ecological literacy essay

Ecological Literacy: Teaching the Next Generation About Sustainable Development

Bioneers Environmental Education Article

As societies search for ways to become more sustainable, Fritjof Capra suggests incorporating the same principles on which nature’s ecosystems operate. In his essay, “Speaking Nature’s Language: Principles for Sustainability” from the book Ecological Literacy , he leaves a blueprint for building a more resilient world on the foundation of natural concepts, such as interdependence and diversity. This essay advocates a shift in thinking to a more holistic view of living systems: taking into account the collective interactions between the parts of the whole, instead of just the parts themselves.

Following is an excerpt from  Ecological Literacy by Fritjof Capra, David Orr, Michael Stone and Zenobia Barlow, including an introduction and Capra’s essay.

If anyone has learned to speak nature’s language, it is Fritjof Capra. A founding director of the Center for Ecoliteracy and currently chair of its board, he has distinguished himself over the past forty years as a scientist, systems theorist, and explorer of the philosophical and social ramifications of contemporary science.

Introducing him to an overflow audience at a Bioneers Conference plenary, Kenny Ausubel said, “One of Fritjof Capra’s greatest gifts is his ability to digest enormous amounts of information from highly complex, wide-ranging fields of inquiry. Not only does he explain them elegantly and clearly, but he distills their essence and sees their implications. Because he’s a credentialed scientist who did his time with particle accelerators all over Europe and the United States, Fritjof never overstates his case or lapses into wishful thinking.”

After receiving his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the University of Vienna in 1966, Capra did research in particle physics at the University of Paris, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Imperial College of the University of London, and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California. He also taught at UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, and San Francisco State University.

He is the author of five international bestsellers: The Tao of Physics (1975), The Turning Point (1982), Uncommon Wisdom (1988), The Web of Life (1996), and The Hidden Connections (2002). He coauthored Green Politics (1984), Belonging to the Universe (1991), and EcoManagement (1993), and coedited Steering Business Toward Sustainability (1995).

He is on the faculty of Schumacher College, an international center for ecological studies in England, frequently gives management seminars for top executives, and lectures widely to lay and professional audiences in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. He is an enormously popular speaker, addressing audiences of thousands, switching easily between German, French, English, Italian, and Spanish. The Center for Ecoliteracy’s single greatest source of inquiries is people from as far away as Brazil and India who find the CEL website by linking from Capra’s.

This essay distills thinking that has inspired the Center for Ecoliteracy and served as its intellectual touchstone for a decade.

AS I DISCUSSED IN THE PREFACE to this book, we can design sustainable societies by modeling them after nature’s ecosystems. To understand ecosystems’ principles of organization, which have evolved over billions of years, we need to learn the basic principles of ecology—the language of nature, if you will. The most useful framework for understanding ecology today is the theory of living systems, which is still emerging and whose roots include organismic biology, gestalt psychology, general system theory, and complexity theory (or nonlinear dynamics). For more discussion of the theory of living systems and its implications, please see my book The Hidden Connections .

What is a living system? When we walk out into nature, living systems are what we see. First, every living organism , from the smallest bacterium to all the varieties of plants and animals, including humans, is a living system. Second, the parts of living systems are themselves living systems. A leaf is a living system. A muscle is a living system. Every cell in our bodies is a living system. Third, communities of organisms , including both ecosystems and human social systems such as families, schools, and other human communities, are living systems.

Thinking in terms of complex systems is now at the very forefront of science. It is also very like the ancient thinking that enabled traditional peoples to sustain themselves for thousands of years. But although the modern version of this intellectual tradition is almost a hundred years old, it has still not taken hold in our mainstream culture. I’ve thought quite a lot about why people find systems thinking so difficult and have concluded that there are two main reasons. One is that living systems are nonlinear—they’re networks—while our whole scientific tradition is based on linear thinking—chains of cause and effect.

In linear thinking, when something works, more of the same will always be better. For instance, a “healthy” economy will show strong, indefinite economic growth. But successful living systems are highly nonlinear. They don’t maximize their variables; they optimize them. When something is good, more of the same will not necessarily be better, because things go in cycles, not along straight lines. The point is not to be efficient, but to be sustainable. Quality, not quantity, counts.

We also find systems thinking difficult because we live in a culture that is materialist in both its values and its fundamental worldview. For example, most biologists will tell you that the essence of life lies in the macromolecules— the DNA, proteins, enzymes, and other material structures in living cells. Systems theory tells us that knowledge of these molecules is, of course, very important, but the essence of life does not lie in the molecules. It lies in the patterns and processes through which those molecules interact. You can’t take a photograph of the web of life because it is nonmaterial—a network of relationships.

Perceptual Shifts

Because living systems are nonlinear and rooted in patterns of relationships, understanding the principles of ecology requires a new way of seeing the world and of thinking—in terms of relationships, connectedness, and context —that goes against the grain of traditional Western science and education. Such “contextual” or “systemic” thinking involves several shifts of perception:

From the parts to the whole. Living systems are integrated wholes whose properties cannot be reduced to those of their smaller parts. Their “systemic” properties are properties of the whole that none of the parts has.

From objects to relationships. An ecosystem is not just a collection of species, but is a community. Communities, whether ecosystems or human systems, are characterized by sets, or networks, of relationships. In the systems view, the “objects” of study are networks of relationships, embedded in larger networks. In practice, organizations designed according to this ecological principle are more likely than other organizations to feature relationship-based processes such as cooperation and decision-making by consensus.

From objective knowledge to contextual knowledge. The shift of focus from the parts to the whole implies a shift from analytical thinking to contextual thinking. The properties of the parts are not intrinsic, but can be understood only within the context of the whole. Since explaining things in terms of their contexts means explaining them in terms of their environments, all systems thinking is environmental thinking.

From quantity to quality. Understanding relationships is not easy, especially for those of us educated within a scientific framework, because Western science has always maintained that only the things that can be measured and quantified can be expressed in scientific models. It’s often been implied that phenomena that can be measured and quantified are more important—and maybe even that what cannot be measured and quantified doesn’t exist at all. Relationships and context, however, cannot be put on a scale or measured with a ruler.

From structure to process. Systems develop and evolve. Thus the understanding of living structures is inextricably linked to understanding renewal, change, and transformation.

From contents to patterns. When we draw maps of relationships, we discover certain configurations of relationships that appear again and again. We call these configurations “patterns.” Instead of focusing on what a living system is made of, we study its patterns.

Here we discover a tension between two approaches to the study of nature that has characterized Western science and philosophy throughout the ages. One approach begins with the question: What is it made of? Traditionally, this has been called the study of matter. The other approach begins with the question: What is the pattern? And this, since Greek times, has been called the study of form.

In the West, most of the time, the study of matter has dominated in science. But late in the twentieth century, the study of form came to the fore again, with the emergence of systems thinking. Chaos and complexity theory are essentially theories of patterns. The so-called strange attractors of chaos theory are visual patterns that represent the dynamics of a certain chaotic system. The fractals of fractal geometry are visual patterns. In fact, the whole new mathematics of complexity is essentially the mathematics of patterns.

Some Implications for Education

Because the study of patterns requires visualizing and mapping, every time that the study of pattern has been in the forefront, artists have contributed significantly to the advancement of science. In Western science the two most famous examples are Leonardo da Vinci, whose whole scientific work during the Renaissance could be seen as a study of patterns, and the eighteenth-century German poet Goethe, who made significant contributions to biology through his study of patterns.

This opens the door for educators’ integrating the arts into the curriculum. Whether we talk about literature and poetry, the visual arts, music, or the performing arts, there’s hardly anything more effective than art for developing and refining a child’s natural ability to recognize and express patterns.

Because all living systems share sets of common properties and principles of organization, systems thinking can be applied to integrate heretofore fragmented academic disciplines. Biologists, psychologists, economists, anthropologists, and other specialists all deal with living systems. Because they share a set of common principles, these disciplines can share a common framework.

We can also apply the shifts to human communities, where these principles could be called principles of community. Of course there are many differences between ecosystems and human communities. Not everything we need to teach can be learned from ecosystems. Ecosystems do not manifest the level of human consciousness and culture that emerged with language among primates and then came to flourish in evolution with the human species.

Sustainability in the Language of Nature

By applying systems thinking to the multiple relationships interlinking the members of the earth household, we can identify core concepts that describe the patterns and processes by which nature sustains life. These concepts, the starting point for designing sustainable communities, may be called principles of ecology, principles of sustainability, principles of community, or even the basic facts of life. We need curricula that teach our children these fundamental facts of life.

These closely related concepts are different aspects of a single fundamental pattern of organization: nature sustains life by creating and nurturing communities. Among the most important of these concepts, recognized from observing hundreds of ecosystems, are “networks,” “nested systems,” “interdependence,” “diversity,” “cycles,” “flows,” “development,” and “dynamic balance.”

