need to consider that CLEL should not require all individuals within a community to have the same level of understanding and environmental literacy, rather the community as a whole needs to have a sufficient level of environmental literacy, and needs to know how to leverage this literacy.' Furthermore, is the researcher measuring CLEL as a continuous process or as an endpoint that a community reaches once they get to a certain level of these indicators or a certain goal is achieved? As one participant contributed: when measuring CLEL, 'we need to consider how to measure process/engagement with an issue not just knowledge about the environmental issue.' In addition, another participant noted that 'we need to consider if CLEL is tied to success of efforts to collectively act or if the effort itself indicates CLEL.'</p> <p>In Survey 2, 93% of panelists indicated that this was an important aspect to consider when assessing CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.39, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.74). Suggestions were made to broaden the scope of what counts as 'measurement.' For instance, this theme should explicitly give space for qualitative indicators in addition to quantitative ones, perhaps mentioning emergent states (Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref75">50</reflink>]). Additionally, it was suggested that measurement definitions could or should be co-created by researchers and community members in order for it to be useful to both.</p> <p>To meet these suggestions, the theme description was modified slightly in Survey 3 to include that indicators may be broader than the conceptualization of CLEL developed by researchers in this Delphi process and to be more responsive to communities. In Survey 3, 84% of panelists agreed that the modified theme was an improvement on the original (<emph>M</emph> = 1.88, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.30).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-31">Researcher purpose and positionality</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists looked inward to examine the researcher's purpose and motivation.</p> <p>Because a researcher's motivation for measuring CLEL impacts how they go about doing so, 'we need to consider our motivation/purpose/goal for measuring CLEL in the first place' and to consider literacy 'for what purpose?' To help a community reach a certain collective impact goal? To understand the starting point of a community's literacy so that you can measure change?' Additionally, there were concerns about whether 'we need to consider how (or if) you are comparing communities' and how that may be beneficial or could unintentionally be harmful.</p> <p>Despite lower numerical agreement on the importance of this theme (74%; <emph>M</emph> = 2.07, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.87) in Survey 2, there were minimal comments or suggested revisions. Suggestions included adding researcher positionality to the theme name, and that the description should reflect continual examination of researcher purpose throughout the research process. Furthermore, the community should be at the center of any effort to measure CLEL; in the words of one respondent, 'a community's literacy is for them. It serves their purposes and meets their definitions.'</p> <p>The name for this theme was modified to replace motivation with <emph>positionality</emph>. The description was modified to include more language about the responsibility of the researcher to reflect on both their positionality and purpose continually throughout the research process. In Survey 3, 80% panelists agreed that the modifications were an improvement (<emph>M</emph> = 2.12, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.93) and 80% agreed that this theme was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.91).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-32">Community bounds</hd> <p>To measure community-level environmental literacy, panelists stated that we need to be clear about how we are defining the community in which we are working. As one panelist stated 'we need to consider where we draw boundaries around a community – is it an identity group or a neighborhood or a school or something else?' Communities can be bounded in many ways–by geography, by identity, by association, etc. (Bradshaw [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref76">16</reflink>]). Several people also emphasized that a community can change over time, as can its bounds, calling for flexibility on the researchers' part. For example, we need to 'consider how transitional or fixed the community boundaries are,' and so we 'need to be explicit and flexible about what we mean by 'community'.' Thus, when measuring CLEL, we need 'a dynamic definition of community.'</p> <p>In Survey 2, 79% of panelists indicated agreement that defining community boundaries is important for measurement purposes (<emph>M</emph> = 2.14, SD = 1.04). The overarching comments included two main suggested clarifications to the theme description. First, the community itself should be involved in its own self-definition–the researcher should not be the one defining the community. Second, the boundaries need to be defined before starting the research effort, and the researcher should regularly revisit this definition to ensure that they are still measuring within these bounds–or to note that the community bounds have shifted.</p> <p>In Survey 3, these changes to the theme description were made and consensus improved. 80% of panelists agreed that the revised theme was an improvement (<emph>M</emph> = 2.16, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.37). And 92% of panelists agreed that this aspect was important for measurement of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.32, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.75).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-33">Community components</hd> <p>Measuring CLEL requires understanding the makeup of the community. A researcher should familiarize themselves with these different elements of the community to more effectively measure CLEL. Study panelists discussed three broad types of community components in Survey 1: people, institutions, and the physical environment. We need to consider 'demographic data – age, sex, education, occupation, income;' 'what social, political, and economic institutions exist within a community that can either bolster or undermine community learning;' and 'the unique geographic and bioregional factors that make up the physical attributes of the community.'</p> <p>In Survey 2, 77% of panelists agreed that this was an important consideration for measurement of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.04, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.08). Several concrete suggestions were made to improve the description. First, the phrase 'people, institutions, and the physical environment' does not cover other important community elements, nor are all of these present in all communities. Rather, community norms, power structures, and history (particularly past injustices) are all key to understanding the current dynamics of the community. Furthermore, not all communities will have all of these components. Online communities, for example, will not have a shared physical environment. Secondly, repeatedly referring to researchers and community members separately feels antithetical to the collaborative, participatory approach this research should ideally take. Lastly, given that community components are as dynamic as the communities themselves, considering it both prior to as well as during measurement is important.</p> <p>In Survey 3, 96% of respondents agreed that the modifications were an improvement on the original (<emph>M</emph> = 2.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.59). There was complete consensus (100%) that this aspect was important to consider during measurement of CLEL (<emph>M</emph> = 2.60, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.50).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-34">Community connections</hd> <p>Given that this type of literacy is driven by connection, understanding the nature of social connections within the community of interest is important to effectively measuring CLEL. Survey 1 responses included consideration for 'social connections, social capital, social cohesion, and social networks' and 'identification of key 'nodes' in a community's environmental knowledge network' as well as consideration of the 'social context – nature of local neighborhood/city/country.'</p> <p>In Survey 2, panelists generally acknowledged the importance of this aspect (96% agree; <emph>M</emph> = 2.57, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.57). Some panelists noted that naming some tools could be useful. Suggestions for greater specificity about the dynamic nature of connections and how understanding a lack of connection–perhaps due to historic injustices–can help with understanding how CLEL is formed and how strongly.</p> <p>In Survey 3, these changes were made to the description and presented back to panelists. Eighty-eight percent of Survey 3 panelists agreed that this expanded description was an improvement on the original (<emph>M</emph> = 2.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.26).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-35">Community processes</hd> <p>Survey 1 responses emphasized how community processes, both civic and otherwise, impact how a community builds CLEL. When measuring CLEL, 'we need to consider process knowledge – knowledge of how this community manages environmental decision-making and understanding of how decision-making ought to be managed.' Furthermore, 'we need to consider the ability of individuals to influence community decision making.' Therefore, it is therefore important to understand these processes to better understand the context in which CLEL is created (or limited), including 'how local governments talk about environmental problems.'</p> <p>In Survey 2, 82% of panelists agreed that this aspect of measurement was important (<emph>M</emph> = 2.42, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.77) but offered few specific suggestions for revision. Two comments included specifying that political processes are part of this theme and acknowledging that many communities may totally lack any process for ground-level involvement in decision-making.</p> <p>For Survey 3, the theme description was improved to include these two comments. In Survey 3, 88% of panelists agreed that these modifications were an improvement (<emph>M</emph> = 2.28, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.79).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-36">Community needs</hd> <p>In Survey 1, panelists mentioned that we need to consider 'shared and distinct goals of community members' and 'community needs' when assessing CLEL. Thus, it is key to understand what a community wants as well as what might prevent them from achieving these goals. Measurement strategies can then be tailored accordingly.</p> <p>In Survey 2, panelists indicated lower agreement about this theme and its description. While 79% of panelists considered this an important theme (<emph>M</emph> = 2.29, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.90), many respondents felt that this theme did not necessarily make sense as a stand-alone theme, as other themes seemed to cover this topic already. For example, the 'inclusivity' theme and other theme descriptions already suggest CLEL measurement as a collaborative, participatory process, meaning that community needs would by definition be expressed and prioritized through the process. Likewise, understanding barriers or obstacles to CLEL could fall under the other 'understanding community' theme. From the results of Survey 2, this theme was removed in Survey 3. Eighty-eight percent of panelists agreed that the omission of this theme was an improvement (<emph>M</emph> = 2.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.86).</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-37">Synthesized framework for CLEL</hd> <p>In Survey 3, panelists overwhelmingly agreed that the CLEL summary framework, generated by combining all modified conceptualization and measurement themes into a single narrative statement, aligned with their conceptualization of CLEL. Panelists gave an average agreement value of 2.40 (on scale scored from −3 to 3), with a standard deviation of 0.65; additionally, 92% of panelists said that they either 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with the statement. This exceeds our requirements for consensus. The summary framework is as follows, with a graphical representation in Figure 3.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Graphical summary of proposed CLEL framework.</p> <p>CLEL is the capacity of a community to work towards collective action related to socio-ecological challenges in their community. Key components of this capacity include collectively-held knowledge and skills related to local socio-ecological topics as well as collective commitment and ability to pursue a shared goal.</p> <p>Achieving CLEL requires connection–both between community members and between the community and its environment–as well as intentional inclusion of the community's diverse perspectives in decision-making. CLEL is dynamic due to the ever-changing nature of a given community, its environment, and the connections between and within these elements.</p> <p>Efforts to measure CLEL must be inclusive of the community's varied values and ways of knowing, actively engaging these different people and their perspectives in the measurement process. CLEL measurers, particularly researchers or evaluators who come from outside the community of focus, should examine their own goals and positionality before and during the measurement process to ensure that community needs and perspectives are always placed first.</p> <p>Measuring CLEL requires a deep knowledge of the community of focus, including the following aspects of community: how it is bounded (e.g. by geography, by identity, by association); its major components both tangible (e.g. people, physical environment, institutions) and intangible (e.g. norms, power structures, history); the nature and structure of the social connections within it; and the processes that enable or prevent community involvement in decision-making.