Because members of an ecological community derive their essential properties, and in fact their very existence, from their relationships, sustainability is not an individual property, but a property of an entire network.

At the Center for Ecoliteracy, we understand that solving problems in an enduring way requires bringing the people addressing parts of the problem together in networks of support and conversation. Our watershed restoration work, for example (see “‘It Changed Everything We Thought We Could Do’” in Part III), began with one class of fourth-graders concerned about an endangered species of shrimp, but the work continues today because it evolved into a network that includes students, teachers, parents, funders, ranchers, design and construction professionals, NGOs, and government bodies. Each part of the network makes its own contribution to the project, the efforts of each are enhanced by the work of all, and the network has the resilience to keep the project alive even when individual members leave or move on.

Nested Systems

At all scales of nature, we find living systems nesting within other living systems—networks within networks. Although the same basic principles of organization operate at each scale, the different systems represent levels of differing complexity.

Students working on the Shrimp Project, for example, discovered that the shrimp inhabit pools that are part of a creek within a larger watershed. The creek flows into an estuary that is part of a national marine sanctuary, which is included in a larger bioregion. Events at one level of the system affect the sustainability of the systems embedded in the other levels.

Within social systems such as schools, the individual child’s learning experiences are shaped by what happens in the classroom, which is nested within the school, which is embedded in the school district and then in the surrounding school systems, ecosystems, and political systems. At each level phenomena exhibit properties that do not exist at lower levels. Choosing strategies to affect those systems requires simultaneously addressing the multiple levels and recognizing which strategies are appropriate for different levels. For instance (see “Sustainability—A New Item on the Lunch Menu” in Part IV), the Center recognized that changing schools’ food systems required moving from working with individual schools to working at the district level and then to the larger educational and economic systems in which districts are nested.

Interdependence

The sustainability of individual populations and the sustainability of the entire ecosystem are interdependent. No individual organism can exist in isolation. Animals depend on the photosynthesis of plants for their energy needs; plants depend on the carbon dioxide produced by animals and on the nitrogen fixed by bacteria at their roots. Together, plants, animals, and microorganisms regulate the entire biosphere and maintain the conditions conducive to life.

Sustainability always involves a whole community. This is the profound lesson we need to learn from nature. The exchanges of energy and resources in an ecosystem are sustained by pervasive cooperation. Life did not take over the planet by combat but by cooperation, partnership, and networking. The Center for Ecoliteracy has supported schools such as Mary E. Silveira (see “Leadership and the Learning Community” in Part III) that recognize and celebrate interdependence.

The role of diversity is closely connected with systems’ network structures. A diverse ecosystem will be resilient because it contains many species with overlapping ecological functions that can partially replace one another. When a particular species is destroyed by a severe disturbance so that a link in the network is broken, a diverse community will be able to survive and reorganize itself because other links can at least partially fulfill the function of the destroyed species. The more complex the network’s patterns of interconnections are, the more resilient it will be.

On the other hand, in communities lacking diversity, such as monocrop agriculture devoted to a single species of corn or wheat, a pest to which that species is vulnerable can threaten the entire ecosystem.

In human communities ethnic and cultural diversity may play the same role as does biodiversity in an ecosystem. Diversity means many different relationships, many different approaches to the same problem. At the Center for Ecoliteracy, we have discovered that there is no “one-size-fits-all” sustainability curriculum. We encourage and support multiple approaches to any issue, with different people in different places adapting the teaching of principles of ecology to differing and changing situations.

Matter cycles continually through the web of life. Water, the oxygen in the air, and all the nutrients are continually recycled. Communities of organisms have evolved over billions of years, using and recycling the same molecules of minerals, water, and air. Mutual dependence is much more existential in ecosystems than in social systems because the members of an ecosystem actually eat one another. Ecologists recognized this from the very beginning of ecology. They focused on feeding relations and discovered the concept of the food chain that we still use today. But then they realized that those are not linear chains but cycles, because the bigger organisms are eaten eventually by the decomposer organisms, the insects and bacteria, and so matter cycles through an ecosystem. An ecosystem generates no waste. One species’ waste becomes another species’ food. As I noted in the preface, one reason for the Center’s enthusiasm for school gardens is the opportunity that gardens afford for even very young children to experience nature’s cycles.

The lesson for human communities is obvious. A conflict between economics and ecology arises because nature is cyclical, while industrial processes are linear. Businesses transform resources into products plus waste, and sell the products to consumers, who discard more waste after consuming the products. The ecological principle “waste equals food” means that— if an industrial system is to be sustainable—all manufactured products and materials, as well as the wastes generated in the manufacturing processes, must eventually provide nourishment for something new. In such a sustainable industrial system, the total outflow of each organization—its products and wastes—would be perceived and treated as resources cycling through the system.

All living systems, from organisms through ecosystems, are open systems. Solar energy, transformed into chemical energy by the photosynthesis of green plants, drives most ecological cycles, but energy itself does not cycle. As it is converted from one form of energy to another (for instance, as the chemical energy stored in petroleum is converted into mechanical energy to drive the pistons of an automobile), some of it—often much of it—inevitably flows out and is dispersed as heat. We are therefore dependent on a constant inflow of energy.

A sustainable society would use only as much energy as it could capture from the sun—by reducing its energy demands, using energy more efficiently, and capturing the flow of solar energy more effectively through solar heating, photovoltaic electricity, wind, hydropower, biomass, and other forms of energy that are renewable, efficient, and environmentally benign. Among the complex reasons that the Center for Ecoliteracy promotes farm-to-school food programs (see “Rethinking School Lunch” in Part IV) is that buying food grown close by reduces the unrenewable energy that is required to ship tons of food over thousands of miles to supply school lunches.

Development

All living systems develop, and all development invokes learning. During its development, an ecosystem passes through a series of successive stages, from a rapidly growing, changing, and expanding pioneer community to slower ecological cycles and a more stable fully exploited ecosystem. Each stage in this ecological succession represents a distinctive community in its own right.

At the species level, development and learning are manifested as the creative unfolding of life through evolution. In an ecosystem, evolution is not limited to the gradual adaptation of organisms to their environment, because the environment is itself a network of living organisms capable of adaptation and creativity.

Individuals and environment adapt to one another—they coevolve in an ongoing dance. Because development and coevolution are nonlinear, we can never fully predict or control how the processes that we start will turn out. Small changes can have profound effects. For instance, growing their own food in a school garden can open students to the delight of tasting fresh healthy food, which can create an opportunity to change school menus, which can create a systemwide market for fresh food, which can help sustain local family farms.

On the other hand, nonlinear processes can lead to unanticipated disasters, as occurred with DDT and the development of “superorganisms” resistant to antibiotics, and as some scientists fear could happen with genetic modification of organisms. A sustainable society will exercise caution about committing itself to practices with unknown outcomes. In “The Slow School” (in Part I), Maurice Holt describes the unforeseen consequences of schools’ wholesale commitment to standards-measurement techniques derived from manufacturing and industry.

Dynamic Balance

All ecological cycles act as feedback loops, so that the ecological community continually regulates and organizes itself. When one link in an ecological cycle is disturbed, the entire cycle brings the situation back into balance, and since environmental changes and disturbances happen all the time, ecological cycles continually fluctuate.

These ecological fluctuations take place between tolerance limits, so there is always the danger that the whole system will collapse when a fluctuation goes beyond those limits and the system can no longer compensate for it. The same is true of human communities. Lack of flexibility manifests itself as stress. Temporary stress is essential to life, but prolonged stress is harmful and destructive to the system. These considerations lead to the important realization that managing a social system—a company, a city, or an economy—means finding the optimal values for the system’s variables. Trying to maximize any single variable instead of optimizing it will invariably lead to the destruction of the system as a whole.

Every living system also occasionally encounters points of instability (in human terms, points of crisis or of confusion), out of which new structures, forms, and patterns spontaneously emerge. This spontaneous emergence of order is one of life’s hallmarks and is where we see that creativity is inherent in life at all levels.

One of the most valuable skills for utilizing ecological understanding is the ability to recognize when the time is right for the emergence of new forms and patterns. For example, out of frustration with the failure of piecemeal hunger intervention to have much long-term impact, “community food security” programs are emerging across the country. This movement addresses the overall systems—from energy and transportation to government commodities purchasing to the effect of media on children’s food preferences—that permit communities to meet (or prevent them from meeting) their needs for nutritious, safe, acceptable food.

It is no exaggeration to say that the survival of humanity will depend on our ability in the coming decades to understand these principles of ecology and to live accordingly. Nature demonstrates that sustainable systems are possible. The best of modern science is teaching us to recognize the processes by which these systems maintain themselves. It is up to us to learn to apply these principles and to create systems of education through which coming generations can learn the principles and learn to design societies that honor and complement them.

Excerpted from Ecological Literacy by Fritjof Capra, David Orr, Michael Stone and Zenobia Barlow.

Learn more from Fritjof Capra here. Explore more Bioneers content on environmental education here.

• What Can I Do About the Climate Emergency?
• The Complex Landscape of Education in 2023
• The World Is Drowning in Plastic. Here’s How It All Started

Keep Your Finger on the Pulse

Our bi-weekly newsletter provides insights into the people, projects, and organizations creating lasting change in the world.

• Privacy Overview
• 3rd Party Cookies
• Bioneers Privacy Policy

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

This website uses Google Analytics and Meta (Facebook) Pixel to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

More information about our Privacy Policy can be found here.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Education Articles & More

Five ways to develop “ecoliteracy”, daniel goleman , lisa bennett , and zenobia barlow explain how we can teach kids to care deeply about the environment..

The following is adapted from Ecoliterate: How Educators Are Cultivating Emotional, Social, and Ecological Intelligence . Ecoliterate shows how educators can extend the principles of social and emotional intelligence to include knowledge of and empathy for all living systems.

For students in a first-grade class at Park Day School in Oakland, California, the most in-depth project of their young academic careers involved several months spent transforming their classroom into an ocean habitat, ripe with coral, jellyfish, leopard sharks, octopi, and deep-sea divers (or, at least, paper facsimiles of them). Their work culminated in one special night when, suited with goggles and homemade air tanks, the boys and girls shared what they had learned with their parents. It was such a successful end to their project that several children had to be gently dragged away as bedtime approached.

By the next morning, however, something unexpected had occurred: When the students arrived at their classroom at 8:55 a.m., they found yellow caution tape blocking the entrance. Looking inside, they saw the shades drawn, the lights out, and some kind of black substance covering the birds and otters. Meeting them outside the door, their teacher, Joan Wright-Albertini, explained: “There’s been an oil spill.”

“Oh, it’s just plastic bags,” challenged a few kids, who realized that the “oil” was actually stretched-out black lawn bags. But most of the students were transfixed for several long minutes. Then, deciding that they were unsure if it was safe to enter, they went into another classroom, where Wright-Albertini read from a picture book about oil spills.

The children already knew a little bit about oil spills because of the 2010 accident in the Gulf of Mexico—but having one impact “their ocean” made it suddenly personal. They leaned forward, a few with mouths open, listening to every word. When she finished, several students asked how they could clean up their habitat. Wright-Albertini, who had anticipated the question, showed them footage of an actual cleanup—and, suddenly, they were propelled into action. Wearing gardening gloves, at one boy’s suggestion, they worked to clean up the habitat they had worked so hard to create.

Later, they joined their teacher in a circle to discuss what they learned: why it was important to take care of nature, what they could do to help, and how the experience made them feel. “It broke my heart in two,” said one girl. Wright-Albertini felt the same way. “I could have cried,” she said later. “But it was so rich a life lesson, so deeply felt.” Indeed, through the mock disaster, Wright-Albertini said she saw her students progress from loving the ocean creatures they had created to loving the ocean itself. She also observed them understand a little bit about their connection to nature and gain the knowledge that, even as six and seven year olds, they could make a difference.

It was a tender, and exquisitely planned, teachable moment that reflected what 
a growing number of educators have begun to identify as a deeply felt imperative: To foster learning that genuinely prepares young people for the ecological challenges presented by this entirely unprecedented time in human history.

“Ecoliterate” is our shorthand for the end goal of this kind of learning, and raising ecoliterate students requires a process that we call “socially and emotionally engaged ecoliteracy”—a process that, we believe, offers an antidote to the fear, anger, and hopelessness that can result from inaction. As we saw in Wright-Albertini’s classroom, the very act of engaging in some of today’s great ecological challenges—on whatever scale is possible or appropriate—develops strength, hope, and resiliency in young people.

Ecoliteracy is founded on a new integration of emotional, social, and ecological intelligence—forms of intelligence popularized by Daniel Goleman . While social and emotional intelligence extend students’ abilities to see from another’s perspective, empathize, and show concern, ecological intelligence applies these capacities to an understanding of natural systems and melds cognitive skills with empathy for all of life. By weaving these forms of intelligence together, ecoliteracy builds on the successes—from reduced behavioral problems to increased academic achievement—of the movement in education to foster social and emotional learning. And it cultivates the knowledge, empathy, and action required for practicing sustainable living.

To help educators foster socially and emotionally engaged ecoliteracy, we have identified the following five practices. These are, of course, not the only ways to do so. But we believe that educators who cultivate these practices offer a strong foundation for becoming ecoliterate, helping themselves and their students build healthier relationships with other people and the planet. Each can be nurtured in age-appropriate ways for students, ranging from pre-kindergarten through adulthood, and help promote the cognitive and affective abilities central to the integration of emotional, social, and ecological intelligence.

1. Develop empathy for all forms of life

At a basic level, all organisms—including humans—need food, water, space, and conditions that support dynamic equilibrium to survive. By recognizing the common needs we share with all organisms, we can begin to shift our perspective from a view of humans as separate and superior to a more authentic view of humans as members of the natural world. From that perspective, we can expand our circles of empathy to consider the quality of life of other life forms, feel genuine concern about their well-being, and act on that concern.

Most young children exhibit care and compassion toward other living beings.
This is one of several indicators that human brains are wired to feel empathy and concern for other living things. Teachers can nurture this capacity to care by creating class lessons that emphasize the important roles that plants and animals play in sustaining the web of life. Empathy also can be developed through direct contact with other living things, such as by keeping live plants and animals in the classroom; taking field trips to nature areas, zoos, botanical gardens, and animal rescue centers; and involving students in field projects such as habitat restoration.

Another way teachers can help develop empathy for other forms of life is by studying indigenous cultures. From early Australian Aboriginal culture to the Gwich’in First Nation in the Arctic Circle, traditional societies have viewed themselves as intimately connected to plants, animals, the land, and the cycles of life. This worldview of interdependence guides daily living and has helped these societies survive, frequently in delicate ecosystems, for thousands of years. By focusing on their relationship with their surroundings, students learn how a society lives when it values other forms of life.

2. Embrace sustainability as a community practice

Organisms do not survive in isolation. Instead, the web of relationships within any living community determines its collective ability to survive and thrive.

By learning about the wondrous ways that plants, animals, and other living things are interdependent, students are inspired to consider the role of interconnectedness within their communities and see the value in strengthening those relationships by thinking and acting cooperatively.

The notion of sustainability as a community practice, however, embodies some characteristics that fall outside most schools’ definitions of themselves as a “com- munity,” yet these elements are essential to building ecoliteracy. For example, by examining how their community provisions itself—from school food to energy use—students can contemplate whether their everyday practices value the common good.

Other students might follow the approach taken by a group of high school students in New Orleans known as the “Rethinkers,” who gathered data about the sources of their energy and the amount they used and then surveyed their peers by asking, “How might we change the way we use energy so that we are more resilient and reduce the negative impacts on people, other living beings, and the planet?” As the Rethinkers have shown, these projects can give students the opportunity to start building a community that values diverse perspectives, the common good, a strong network of relationships, and resiliency.

3. Make the invisible visible

Historically—and for some cultures still in existence today—the path between
a decision and its consequences was short and visible. If a homesteading family cleared their land of trees, for example, they might soon experience flooding, soil erosion, a lack of shade, and a huge decrease in biodiversity.

But the global economy has created blinders that shield many of us from experiencing the far-reaching implications of our actions. As we have increased our use of fossil fuels, for instance, it has been difficult (and remains difficult for many people) to believe that we are disrupting something on the magnitude of the Earth’s climate. Although some places on the planet are beginning to see evidence of climate change, most of us experience no changes. We may notice unusual weather, but daily weather is not the same as climate disruption over time.

If we strive to develop ways of living that are more life-affirming, we must find ways to make visible the things that seem invisible.

Educators can help through a number of strategies. They can use phenomenal web-based tools, such as Google Earth, to enable students to “travel” virtually and view the landscape in other regions and countries. They can also introduce students to technological applications such as GoodGuide and Fooducate, which cull from a great deal of research and “package” it in easy-to-understand formats that reveal the impact of certain household products on our health, the environment, and social justice. Through social networking websites, students can also communicate directly with citizens of distant areas and learn firsthand what the others are experiencing that is invisible to most students. Finally, in some cases, teachers can organize field trips to directly observe places that have been quietly devastated as part of the system that provides most of us with energy.

4. Anticipate unintended consequences

Many of the environmental crises that we face today are the unintended consequences of human behavior. For example, we have experienced many unintended but grave consequences of developing the technological ability to access, produce, and use fossil fuels. These new technological capacities have been largely viewed as progress for our society. Only recently has the public become aware of the downsides of our dependency on fossil fuels, such as pollution, suburban sprawl, international conflicts, and climate change.