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-38">Discussion</hd> <p>The CLEL conceptualization findings of this study align strongly with the two pieces of existing literature around environmental literacy beyond the individual level, emphasizing its dynamic tendencies and its distributed nature. This is not particularly surprising, given the significant overlap in individuals and academic backgrounds involved in the creation of these different papers—see 'Limitations and future research' for further discussion. Nevertheless, both Gibson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref77">35</reflink>]) and Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]) frame the need for understanding collective or community-level environmental literacy as ultimately stemming from a need to understand and foster collective action, a framing with which our Delphi findings offer two divergent perspectives.</p> <p>The experts in this Delphi process underscored the dynamic nature of CLEL that follows the ever-changing characteristics of a given community and its environment—a nature that requires frequent reflection, adaptation, and iteration both in definition and in measurement. Existing literature agrees with Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>]) proposing this dynamism as one of the four key aspects of collective environmental literacy and Gibson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref80">35</reflink>]) pointing to it as a challenge in measuring CLEL. Within that general agreement, though, lies a nuanced debate over whether CLEL is a dynamic <emph>process</emph> or a dynamic <emph>capacity</emph>. The conceptualization theme related to this topic began as <emph>a continuous iterative process</emph>, arising from qualitative data gathered in Survey #1 and in alignment with past conceptualizations of environmental literacy as a process (Wheaton, Kannan, and Ardoin [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref81">70</reflink>]). However, when this theme was presented in Survey 2, some panelists felt that, although CLEL was generated through an iterative process, CLEL was not a process itself. Instead, they felt that it was a <emph>capacity</emph> for taking effective collective action, a capacity that waxes and wanes over time depending on collective knowledge, community connections, and other components of CLEL mentioned in other themes. When the theme name was proposed to be changed to <emph>a dynamic capacity</emph> in Survey 3, though, there were slightly lower levels of agreement on its importance as part of a complete conceptualization framework for CLEL; there was, however, general agreement that the changed theme name and description was an improvement on the original. These mixed results on whether CLEL is a capacity or a process indicate that it would be helpful to probe this idea further in the future, particularly as it might tie into the previous discussion of whether CLEL is a capacity for action or encompassing of action.</p> <p>The collectively-held nature of skills and knowledge related to community socio-environmental challenges link to Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref82">6</reflink>])'s ideas of shared resources, speaking to the idea that CLEL is more than just the aggregate of community members' individual-level environmental literacies. Through both their original ideas in Survey 1 and their feedback in Survey 2, Delphi panelists pointed out that, although it is necessary to have a level of knowledge and skills present within a community to achieve CLEL, this knowledge and these skills need not exist to an equal degree in every community member. Instead, knowledge and skills can be distributed throughout the community unevenly, to be located and put into action by the community when needed. Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref83">6</reflink>]) point to this idea through their concepts of shared resources (including knowledge, skills, and behaviors). Through sharing resources across the group rather than requiring every individual to build knowledge and skills in the same areas, communities can act more efficiently and accomplish more than individuals could alone. Resource sharing also relates to Gibson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>])'s discussion of how shared knowledge, action strategies, and social capital may move CLEL from a latent state (a capacity) to an enabled state (collective action). The collectively-held nature of the various aspects of CLEL, then, is a generally agreed-upon characteristic that distinguishes CLEL from individual-level literacy. Beyond the limited CLEL literature, this idea of situated and distributed knowledge is also present in emerging literature around community-level science literacy (NASEM, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref85">53</reflink>]; Roth and Calabrese Barton [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref86">60</reflink>]; Roth and Lee [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref87">61</reflink>]), adding additional credence to this Delphi finding.</p> <p>However, there is still a degree of disagreement on whether collective action is a <emph>component</emph> of CLEL or an <emph>outcome</emph> of CLEL. This debate is reflected in the relatively high standard deviation in Survey 3 of the <emph>aimed at collective action</emph> theme, indicating a lack of consensus. The open-ended feedback on this theme indicated that this divergence was likely due to the fact that some scholars viewed CLEL as describing the capacity of a community to take action (i.e. all of the steps leading up to action but not action itself) while others viewed CLEL as incomplete without action. This 'component or outcome' discussion in the Delphi study mirrors that found in the individual-level environmental literacy research, with scholars presenting environmental literacy as a precursor to Culen and Mony ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref88">26</reflink>]), pathway toward (Wheaton, Kannan, and Ardoin [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref89">70</reflink>]), or inclusive of Hollweg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref90">41</reflink>]) individual-level engagement in environmental action. Within the CLEL literature, Gibson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref91">35</reflink>]) acknowledge this tension in their paper but do not take a stance on whether CLEL is a precursor to or inclusive of collective action. In contrast, Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref92">6</reflink>]) describe collective environmental literacy as '[collective] action along with its various supporting structures and resources,' proposing that action is a component of CLEL. All authors, including those of this paper, view CLEL as a necessary step towards collective environmental action, with the two linked together in a way similar to individual-level environmental literacy and individual-level action. Further scholarly discussion may lend additional clarity to this topic.