Teachers can teach students a couple of noteworthy strategies for anticipating unintended consequences. One strategy—the precautionary principle—can be boiled down to this basic message: When an activity threatens to have a damaging impact on the environment or human health, precautionary actions should be taken regardless
of whether a cause-and-effect relationship has been scientifically confirmed. Historically, to impose restrictions on new products, technologies, or practices, the people concerned about possible negative impacts were expected to prove scientifically that harm would result from them. By contrast, the precautionary principle (which is now in effect in many countries and in some places in the United States) places the burden of proof on the producers to demonstrate harmlessness and accept responsibility should harm occur.

Another strategy is to shift from analyzing a problem by reducing it to its isolated components, to adopting a systems thinking perspective that examines the connections and relationships among
the various components of the problem. Students who can apply systems thinking are usually better at predicting possible consequences of a seemingly small change to one part of the system that can potentially affect the entire system. One easy method for looking at a problem systemically is by mapping it and all of its components and interconnections. It is then easier to grasp the complexity of our decisions and foresee possible implications.

Finally, no matter how adept we are at applying the precautionary principle
and systems thinking, we will still encounter unanticipated consequences of our actions. Building resiliency—for example, by moving away from mono-crop agriculture or by creating local, less centralized food systems or energy networks—is another important strategy for survival in these circumstances. We can turn
to nature and find that the capacity of natural communities to rebound from unintended consequences is vital to survival.

5. Understand how nature sustains life

Ecoliterate people recognize that nature has sustained life for eons; as a result, they have turned to nature as their teacher and learned several crucial tenets. Three of those tenets are particularly imperative to ecoliterate living.

First of all, ecoliterate people have learned from nature that all living organisms are members of a complex, interconnected web of life and that those members inhabiting a particular place depend upon their interconnectedness for survival. Teachers can foster an understanding of the diverse web of relationships within a location by having students study that location as a system.

Second, ecoliterate people tend to be more aware that systems exist on various levels of scale. In nature, organisms are members of systems nested within other systems, from the micro-level to the macro-level. Each level supports the others to sustain life. When students begin to understand the intricate interplay of relation- ships that sustain an ecosystem, they can better appreciate the implications for survival that even a small disturbance may have, or the importance of strengthening relationships that help a system respond to disturbances.

Finally, ecoliterate people collectively practice a way of life that fulfills the needs of the present generation while simultaneously supporting nature’s inherent ability to sustain life into the future. They have learned from nature that members of a healthy ecosystem do not abuse the resources they need in order to survive. They have also learned from nature to take only what they need and to adjust their behavior in times of boom or bust. This requires that students learn to take a long view when making decisions about how to live.

These five practices, developed by the Berkeley-based Center for Ecoliteracy , offer guideposts to exciting, meaningful, and deeply relevant education that builds on social and emotional learning skills. They can also plant the seeds for a positive relationship with the natural world that can sustain a young person’s interest and involvement for a lifetime.

About the Authors

Daniel Goleman

Daniel Goleman, Ph.D., is the author of the bestsellers Emotional Intelligence , Social Intelligence , and Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence . He has been awarded the American Psychological Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award and is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. You can learn more about Goleman and his work at www.danielgoleman.info .

Zenobia Barlow

Lisa bennett.

Lisa Bennett is a Bay Area writer focused on solutions to climate change. She is the coauthor of Ecoliterate: How Educators Are Cultivating Emotional, Social, and Ecological Intelligence . Follow her on Twitter @LisaPBennett

You May Also Enjoy

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Assessing ecological literacy and its application based on linguistic ecology: a case study of Guiyang City, China

Changchen ha.

1 School of Foreign Studies, South China Agricultural University, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640 Guangdong China

Guowen Huang

2 Center for Ecolinguistics, South China Agricultural University, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640 Guangdong China

Jiaen Zhang

3 College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640 Guangdong China

4 Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Circular Agriculture, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640 Guangdong China

Shumin Dong

5 School of Chinese Ethnic Minority Languages and Literature, Minzu University of China, No. 27 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing, 100081 China

Associated Data

The datasets and materials used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

To address the frequent emergence of ecological problems, ecology has intersected with various disciplines. From the perspective of linguistic ecology, ecological literacy is an important concept that combines the subjects of ecology and linguistics. It not only discusses ecological issues, but also establishes a linguistic framework. Here, we constructed a quantitative method of assessing ecological literacy from the perspective of linguistic ecology. Ecological literacy was divided into five parts: ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. Each of these was set with four quantitative indicators that were evaluated through eight questions. A case study was conducted to investigate the ecological literacy of the inhabitants of Guiyang City, one of China’s top ten ecologically advanced cities. The results showed that the proposed assessment method was an effective way to evaluate the level of ecological literacy comprehensively. In the case analysis, the overall ecological literacy level of Guiyang inhabitants was relatively good, and the levels of the five specific dimensions of them in descending order were as follows: ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological knowledge literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. The results of this study are conducive to the production of targeted ways to improve the level of ecological literacy for sustainable development.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-021-16753-7.

Introduction

Since the 1900s, with the accelerated development of the economy, science, and technology, human life has greatly improved. Meanwhile, it has also brought about many global ecological problems pertaining to population, resources, and the environment. In particular, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which began at the end of 2019, has once again sounded the alarm regarding human attitudes and behavior toward nature. In the context of the tense relationship between humans and the natural environment, researchers in many countries and different fields have started looking at the surrounding world from an ecological perspective, re-examining the thoughts and behavior of humankind, and working hard to solve environmental problems. Thus, the phenomenon of so-called ecologicalization in contemporary science has formed many emerging interdisciplinary subjects related to ecology (Li and Yuan 1988 ), including environmental ecology (Jin 1992 ), human ecology (Wang 1998 ), urban ecology (Wu et al. 2014 ), and linguistic ecology (Alexander and Stibbe 2014 ; Huang 2016 ). The key point is to study many problems in human production and life from the perspective of ecology or by using the principles of ecology.

It is crucial to our survival and development to establish integrity in the relationship between humans and nature. Therefore, we must understand life-sustaining ecosystems and their operating methods, while gaining ecological knowledge. This is the basis for ecological literacy, which plays an important role in the sustainable development of society. With the emergence of multiple negative factors, such as industrialization, urbanization, population growth, resource consumption, and the endangerment and extinction of species, the current epoch has been named the Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000 ; Steffen et al. 2007 ; Scholz 2011 ; Huang and Xiao 2017 ), signaling a series of changes to the relationship between humans and nature. People are generally worried that the overall level of ecological literacy in many countries and regions is insufficient to make effective decisions for an ecologically sustainable lifestyle. Although ecological knowledge and ecological literacy are only contributing factors to sustainable development, they are fundamental and cannot be replaced by other factors. This has prompted various countries and regions to assess the level of ecological literacy and promote research in this area.

Ecological literacy involves many factors, making its assessment especially complicated. In recent years, many researchers have developed ecological literacy assessment tools and applied them to research on middle school and secondary education (NAAEE 2011a , 2011b ; Shen et al. 2020 ). At the same time, some researchers have focused on the ecological literacy of adults (Arcury 1990 ; McDaniel and Alley 2005 ; Davidson 2010 ; Pitman and Daniels 2016 ; Pitman et al. 2016 , 2017 ). Other studies on ecological literacy have covered a more comprehensive age range, by including both adolescents and adults (Wang et al. 2017 ; Lin and Cai 2019 ). But because such studies cover a wider range of ages, the scope of other factors, such as regional selection, is usually relatively small.

In China, research on ecological literacy and the related characteristics of inhabitants in ecologically advanced cities is important because it is conducive to the generation and optimization of sustainable decisions. Here, we concentrated on ecological literacy in Guiyang City, China. We proposed an assessment method based on linguistic ecology. We applied the proposed method to a case study of the inhabitants in Guiyang. We asked three questions: (1) What does the term “ecological literacy” mean in the perspective of linguistic ecology? (2) How can ecological literacy be assessed in an efficient and meaningful way in China? (3) What can we learn from the case study of Guiyang City about the inhabitants’ ecological literacy level? These research questions are answered in the next two sections.

Concepts and methods

Linguistic ecology.

In the expansion of ecology to the humanities, the combination of ecology and linguistics has formed an emerging discipline, called linguistic ecology or the ecology of language. From the perspective of ecology, the roots of linguistic ecology can be traced back to research on human ecology. Human ecology advocates the use of ecological methods to explore the relationship between humans and nature. Rusong Wang ( 1998 ), a well-known ecologist in China, described human ecology as the combination of ecology, sociology, economics, and other disciplines at different levels. Although these disciplines have different origins, they all involve the subject of the relationship between humans and nature, and they require the application of systematic, comprehensive, and evolutionary ecological methods.

Linguistic ecology emphasizes the influence of language on the sustainable relationship of life, including the relationships between language and humans, humans and other species, and humans and the physical environment. Linguistic ecology aims to reveal the interaction between language and the environment, mainly through the study of the ecological factors of language and the relationship between language and the ecological environment (Alexander and Stibbe 2014 ; Huang 2016 ), with the ultimate aim of enhancing ecological awareness and ecological literacy. This means that ecological philosophy is an important guiding factor. Linguistic ecology also refers to the problem of ecological thought. Such practices can serve as a guide to achieve agreement between knowledge and action, solving the ecological problems, and changing the ecological status quo.

Ecological literacy

Literacy and environmental literacy.

The term “literacy” first appeared in the late nineteenth century. It was originally exclusive to the fields of reading and writing and referred to the ability to read and write (Stibbe 2009 ). It was thus terminology that first pertained to linguistics. Since the Industrial Revolution, usage of the term “literacy” has gradually expanded. In the 1960s, a literate citizen was thought to have knowledge and capability in a particular field or fields, and to be able to take effective action on many complex issues facing society (McBridge et al. 2013 ). Therefore, the term “literacy” has expanded to include knowledge of specific disciplines or problems, and it can now refer to one’s level of knowledge and capability in such fields. The terms “environmental literacy” and “ecological literacy” have since appeared in ecological research. Ecological literacy evolved from environmental literacy, and these two concepts are inseparable.

The term “environmental literacy” was first used by Charles Roth in research on the topic of understanding environmentally literate citizens (Roth 1968 ; Roth 1992 ; Morrone et al. 2001 ; O’ Brien 2007 ). But attention to the issue began in the early 1960s. Rachel Carson questioned the abnormal phenomena of the natural environment in America in her book, "Silent Spring" (Carson 1962 ). At present, the most widely used definition of environmental literacy is the one proposed by the NAAEE, which indicated that environmental literacy includes awareness and concern about the environment and environmental issues, as well as knowledge, skills, and the motivation to solve current related problems and prevent new problems (NAAEE 2000/2004 , 2011a , 2011b ; Scholz 2011 ). Although this research does not discuss the content and framework of environmental literacy directly, environmental literacy is a broader concept. Ecological literacy is a secondary concept, and it is also the development of the connotation of environmental literacy. Ecological literacy provides the necessary ecological foundation for environmental literacy.

Concepts and framework of ecological literacy in linguistic ecology

Ecological literacy is a relatively abstract concept, and scholars differ in understanding the concept and framework of ecological literacy. After Paul Risser pointed out in 1986 that America had certain shortcomings in scientific literacy, especially ecology-based literacy, many researchers began discussing the concept of ecological literacy (Risser 1986 ; Orr 1992 ; Berkowitz et al. 2005 ; Coyle 2005 ; Bruyere 2008 ; McBride et al. 2013 ; Pitman and Daniels 2016 ; Huang and Zhao 2019 ; Huang and Ha 2021 ). Coyle ( 2005 ) proposed a visual pyramid to discuss personal ecological literacy. The pyramid is composed of three levels from bottom to top: environmental knowledge, environmental attitudes, and ecological literacy. Ecological literacy is at the top of the pyramid because it is developed through personal environmental knowledge, values, and actions taken in response to environmental problems. Other researchers have divided ecological literacy into different categories: ecological knowledge, ecological attitudes, and ecological behavior (Bruyere 2008 ); or ecological knowledge literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy (Huang and Zhao 2019 ).

We submit that ecological awareness is another important part of the framework of ecological literacy in linguistic ecology. Thus, we propose the following five factors: (1) ecological knowledge literacy; (2) ecological awareness literacy; (3) ecological ethics literacy; (4) ecological emotional literacy; and (5) ecological behavioral literacy. In essence, ecological literacy refers to the acquisition and dissemination of ecological knowledge, enhancing awareness of ecological protection, and ultimately guiding the sustainable development of ecological behavior to achieve a higher level of ecological literacy. In other words, the five dimensions of ecological literacy comprise a unified whole, and each of them is almost equally important theoretically (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). They influence each other interactively. Of these, ecological knowledge literacy is foundational, ecological awareness literacy indicates the direction of action, ecological ethics literacy emphasizes moral standards, ecological emotional literacy is the internal driving force, and ecological behavioral literacy is the ultimate goal.

Formation process of ecological literacy

People acquire ecological knowledge through various channels such as national or local policies, social-level publicity and education, family guidance, and gradually formed ecological knowledge literacy. As ecological problems become more and more serious, ecosystems continue to be destroyed, and natural disasters frequently occur, people will have a sense of crisis and indirectly realize the importance of harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural environment. Through their own ecological knowledge, they will enhance their awareness and emotions regarding environmental protection. With strong ecological awareness, people will also be restricted by ecological ethics and morals, and their ecological awareness literacy will be regulated. Moreover, people affected by ecological ethics will continue to judge their own psychological direction based on their own emotional attitudes or ecological philosophy. Positive emotional factors will form a certain ability for ecological emotional literacy, which will provide a strong motivation for ecological behavior. Under the comprehensive effects of various national and regional regulations, as well as their own ecological knowledge, ecological awareness, ecological ethics, and ecological emotional literacy, people will carry out their own ecological protection behavior and form their own ecological behavioral literacy. Ecological literacy levels will thus be improved. After ecological literacy levels improve, further self-reflection is needed to continue to strengthen the acquisition of ecological knowledge, the enhancement of ecological awareness, the consolidation of ecological ethics, and the improvement of ecological emotion and ecological behavior. This will be more conducive to the development of ecological society, and it will produce a higher level of ecological literacy to realize the effect of ecological literacy on ecological knowledge literacy.

In July 2015, the first National Ecological Civilization Construction Summit Forum and the City and Scenic Area Ecological Civilization Achievement Conference was held in Beijing, China. The theme of the meeting was “Promoting the Construction of Ecological Civilization and Building a Beautiful Green Home”. The following cities in China were named the most ecologically advanced (i.e., “ecologically civilized”): Longyan City, Zhongshan City, Guiyang City, Qinhuangdao City, Liuyang City, Wuxi City, Xuzhou City, Dezhou City, Qingdao City, Shangri-La City (Figure ​ (Figure2 2 ).

Distribution of China’s top ten ecologically advanced cities and administrative district division of Guiyang City

Combining the actual situation of the surveyed cities and the feasibility of the survey process, we selected Guiyang City as a case study. The participants were local inhabitants, and according to the overall sampling statistics method, an effective sample size of inhabitants was randomly selected for the research.

Guiyang City is the capital of Guizhou Province. It is located in the southwestern region of China and in the center of Guizhou Province, at 106°07′–107°17′ E, 26°11′–26°55′ N (Figure ​ (Figure2). 2 ). It is the political, economic, cultural, scientific, educational, and transportation center of Guizhou Province. The construction of ecological civilization in Guiyang City started early, beginning with the completion of two forest belts around the city in the 1980s. In 2002, it was designated by the State Environmental Protection Administration as the country’s first pilot unit for an ecological city with a circular economy. In 2009, there was an ecological civilization conference held in Guiyang City, and this was upgraded to the Guiyang International Forum on Ecological Civilization in 2013, the only national-level international forum on ecological civilization in China at that time. In 2018, Guiyang City was listed among the “2018 Top Ten Cities for Green Development and Ecological Civilization Construction”.

As of the end of 2018, Guiyang City has a land area of 8043.37 km 2 and a forest coverage rate of 39.19%, including six districts, three counties, and one county-level city (Figure ​ (Figure2). 2 ). The permanent population (i.e., inhabitants for 6 months or longer) is 4,881,900, including an urban population of 3,682,400 and a rural population of 1,199,500, covering more than 30 ethnic minorities. We conducted a sample survey of the inhabitants of Guiyang City, taking six districts, three counties, and one county-level city in Guiyang City as the sampling level, and stratifying the inhabitants of each district (city, county) according to a certain proportion. Random sampling was used to reflect the overall level of the ecological literacy of the inhabitants in Guiyang City. One issue that needs special attention here is the definition of the research object “inhabitants”. In the survey process, combined with the statistics of the permanent population in the "Guiyang Statistical Yearbook 2019", the “inhabitants” involved in this study refer to the permanent inhabitants of Guiyang City, that is, the people who had lived in Guiyang City for 6 months or longer before the start of the survey (i.e., before September 30th, 2020) and who lived in Guiyang City throughout the survey. Other populations were not within the scope of the study.

Questionnaire design

Design steps.