</p> <p>In addition to providing additional perspectives on CLEL conceptualization, our Delphi process also generated, for the first time, a list of measurement considerations for CLEL that may guide future research efforts in this nascent area of study. While other literature has focused largely on conceptualization (Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref93">6</reflink>]) and/or have posed limited questions on measurement (Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref94">35</reflink>]), this study outlines specific aspects—both of the researched community as well as the researchers themselves—that should be considered in CLEL measurement endeavors. Delphi panelists emphasized the importance of deeply knowing the community of focus before and during CLEL measurement, establishing thorough knowledge of its boundaries (physical or associative), its processes (including civic processes), its connections (between people and each other, as well as between people and the environment), and its key components (demographics, norms, histories, etc.).</p> <p>These themes remained relatively constant throughout the Delphi process—far more than the conceptualization themes did—with just minor suggestions of edits to the theme descriptions rather than overhauls to the theme as a whole. The early and consistent consensus across these community understanding themes suggests that they may be a good starting point for measurement considerations of CLEL, though future research is of course needed to confirm or challenge this. They also add credence to the idea brought up by Gibson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref95">35</reflink>]) that participatory research might be an appropriate approach when doing CLEL research, as members of the communities themselves bring the deepest knowledge of community possible.</p> <p>Additionally, Delphi panelists underlined the need for researcher transparency in their own purpose for measuring CLEL, their positionality with regards to the research, and the indicators they are using to assess CLEL. This, too, hints at the potential usefulness of a close researcher-community working relationship, with consistent open communication between the measurer of CLEL and the community being measured to ensure that the process is reciprocal and non-extractive. Researchers may consider looking to community-based participatory action research literature (Maiter et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref96">49</reflink>]; Bacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref97">10</reflink>]) and ethnographic scholarship (Nichols, Griffith, and McLarnon [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref98">54</reflink>]; Averill [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref99">9</reflink>]) for ideas on how to foster reciprocal, community-empowering relationships in their CLEL work, even if these methodological approaches are not those that they ultimately end up pursuing.</p> <p>Considering the findings holistically, the study also explicitly includes inclusivity and connection, both in fostering and in accurately measuring community-level environmental literacy. While previous research has discussed the value of community collaboration involving diverse groups (synergy in Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref100">6</reflink>]; representation of diverse perspectives in Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref101">35</reflink>]), this study places social justice and inclusivity directly at the center of CLEL. In their open-ended feedback in Survey 2, many Delphi panelists underscored that CLEL, by definition, should work to advance equity within a community, focusing on socio-ecological topics that interplay with social issues rather than on purely 'environmental' issues that mainstream environmentalism has focused on in the past (Thomas [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref102">66</reflink>]). One Delphi respondent put it this way: 'environmental issues without social justice does not constitute CLEL.' The conceptualization theme <emph>inclusion of the community's diverse perspectives</emph> captures this sentiment within the first sentence of its description—'CLEL is justice-oriented'—and goes on to discuss the importance of giving power to historically marginalized perspectives in decision-making around community-relevant socio-ecological issues. This idea is also reflected in the measurement consideration theme of <emph>inclusivity</emph>, which highlights the need to amplify less privileged voices when determining how to assess CLEL to avoid solely focusing on the most privileged perspectives and measurement techniques (in the United States, often ideas of Western science and quantitative measurement; Gough [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref103">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The importance of connection also emerged repeatedly in this study, suggesting that collective measurement strategies might need to be employed in order to properly grasp the degree of CLEL present within a community. Connections between individuals and their fellow community members as well as between community members and their local environments were seen as drivers of CLEL (conceptualization theme <emph>connection</emph>). This adds evidence to the theoretical (Ostrom and Ahn [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref104">58</reflink>]; Krasny [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref105">44</reflink>]) and empirical (Gibson [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref106">34</reflink>]) link between relationship-driven concepts, like social networks and social capital, and the advancement of collective action efforts. It also hints that collective measures that take these connections into account might be needed to assess CLEL (measurement consideration theme <emph>understanding community connections</emph>), in line with past suggestions of measuring collective outcomes with techniques like social network analysis (Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref107">35</reflink>]; Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref108">15</reflink>]; Cutts, Shutters, and Muñoz-Erickson [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref109">27</reflink>]). Further exploration into creative methods of capturing connection could prove to be useful for future CLEL work.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-39">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>The findings of this study are not without limitations, due in part to the nature of the Delphi methodology. A Delphi study, by nature, solely reflects the perspectives of its participant panelists. While we were intentional to invite a diversity of voices to our expert panel, participation in the study was fully voluntary and unpaid; study participation, then, could be seen as essentially adding to the underrecognized service to which scholars from historically underrepresented communities disproportionately contribute (Brissett [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref110">17</reflink>]; Wood, Hilton, and Nevarez [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref111">72</reflink>]; Baez [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref112">11</reflink>]). Not surprisingly, then, our Delphi panel was relatively homogenous, with white scholars numerically dominating the group. Given that the environmental education field is far more racially diverse than our study's experts (Gupta et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref113">39</reflink>]), this could have contributed to a conceptualization of CLEL that does not match its own stated goals of centering diverse perspectives. We humbly welcome critique from scholars of Black, Indigenous, and other historically marginalized