To design the questionnaire, we proceeded as follows. The first step was to determine the conceptual framework and dimensions of “ecological literacy,” including ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy as the first-level indicators of ecological literacy. An analytic hierarchy process in statistics requires that the indicators considered can be investigated and measured in actual situations; this required us to construct a series of decomposition content reflecting the force and influence of the elements, and to analyze the decomposition content. This content is described in detail (Xiao and Fan 2011 ). Therefore, within the scope of each first-level indicator, after discussions with five Chinese experts and scholars in the field of ecology, especially in the field of linguistic ecology, we formulated second-level indicators under the five first-level indicators of the concept of ecological literacy in this study (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). The weight of each first-level indicator and second-level indicator was the same, and they were regarded as equally important. It means the number of second-level indicators in each dimension has to be equal. In a similar way, the number of survey questions in each second-level indicator has also to be equal. Taking into account the actual situation of the questionnaire survey, too many or too few survey questions may affect the effectiveness of the survey results. There are four second-level indicators under each first-level indicator finally. For this study, such a number (four second-level indicators with eight questions) not only guarantees the comprehensiveness of the survey contents, but also does not reduce the effectiveness of the participants’ answers due to too many survey questions.

Second-level indicators of ecological literacy

During the second step, we devised specific questions in the questionnaire under each second-level indicator. The topics were selected with reference to the “China Urban Public Environmental Awareness Questionnaire” developed by the Public Environmental Awareness Research Group of the State Environmental Protection Administration and the Public Environmental Awareness Research Group of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2005, and an effective survey developed by Pitman and Daniels ( 2016 ) of the University of South Australia on ecological literacy level assessment scale and questionnaire questions. At the same time, combined with China’s ecologically advanced cities and current heated issues regarding the environment, as well as the specific situation in Guiyang City, the first draft of the research questionnaire was formed. Although part of the questionnaire design draws on preliminary research results, due to the quantitative assessment of the ecological literacy level, there is currently no unified assessment scale. Therefore, we designed most of the content in this step.

The third step was to revise and improve the first draft of the questionnaire to form the final version of the questionnaire. This step involved two statistical forecast stages. After the second forecast stage, we tested the reliability of the questionnaire within an acceptable range before proceeding to the actual measurement stage. Subsequently, the forecast respondents’ opinions and suggestions on the content of the questionnaire were collected, and the content of the questionnaire was carefully analyzed and improved. Finally, after issuing the questionnaire and collecting responses during the actual measurement phase, we examined the total reliability of the questionnaire in detail, as well as the validity of the scale, to ensure the authentic validity of the survey data for data analysis.

Topic structure

The final version of the questionnaire contained 60 survey questions. Of these, there were 40 questions on ecological literacy. In what follows, we focus on discussing this part. The ecological literacy survey was designed to assess the level of ecological literacy of the inhabitants in Guiyang City, and the scores needed to be measured quantitatively. The measurement part of the ecological literacy level score of this study was designed in the form of a five-point Likert scale (five-point scoring). There were 40 survey questions, and each question had five options ( Appendix ). The options were sorted in ascending or descending order. This could better distinguish the nuances of the respondent’s ecological literacy level and thus produce more accurate measurement results. The minimum score that a respondent could get in this part was 40 points, and the maximum score was 200 points. Specifically, there were five topics: ecological knowledge, ecological awareness, ecological ethics, ecological emotion, and ecological behavior. Each topic included eight sub-topics to examine the corresponding second-level indicators of ecological literacy.

Reliability and validity

The reliability of the questionnaire, that is, whether the results of the questionnaire were internally consistent, was evaluated by Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient. Normally, a Cronbach’s Alpha above 0.70 ( α ≥0.70) indicates that the questionnaire has a certain degree of credibility (Cortina 1993 ; Gleim and Gliem 2003 ), and the higher the value, the more reliable the data results, and the greater the confidence. But if the Cronbach’s Alpha is between 0.60 and 0.70 (0.60≤ α <0.70), the result of reliability is also acceptable to the study (Zhou 2017 : 44). Two reliability tests were carried out in this study. The reliability of 97 samples in the prediction phase was tested, and the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.872 (overall ecological literacy level). Then, we tested all 494 samples used for the analysis. The Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.888 (overall ecological literacy level), and the reliability coefficients of all five dimensions were also above 0.60. Its internal consistency (the questionnaire) was thus within an acceptable range, indicating high credibility suitable for further statistical analysis of data.

The validity of a questionnaire mainly refers to the degree of validity of the questionnaire measurement results. The higher the validity of the questionnaire, the closer the collected data are to the actual purpose of the survey. Generally, the validity of a questionnaire includes content validity and structural validity (Chai 2010 ). Specifically, the content validity of a questionnaire is combined with expert judgments, and structural validity refers to the construction validity, which mainly detects the structure of a questionnaire by the factors of the Estimate, CR, and AVE. The evaluation criteria for these factors were set as Estimate above 0.45, CR above 0.60, AVE above 0.36 (Wu 2010 , 2013 ; Wan et al. 2015 ). Because the dimensions of our questionnaire are discussed in detail in the previous sections, that is, because the dimensions of the questionnaire are known, the structural validity of the questionnaire was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 23.0 software, to ensure that the questionnaire had explanatory power. After testing this, the content validity and structural validity (Estimate: 0.67; CR: 0.95; AVE: 0.49) of our questionnaire were found to be within the acceptable range.

Data collection

We adopted a combination of network distribution and paper distribution; network distribution was the main method, and paper distribution was supplementary. Online distribution involved a questionnaire network platform, with the questionnaire sent and received by e-mail; paper distribution involved using centralized fixed-point distribution and mailing. We combined the total permanent population of Guiyang City and the population of each district (city, county) in the survey area and decided to use the 10 districts (cities, counties) of Guiyang City as a benchmark, with random stratification according to a ratio of 1:10,000 sampling.

Therefore, at least 494 copies of the questionnaire needed to be distributed during the survey process of this study. The survey of participants was completely based on the principle of voluntary participation, and the survey results were anonymous. However, a minimum of 494 questionnaires were needed to guarantee the validity. In order to ensure that the minimum effective sample size drawn met the needs of the survey, we increased the number of questionnaire surveys by 10% on the basis of the minimum sample size. Thus, we needed to distribute at least 494 × (1 + 10%) = 543.4 (take 544) questionnaires. Hopkins et al. ( 1990 ) pointed out in related research that subjects who fill out questionnaires faster do not necessarily answer interview questions better, and the evaluation process should not consider speed. Thus, the speed of answering has a negligible relationship with the understanding of knowledge. Therefore, we did not have strict requirements on the answering speed of the questionnaire, although it usually took about 10–15 min to complete. The duration of the entire survey was about 6 weeks in October and November of 2020.

In this study, a total of 600 questionnaires were distributed and 591 were collected, of which 539 were valid questionnaires. Then, in accordance with the above-mentioned standard of 494 samples and the number of samples drawn in each administrative region, questionnaires that exceeded the sample size were randomly eliminated. Thus, 494 valid questionnaires were summarized, numbered, and entered into a Microsoft Excel table one-by-one.

Data analysis

We analyzed the collected data using SPSS 25.0. To do so, we analyzed the overall ecological literacy level of the inhabitants in Guiyang City. The data from this part were mainly obtained from the score statistics of the 40 questions in the questionnaire, including the normality test of the questionnaire, descriptive statistics of the overall level analysis, and descriptive statistical analysis and correlation analysis of the five dimensions of ecological literacy. Then, we conducted descriptive statistical analysis and a brief analysis of the second-level indicators in the five dimensions of ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. This was done to understand the ecological literacy of the inhabitants of Guiyang at a micro-level so that we could propose targeted strategies to improve the level of ecological literacy.

Results and discussion

Overall ecological literacy level.

The overall ecological literacy level of the participants is the total score from the 40 questions in the questionnaire. The descriptive statistics of SPSS 25.0 show that the total ecological literacy measurement scores of the 494 Guiyang inhabitants surveyed were normally distributed on the whole. The average score was 158.91 points (158.91 ± 14.693, 79.46%), with a minimum of 105 points, and a maximum of 199 points (Figure ​ (Figure3). 3 ). From the score rate of the scale here, it can be seen that the overall ecological literacy level of the inhabitants of Guiyang City was relatively good. The average score rate of the questionnaire was close to 80%, which was at the middle and upper levels.

Total score histogram of ecological literacy in Guiyang City

In the descriptive statistical analysis of the five first-level indicators of the ecological literacy level of Guiyang inhabitants, we found that there were developments in the internal structure of the five dimensions of ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. For the problem of imbalance, there were big differences between different dimensions (Table ​ (Table2), 2 ), but the overall average score rate was higher. Each dimension consisted of eight scale questions. That is, the range of scores that the respondent could obtain was [8, 40] in each dimension.