racial and ethnic identities so that our field can work toward a better, more inclusive understanding of CLEL. Gender diversity was also lacking on our panel. While our large numbers of women on the panel generally matches the fact that environmental education as a field has more women than men in senior leadership positions (Taylor [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref114">64</reflink>]), we had no panelists beyond the dominant gender binary. This represents another weakness of the study, as these perspectives are welcomed and needed in the CLEL conversation. Finally, due to the authors' location in the United States and the majority of their networks centering around this country, there was limited expert representation beyond the US borders. Repeating a similar study in other countries and contexts might provide interesting comparative cases and spark additional fruitful discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-40">Conclusions and moving forward</hd> <p>In systematically bringing together perspectives from across the field of environmental education in iterative conversation, this study contributes to the ongoing discussion of environmental literacy beyond the individual level—moving the field one step closer to understanding how to foster collective action. The individual themes generated from this process provide guidance on the components of CLEL as well as what to keep in mind when assessing CLEL, and the synthesis framework (Figure 3) brings these ideas together in a single narrative. These themes align with past theoretical research on this topic (Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref115">35</reflink>]; Ardoin, Bowers, and Wheaton [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref116">6</reflink>]) while also adding new ideas about the central role of justice and connection in CLEL conceptualizations. The work to conceptualize community-level environmental literacy compliments work by other scholars to introduce landscape-level analysis of environmental education programming (e.g. Cutts, Saltz, and Elser [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref117">29</reflink>]; Cutts et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref118">28</reflink>];Cutts, Shutters, and Muñoz-Erickson [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]) Moving forward, we enthusiastically invite discussion with and critique from other scholars within the field of environmental education as well as adjacent fields to help us all work toward a more nuanced view of CLEL. We also encourage empirical work in CLEL that might confirm or challenge the framework established here through pilot testing it in real-world contexts. Especially in light of findings that CLEL is characterized by <emph>in situ</emph> work in communities, future research around conceptualization and measurement strategies of CLEL should expand to include as many voices as possible. As this paper focused on the academic community, an obvious next step would be broaden to those working as practitioners in environmental learning and change, particularly at the community scale. Empirical, theoretical, or otherwise, we ultimately look forward to discussion of any sort on the topic of CLEL so that the environmental education field can continue moving forward in understanding how to foster collective action needed to address today's socio-ecological challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-41">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors extend our deepest thanks to the scholars who served as expert panelists in this Delphi study, particularly the following 25 scholars who participated in all three stages of the study: Aimee Fraulo, Alex Kudryavtsev, Alison Bowers, Aparajita Rajwade, Billy Spitzer, Bora Simmons, Caitlin Reilly, Carrie McDougall, Charlotte Clark, Christopher Jadallah, Genie Bey, Ian Humphreys, Jean Goodwin, Jill K. McGowan, Ju Chou, Karen Kerr, Kathayoon Khalil, Lauren Watkins, Martha Monroe, Nils Peterson, Peta White, Roberta H. Hunter, Sarah Carrier, T'Noya Thompson, and Vince Meldrum.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-42">Ethical approval</hd> <p>The study design was approved by the North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board (IRB Protocol 24667). Only those who consented to participate are included in this study. Participants were informed that their data would be used for research purposes and for publication. Participant identities disclosed in the acknowledgements section were done so with consent from the participants, in order to credit them for their intellectual contributions to this work.</p> <hd id="AN0184138067-43">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0184138067-44"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref15" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2397595.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184138067-45"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Addo, I. B., M. C. Thoms, and M. Parsons. 2018. " Household Water Use and Conservation Behavior: A Meta-Analysis." Water Resources Research 54 (10): 8381 – 8400. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aguilar, O. 2018. " Toward a Theoretical Framework for Community EE." The Journal of Environmental Education 49 (3): 207 – 227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1397593.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmadi, A., M. Abbaspour, and N. Afkhami Namin. 2021. " Assessment of Iran Academic Environmental Education Needs with Climate Change Approach." International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 18 (1): 49 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02850-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, N. M., A. W. Bowers, N. W. Roth, and N. Holthuis. 2018. " Environmental Education and K-12 Student Outcomes: A Review and Analysis of Research." The Journal of Environmental Education 49 (1): 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1366155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, N. M., A. W. Bowers, and E. Gaillard. 2020. " Environmental Education Outcomes for Conservation: A Systematic Review." Biological Conservation 241 : 108224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, N. M., A. W. Bowers, and M. Wheaton. 2022. " Leveraging Collective Action and Environmental Literacy to Address Complex Sustainability Challenges." Ambio 52 (1): 30 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01764-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, N. M., C. Clark, and E. Kelsey. 2013. " An Exploration of Future Trends in Environmental Education Research." Environmental Education Research 19 (4): 499 – 520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.709823.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, N. M., and J. E. Heimlich. 2021. " Environmental Learning in Everyday Life: Foundations of Meaning and a Context for Change." Environmental Education Research 27 (12): 1681 – 1699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1992354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref99" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Averill, J. B. 2006. " Getting Started: Initiating Critical Ethnography and Community-Based Action Research in a Program of Rural Health Studies." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (2): 17 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bacon, C., S. deVuono-Powell, M. L. Frampton, T. LoPresti, and C. Pannu. 2013. " Introduction to Empowered Partnerships: Community-Based Participatory Action Research for Environmental Justice." Environmental Justice 6 (1): 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2012.0019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baez, B. 2000. " Race-Related Service and Faculty of Color: Conceptualizing Critical Agency in Academe." Higher Education 39 (3): 363 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003972214943.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barata, R., P. Castro, and M. A. Martins-Loução. 2017. " How to Promote Conservation Behaviours: The Combined Role of Environmental Education and Commitment." Environmental Education Research 23 (9): 1322 – 1334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1219317.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barnosky, A. D., E. A. Hadly, J. Bascompte, E. L. Berlow, J. H. Brown, M. Fortelius, W. M. Getz, et al. 2012. " Approaching a State Shift in Earth's Biosphere." Nature 486 (7401): 52 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barth, M., T. Masson, I. Fritsche, K. Fielding, and J. R. Smith. 2021. " Collective Responses to Global Challenges: The Social Psychology of Pro-Environmental Action." Journal of Environmental Psychology 74 : 101562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101562.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and J. C. Johnson. 2018. Analyzing Social Networks. 2nd ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/analyzing-social-networks/book255068.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradshaw, T. K. 2008. " The Post-Place Community: Contributions to the Debate about the Definition of Community." Community Development 39 (1): 5 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330809489738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brissett, N. 2020. " Inequitable Rewards: Experiences of Faculty of Color Mentoring Students of Color." Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 28 (5): 556 – 577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2020.1859327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chou, J. 2003. " Criteria for Selecting Quality Environmental Education Teaching Materials in Taiwan." Applied Environmental Education & Communication 2 (3): 161 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150390218289.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christie, C. A., and E. Barela. 2005. " The Delphi Technique as a Method for Increasing Inclusion in the Evaluation Process." Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 20 (1): 105 – 122. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.020.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, C. R. 2016. " Collective Action Competence: An Asset to Campus Sustainability." International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 17 (4): 559 – 578. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0073.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, C. R., J. E. Heimlich, N. M. Ardoin, and J. Braus. 2020. " Using a Delphi Study to Clarify the Landscape and Core Outcomes in Environmental Education." Environmental Education Research 26 (3): 381 – 399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1727859.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clayton, M. J. 1997. " Delphi: A Technique to Harness Expert Opinion for Critical Decision-Making Tasks in Education." Educational Psychology 17 (4): 373 – 386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170401.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornish, F., A. Gillespie, and T. Zittoun. 2014. " Collaborative Analysis of Qualitative Data." In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, edited by U. Flick, 79 – 93. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Court, D., and R. Abbas. 2022. Insider-Outsider Research in Qualitative Inquiry: New Perspectives on Method and Meaning. Routledge. https://catalog.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/NCSU5365477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowie, R. H., P. Bouchet, and B. Fontaine. 2022. " The Sixth Mass Extinction: Fact, Fiction or Speculation? " Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 97 (2): 640 – 663. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12816.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Culen, G. R., and P. R. S. Mony. 2003. " Assessing Environmental Literacy in a Nonformal Youth Program." The Journal of Environmental Education 34 (4): 26 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960309603484.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutts, B. B., S. T. Shutters, and T. A. Muñoz-Erickson. 2015. " Public Representation in Water Management—a Network Analysis of Organization and Public Perceptions in Phoenix, Arizona." Society & Natural Resources 28 (12): 1340 – 1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1020581.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutts, B. B., N. Moore, A. Fox-Gowda, A. Knox, and A. P. Kinzig. 2013. " Testing Neighborhood, Information Seeking, and Attitudes as Explanations of Environmental Knowledge Using Random Forest and Conditional Inference Models." The Professional Geographer 65 (4): 561 – 579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.724347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutts, B. B., C. Saltz, and M. Elser. 2008. " Considering the Cumulative Impact of Educational Messages: Multiple Organizations Address Water Issues in Maricopa County, Arizona." Applied Environmental Education & Communication 7 (1-2): 40 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150802194904.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daily, G. C., and P. A. Matson. 2008. " Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Implementation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (28): 9455 – 9456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804960105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delbecq, A. L., A. H. Van de Ven, and D. H. Gustafson. 1975. "Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes." Glenview, Ill. : Scott, Foresman, 1975. https://catalog.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/NCSU266858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, H. A., and J. R. Carpenter. 1992. " Delphi Study on Barriers to Environmental Education." Journal of Geological Education 40 (5): 410 – 413. https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-40.5.410.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giannarou, L., and E. Zervas. 2014. " Using Delphi Technique to Build Consensus in Practice." International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management 9 (2): 65 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, L. M. 2023. " Moving Beyond the Individual: Understanding Community-Level Environmental Literacy and Its Link to Collective Action " [Doctoral dissertation]. North Carolina State University, NC State Repository. https://<ulink href="http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.20/40241">www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.20/40241</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, L. M., K. C. Busch, K. T. Stevenson, B. B. Cutts, E. A. DeMattia, O. M. Aguilar, N. M. Ardoin, et al. 2022. " What is Community-Level Environmental Literacy, and How Can we Measure It? A Report of a Convening to Conceptualize and Operationalize CLEL." Environmental Education Research 28 (10): 1423 – 1451. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2067325.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordo, T. J. 1994. " The Delphi Method." Futures Research Methodology 2 (3): 1 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, N. 2002. " Thinking/Acting Locally/Globally: Western Science and Environmental Education in a Global Knowledge Economy." International Journal of Science Education 24 (11): 1217 – 1237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210136620.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, R. A. 2014. " The Delphi Technique in Educational Research." SAGE Open 4 (2): 215824401452977. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014529773.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gupta, R., J. Fraser, C. Shane-Simpson, S. Danoff-Burg, and N. Ardalan. 2019. " Estimating Scale, Diversity, and Professional Training of Environmental Educators in the U.S." Environmental Education Research 25 (1): 75 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1435778.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasson, F., S. Keeney, and H. McKenna. 2000. " Research Guidelines for the Delphi Survey Technique." Journal of Advanced Nursing 32 (4): 1008 – 1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollweg, K. S., J. R. Taylor, R. W. Bybee, T. J. Marcinkowski, W. C. McBeth, and P. Zoido. 2011. "Developing a Framework for Assessing Environmental Literacy." North American Association for Environmental Education. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/devframewkassessenvlitonlineed.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, 3056. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY : Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenis, A., and E. Mathijs. 2012. " Beyond Individual Behaviour Change: The Role of Power, Knowledge and Strategy in Tackling Climate Change." Environmental Education Research 18 (1): 45 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.576315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krasny, M. E. 2020. Advancing Environmental Education Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. https://<ulink href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501747090/advancing-environmental-education-practice/">www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501747090/advancing-environmental-education-practice/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landeta, J. 2006. " Current Validity of the Delphi Method in Social Sciences." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73 (5): 467 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Y. J., and Y. H. Lee. 2009. " The Development of Evaluation Criteria for the Environmental Education Programs at the Elementary and Secondary Schools." Journal of Agricultural Education and Human Resource Development 41 (4): 277 – 296. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The±Development±of±Evaluation±Criteria±for±the±Environmental±Education±Programs±at±the±Elementary±and±Secondary±Schools&author=Lee%2C±Y.J.%2C±Seoul±National±University%2C±Seoul%2C±Republic±of±Korea&publication_year=2009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linstone, H. A., and M. Turoff. 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. 1st ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louis, M. R., and J. M. Bartunek. 1992. " Insider/Outsider Research Teams: Collaboration Across Diverse Perspectives." Journal of Management Inquiry 1 (2): 101 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269212002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maiter, S., L. Simich, N. Jacobson, and J. Wise. 2008. " Reciprocity: An Ethic for Community-Based Participatory Action Research." Action Research 6 (3): 305 – 325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks, M. A., J. E. Mathieu, and S. J. Zaccaro. 2001. " A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes." The Academy of Management Review 26 (3): 356 – 376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Middlestadt, S., M. Grieser, O. Hernández, K. Tubaishat, J. Sanchack, B. Southwell, and R. Schwartz. 2001. " Turning Minds On and Faucets Off: Water Conservation Education in Jordanian Schools." The Journal of Environmental Education 32 (2): 37 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960109599136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, D. L. 2008. " Snowball Sampling." In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, edited by L. Given. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n425.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2016. " Science Literacy for Communities." In Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences, 73 – 84. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nichols, N., A. Griffith, and M. McLarnon. 2017. " Community-Based and Participatory Approaches in Institutional Ethnography." In Perspectives on and from Institutional Ethnography, edited by J. Reid & L. Russell, 15, 107 – 124. Bradford, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1042-319220170000015008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2020. "Agriculture Policy Brief: Water and Agriculture." Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/water-and-agriculture/">www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/water-and-agriculture/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okoli, C., and S. D. Pawlowski. 2004. " The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: An Example, Design Considerations and Applications." Information & Management 42 (1): 15 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ostrom, E. 2017. " Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change." In Global Justice, 423 – 430. London, UK: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ostrom, E., and T. K. Ahn. 2007. " The Meaning of Social Capital and Its Link to Collective Action." In Handbook on Social Capital: The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and Economics, edited by G. T. Svendsen & G. L. Svendsen, 17 – 35. Bloomington, Indiana: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1936058</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palys, T. 2008. " Purposive Sampling." In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, edited by L. Given. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n349.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roth, W.-M., and A. Calabrese Barton. 2004. Rethinking Scientific Literacy. New York: Routledge. https://<ulink href="http://www.routledge.com/Rethinking-Scientific-Literacy/Roth-Barton/p/book/9780415948432">www.routledge.com/Rethinking-Scientific-Literacy/Roth-Barton/p/book/9780415948432</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roth, W.-M., and S. Lee. 2002. " Scientific Literacy as Collective Praxis." Public Understanding of Science 11 (1): 33 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/1/302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlosberg, D., and L. B. Collins. 2014. " From Environmental to Climate Justice: Climate Change and the Discourse of Environmental Justice." WIREs Climate Change 5 (3): 359 – 374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seo, E., J. Ryu, and S. Hwang. 2020. " Building Key Competencies into an Environmental Education Curriculum Using a Modified Delphi Approach in South Korea." Environmental Education Research 26 (6): 890 – 914. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1733493.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, D. E. 2015. " Gender and Racial Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Uneven Accomplishments and Cause for Concern." Environmental Justice 8 (5): 165 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2015.0018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, D. 2003. "A General Inductive Approach for Qualitative Data Analysis." Auckland: School of Population Health, University of Auckland. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/84611396/Inductive_20Content_20Analysis-libre.pdf?1650539704=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DQualitative_Data_Analysis.pdf&Expires=1724788137&Signature=O93uP2BpnGjeaipAFamA8dIQIMAivCEobXa0Ysh0Tv91h2KB-maiWCqjOfHHpH8TH2ZDkCRJruIgpHuCSbXyMIMFPEVAT5DycTC8qRdPGkPqF-UP0JjsgRylElHRfrwipJQMORzD858FCe7k9YvYJ42QrKyQUxq5XStkYJAxNwm7IW-15FDdwydBYC6IpLTRz8WJmrqns9M-G1K∼TKZCcTsL299SHg4BESpA0tARpKnKklih∼XTWMHwHgnrp8ljjc37VzgsliuwalyFSErEG0gwYoXxRUMZSahcpqX3Im34Lfa6rMgTCp1E4IQ365XaBksR2yTwqsoMvIj8HkvBUbA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, L. 2022. The Intersectional Environmentalist: How to Dismantle Systems of Oppression to Protect People + Planet. New York: Voracious.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, M. D., J. Blacksmith, and J. Reno. 2000. " Utilizing Insider-Outsider Research Teams in Qualitative Research." Qualitative Health Research 10 (6): 819 – 828. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118840.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uhl, N. P. 1983. " Using the Delphi Technique in Institutional Planning." New Directions for Institutional Research 1983 (37): 81 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.37019833709.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. 1977. "Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education Final Report." UNESCO. https://<ulink href="http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/Tbilisi-Declaration.pdf">www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/Tbilisi-Declaration.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheaton, M., A. Kannan, and N. M. Ardoin. 2018. "Pathways in Environmental Literacy (No. 2; Environmental Literacy Brief)." Social Ecology Lab, Stanford University. https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/news/images/stanfordsocialecologylab-brief-2.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, S. M., R. Richard, L. Joseph, and E. Williams. 2010. " Climate Change, Environmental Justice, and Vulnerability: An Exploratory Spatial Analysis." Environmental Justice 3 (1): 13 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2009.0035.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, J. L., A. A. Hilton, and C. Nevarez. 2016. " Faculty of Color and White Faculty: An Analysis of Service in Colleges of Education in the Arizona Public University System." Journal of the Professoriate 8 (1): 85 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lauren Gibson; K. C. Busch; Kathryn Stevenson; Lynn Chesnut; Bethany Cutts and Erin Seekamp</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref118"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1465184
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Conceptualizing Community-Level Environmental Literacy Using the Delphi Method
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lauren+Gibson%22">Lauren Gibson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9894-0329">0000-0002-9894-0329</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22K%2E+C%2E+Busch%22">K. C. Busch</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4549-5401">0000-0002-4549-5401</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathryn+Stevenson%22">Kathryn Stevenson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5577-5861">0000-0002-5577-5861</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lynn+Chesnut%22">Lynn Chesnut</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1027-0456">0000-0002-1027-0456</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bethany+Cutts%22">Bethany Cutts</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7879-526X">0000-0001-7879-526X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erin+Seekamp%22">Erin Seekamp</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5082-1921">0000-0001-5082-1921</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Environmental+Education+Research%22"><i>Environmental Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 31(4):718-747.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 30
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Literacies%22">Multiple Literacies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Education%22">Community Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delphi+Technique%22">Delphi Technique</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expertise%22">Expertise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Formation%22">Concept Formation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2397595
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-4622<br />1469-5871
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: As environmental challenges increase in scope and scale, new conceptualizations for environmental literacy are needed. Specifically, notions of environmental literacy must move from those at the individual level to those at the group, or community, level. However, the concept of community level environmental literacy is underdeveloped. In this paper, we present the results of a Delphi method survey of experts, gathered to both conceptualize community level environmental literacy as well as address considerations for its measurement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1465184
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1465184
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2397595
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 30
        StartPage: 718
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Literacies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delphi Technique
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expertise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Formation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Conceptualizing Community-Level Environmental Literacy Using the Delphi Method
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lauren Gibson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: K. C. Busch
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathryn Stevenson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lynn Chesnut
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bethany Cutts
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erin Seekamp
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-4622
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-5871
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Environmental Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1