Descriptive statistical analysis of five dimensions of the ecological literacy levels of Guiyang inhabitants

From Table ​ Table2, 2 , it can be seen that, among the ecological literacy levels of Guiyang inhabitants, the level of ecological ethics literacy was the highest (36.41 ± 4.010), and their average scoring rate reached 91.03%; the level of ecological emotional literacy was slightly lower than that of ecological ethics (35.35 ± 3.758), and ecological awareness literacy was lower (33.21 ± 3.918). The average scores of the interviewees were relatively low in terms of ecological knowledge literacy (29.11 ± 5.191) and ecological behavioral literacy (24.83 ± 4.775), but their average score rates were still higher than 60% (72.78% and 62.08%, respectively). The average score of these two dimensions was significantly lower than that of the other three dimensions, but from a macro point of view, the levels of these two dimensions were still within a good range. This showed that the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a high level of ecological literacy, especially in terms of ecological ethics, ecological emotion, and ecological awareness. However, there is room for improvement in the possessing of ecological knowledge and the ability and level of implementing ecological literacy in specific actions.

Subsequently, we conducted a bi-variate correlation analysis of the relationship among each dimension of ecological literacy (Table ​ (Table3), 3 ), with the purpose of exploring the correlation between each dimension and the other four dimensions. Owing to the uneven levels of all five dimensions of ecological literacy, the correlation analysis between each two dimensions can help to improve a certain specific dimension level, relying on whether they are related, whether the relationship is positive or negative, and the strength of the correlation with other dimensions. Based on a variety of statistical data, the overall situation was coordinated, and solutions were proposed in many aspects.

Correlation analysis of the five dimensions of ecological literacy levels of Guiyang inhabitants

Note: The number of cases is 494

"**" means it is at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) and that the correlation is significant

Table ​ Table3 3 shows that there was no direct correlation between ecological ethics literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( P = 0.500 > 0.05). There was a significant correlation between the other four dimensions ( P < 0.05), and it was a significant correlation at the 0.01 level. A closer look at the Pearson’s correlation coefficients shows that they were all positive numbers, so that all dimensions with correlation were positive correlations. First, the correlation coefficient between ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy was the largest ( R = 0.617**, 0.6 < R ≤ 0.8), indicating that there was a significant positive and strong correlation between ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy. Second, the correlation coefficient between ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy ( R = 0.597**, 0.4 < R ≤ 0.6), and between ecological awareness literacy and ecological emotional literacy ( R = 0.514**, 0.4 < R ≤ 0.6) was only lower than the correlation coefficient between ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy. In particular, the correlation coefficient between ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy was very close to 0.6. Therefore, ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy had a significant moderate correlation, and ecological awareness literacy and ecological emotional literacy had a significant moderate correlation, too. Third, there was a significant positively weak correlation between each dimension of ecological literacy. The correlation coefficient (0.2 < R ≤ 0.4) from high to low was as follows: ecological emotional literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( R = 0.365**), ecological knowledge literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( R = 0.338**), ecological knowledge literacy and ecological emotional literacy ( R = 0.296**), ecological knowledge literacy and ecological awareness literacy ( R = 0.288**), and ecological knowledge literacy and ecological ethics literacy ( R = 0.209**). Finally, there was a significant but very low positive correlation between a group of dimensions (0 ≤ R ≤ 0.2), namely, the correlation coefficient between ecological awareness literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( R = 0.138**).

During the development of ecologically advanced cities, we should focus on acquiring ecological theory and the practice of ecological actions for the ecological literacy level of the inhabitants of Guiyang City. From the correlation coefficients related to the two dimensions of ecological knowledge literacy and ecological behavioral literacy in Table ​ Table3, 3 , it can be seen that the coefficients related to them in the five dimensions are in the range of weak to very low correlation. This implies that, in the process of improving ecological knowledge literacy and ecological behavioral literacy, while taking other dimensions into account to improve both literacy indirectly, we must consciously focus on themselves. The inhabitants, who have strong ecological awareness and social responsibility, are able to strengthen their ecological knowledge, so that they can improve their ecological knowledge level. Finally, they can transform their strong ecological knowledge and ecological awareness into practice, and practice ecological literacy in their actions. Moreover, they can influence other inhabitants to become more ecologically literate.

Specific analysis of the five dimensions

Ecological knowledge literacy level.

Among the four factors of the second-level indicators of ecological knowledge literacy, the range of scores that respondents could obtain in the two questions set by each factor was [2, 10]. The inhabitants of Guiyang City scored highest for “knowledge of the relationship between humans and nature” (7.98 ± 1.481). For “ecological and environmental protection knowledge” (7.13 ± 1.471) and “knowledge of damage to the ecological environment” (7.12 ± 1.659), the difference between the average scores obtained was relatively small. Both were lower than the score for “knowledge of the relationship between humans and nature”. The average score of “ecosystem knowledge” of Guiyang inhabitants (6.89 ± 1.700) was above 60%, indicating that Guiyang inhabitants still have a good grasp of “ecosystem knowledge”. The average score of “ecosystem knowledge” was the only factor in the second-level indicators of ecological knowledge literacy that had a score lower than 70%.

It can be seen from Table ​ Table4 4 that the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a higher ability and better grasp of the four factors of the second-level indicators of ecological knowledge literacy, especially in “knowledge of the relationship between humans and nature”. This indicated that the participants attach great importance to all aspects of ecological knowledge. However, Guiyang inhabitants still had certain weaknesses in their grasp of “ecosystem knowledge”. This was because ecosystem knowledge is professional theoretical knowledge of ecology, and it was rare for Guiyang inhabitants to study or work in the field of ecology. It is difficult for them to acquire ecological knowledge. But in fact, the processes, functions, and components of the ecosystem, as well as the collection of processes that contribute to the planet, are all included in the broader concept of nature (Maller et al. 2006 ; Pitman and Daniels 2020 ). Therefore, ecosystem knowledge was very important for everyone. We must pay special attention to the concepts and connotations of sustainable development and ecosystem services to promote the sustainable development of human society (Zhao et al. 2020 ). In the process of cultivating and improving the level of ecological knowledge literacy, it was necessary to pay attention to this aspect of ecological knowledge in order to promote the overall ecological knowledge literacy of Guiyang inhabitants.

Descriptive statistical analysis of second-level indicators of ecological knowledge literacy of Guiyang inhabitants

Ecological awareness literacy level

Among the eight questions considered for ecological awareness literacy, the range of scores that the inhabitants of Guiyang City could obtain in the two questions of each second-level indicator was [2, 10]. The respondents scored higher on average in this part than for the ecological knowledge literacy part. Only the average score rate (7.21 ± 1.571) of the second-level indicator of “awareness of the severity of current ecological and environmental problems” was below 80%. The average score of “ecological environmental protection value consciousness” was the highest (9.11 ± 1.254). Meanwhile, the participants’ understanding was relatively good in terms of “making judgments on the ecological environmental damage encountered” (8.88 ± 1.385) and “ecological environmental protection behavior subject consciousness” (8.01 ± 1.456).

The descriptive statistical analysis results of the second-level indicators of ecological awareness literacy in Table ​ Table5 5 showed that the level of ecological awareness literacy of Guiyang inhabitants is relatively good, and most inhabitants realize the value of ecological environmental protection. At the same time, many inhabitants could make effective judgments when encountering eco-environmental damage. This was due to the correlation between ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy (0.597**), and ecological emotional literacy (0.514**). This was affected and restricted by ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy. However, ecological awareness is basically formed by good ecological education among the inhabitants of Guiyang; only education can truly change people’s consciousness (Huang and Zhao 2019 ). If the ecological awareness of the inhabitants of Guiyang City is to be improved, the focus should be on two aspects: “ecological environmental protection behavior subject consciousness” and “awareness of the severity of current ecological and environmental problems”. In particular, the index of “awareness of the severity of current ecological and environmental problems” still needs to be taken seriously. We have to allow more inhabitants to work hard to maintain the surrounding living environment on the basis of being aware of the severity of the current ecological problems through further publicity and education. The construction of ecological civilization in Guiyang City was relatively good, but there were still certain ecological problems. Our process of consciously maintaining or optimizing the ecological environment of Guiyang City can nurture and drive other urban inhabitants to realize the seriousness of ecological problems and jointly seek solutions.

Descriptive statistical analysis of second-level indicators of ecological awareness literacy of Guiyang inhabitants

Ecological ethics literacy level

The consideration of the ecological ethics level of Guiyang inhabitants comprised eight questions, and the fluctuation range of each second-level indicator in scores was [2, 10] theoretically. The average score of the four factors of ecological ethics literacy was relatively high, and the score ratio was above 85%. The score ratios for “affirming the role of nature” (9.38 ± 1.092) and “respecting and cherishing all living things” (9.36 ± 1.073) reached more than 90%, and the difference in the scores between the two was small. In contrast, the average scores of “the ethics and morality of protecting the ecological environment” (8.89 ± 1.422) and “correctly recognizing the relationship between humans and nature” (8.78 ± 1.417) were low but still higher than many other second-level indicators factors.

Table ​ Table6 6 shows that the status of the ecological ethics of the inhabitants of Guiyang City was relatively good in general. Among the four factors, the minimum score for “affirming the role of nature” was 3 points, and the minimum score for the other three factors was 4 points. The maximum scores for these factors were all full marks. From this perspective, the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a high level of ecological ethics, mainly influenced by the development of ecological ethics in China. In China, ecological ethics and environmental ethics are used in parallel, and their development has gone through three research stages: the 1970s was the incubation stage, the 1980s was the exploratory stage, and the 1990s was the birth and rapid growth stage (Yu et al. 2019 ). However, Chinese traditional culture contains a wealth of environmental ethics, such as the principle of “one yin and one yang is the Tao” in Yi-ology, the ethical wisdom of the “innateness of all things” and “the harmony between humans and nature” in Confucianism, the ethical ideas of “Tao to follow nature” and “rule by doing nothing” in Taoism, and the Buddhist ethical concept that “all beings are equal” (Yu et al. 2019 ). In this study, the penetration of these ecological ethics gradually formed the ecological ethics literacy of Guiyang inhabitants. If the level of ecological ethics continues to improve, the focus should be on the improvement of “the ethics and morality of protecting the ecological environment” and “correctly recognizing the relationship between humans and nature”. For individuals, the formation of ecological ethics and moral concepts is a long process. One way to improve this is to integrate ecological education with ecological knowledge, so that people can systematically master the theory of ecological ethics and clearly understand the relationship between humans and nature for guiding practice. This includes adhering to the “universal symbiosis” in deep ecology and maximizing the “symbiosis phenomenon” (Naess 1989 ; Huang and Zhao 2019 ). But from the macro-level of ecological literacy, people can focus on other relatively low levels of ecological literacy on the basis of maintaining the level of ecological ethics literacy to ensure that the overall level of ecological literacy is steadily improved.

Descriptive statistical analysis of second-level indicators of ecological ethics literacy of Guiyang inhabitants

Ecological emotional literacy level

The consideration of the level of ecological emotional literacy is also reflected by the eight questions under the four second-level indicators. The range of scores that respondents could obtain in each indicator was [2, 10] theoretically. The average score (9.43 ± 0.980) for “awe of the natural environment” of the respondents in ecological emotional literacy was the highest average score among the 40 questions in the entire scale, and the standard deviation fluctuated little. The score ratio was close to 95%. At the same time, this item was the only element among all scale questions that had a minimum of 5 points. The average score level of the other three factors was above 80%, in order from high to low: “love for the natural environment” (9.17 ± 1.154), “ability to take responsibility for ecological and environmental issues” (8.66 ± 1.282), and “sensitivity to natural environment protection” (8.09 ± 1.349).

Through the descriptive statistical analysis in Table ​ Table7, 7 , we relied on the questionnaire data of the second-level indicators of Guiyang inhabitants’ ecological emotional literacy to further demonstrate the respondents’ ecological literacy levels in this dimension. The overall level of this part is still high, due to the good natural environment in Guiyang City. As stated in Sect. 2.3, Guiyang’s forest coverage rate was 39.19%, with beautiful mountains and clear waters. There are many natural landscapes for inhabitants to experience, e.g., Huaxi National Urban Wetland Park, Hongfeng Lake Scenic Area, Nanjiang Grand Canyon, and Qianling Mountain Park. When discussing the development of the ecological literacy of children in forest parks, some researchers point out that training children in forest parks will allow them to use all their senses to observe and acquire meaningful situations in the natural world. They will get sense of belonging and become ecologically literate (Hammarsten et al. 2018 ). Therefore, among the inhabitants of Guiyang City, children will stimulate ecological emotion under the guidance of their parents and teachers, while adults will generate ecological emotions based on their own experiences and perception of nature. Over time, they will subconsciously develop respect and love for nature. However, they have been living in areas with a good ecological environment and are facing fewer ecological problems, making the inhabitants relatively insensitive to natural environmental protection issues. Therefore, they might not take the initiative to be responsible for environmental problems; this needs to be improved. Guiyang inhabitants can improve their ecological emotional literacy level in two aspects: “sensitivity to natural environment protection” and “ability to take responsibility for ecological and environmental issues”. This important improvement process can be achieved by outdoor education, especially in terms of the judgment and perception of current environmental problems, which will increase the sensitivity to the natural environment. Responsibility training in education can enable the inhabitants to develop a sense of social responsibility that emerges spontaneously. But objectively speaking, the lowest score of the participants on these two factors was 4 points, and the highest score was 10 points, indicating that the participants were basically qualified in the mastery of these two factors and have a good emotional state regarding ecological problems. In the process of optimizing the overall level of ecological literacy, it is also possible to temporarily focus on other dimensions.

Descriptive statistical analysis of second-level indicators of ecological emotional literacy of Guiyang inhabitants

Ecological behavioral literacy level

Among the four second-level indicators of Guiyang inhabitants’ ecological behavioral literacy, each indicator was examined by two scale questions, and the fluctuation range of the score was [2, 10]. The average scores of the second-level indicators of ecological behavioral literacy were low. Only the average score rate (8.59 ± 1.392) of “daily practice of environmental protection” was above 80%. The lowest score of the respondents was 4 points, and the highest score was 10 points. These are roughly equivalent to the scores of multiple second-level indicators in other dimensions. However, the average score rate of the other three factors of ecological behavioral literacy was low. The average score of “scientific environmental protection skills and methods” was the lowest (4.68 ± 1.741). This indicated that many Guiyang inhabitants had less of a grasp of environmental protection skills and methods. They do not know how to protect the surrounding ecological environment in daily work, study, and life. Although the average scores of the other two items were higher than that for “scientific environmental protection skills and methods,” the average score ratio did not reach 60%. The average scores of these two differed only slightly, with “positive influence on the environmental protection behavior of others” at 5.88 ± 1.801 and “participation in environmental education activities” at 5.68 ± 1.699.

The statistical analysis in Table ​ Table8 8 shows that Guiyang inhabitants generally scored low in terms of ecological behavioral literacy, and there was a lot of room for improvement. This was mainly due to the fact that there were still many inhabitants who have not implemented their ecological theoretical knowledge and ecological ideology into actual action. The ultimate goal of ecological literacy is to enable inhabitants with ecological theoretical knowledge and ecological ideology to take action on environmental problems. Ecological behavioral literacy is an important part of the process of maintaining or improving the level of ecological literacy of the inhabitants in Guiyang City. At the level of environmental protection skills and methods, it is necessary to adopt a variety of ways to promote scientific skills in order to achieve ecological behavioral literacy. The factor with the lowest average score in this part is gradually improving; at the same time, the inhabitants of Guiyang City should be actively involved in environmental education activities, and efforts should be made to actively influence the surrounding inhabitants through the practice and supervision of their own ecological environmental protection behavior. For the purposes of this study, only by integrating ecological knowledge, ecological awareness, ecological ethics, and ecological emotion into ecological behavior can the multiple indicators of the level of ecological behavioral literacy be effectively improved.

Descriptive statistical analysis of second-level indicators of ecological behavioral literacy of Guiyang inhabitants

Conclusions

We used the concepts of linguistic ecology to conduct quantitative research on five aspects of ecological literacy: knowledge, awareness, ethics, emotion, and behavior. These aspects provided valid assessment criteria for assessing ecological literacy, and they can serve as a new direction for ecological research and development. Our study was an exploration of interdisciplinary research, combining ecology with linguistics. We found that the participants in our case study differed considerably in their level of ecological literacy among these five aspects. Thus, we propose the following three targeted solutions.

First, we must pay attention to the content and development of ecological education, including classroom education and outdoor education. This will affect the level of ecological literacy in different ways, and it is one of the most effective ways to cultivate ecological literacy. Ecological education will have the most direct impact on the level of ecological knowledge, involving various aspects of ecological knowledge, such as ecological professional knowledge, ecological ethics knowledge, and ecological and biological knowledge in nature.

Second, we should encourage the inhabitants of Guiyang City to actively devote themselves to appreciating local natural scenery, strengthening outdoor activities, and feeling the charm of nature. On the basis of receiving ecological education, the relevant departments need to increase outdoor activities. This will enhance physical fitness, while allowing inhabitants to appreciate nature. By getting closer to nature, we can better recognize the seriousness of ecological problems.

Finally, we must take action to express everything related to ecology through our own behavior, to achieve the goal of improving ecological literacy. After recognizing ecological problems, solutions need to be implemented in action. The best way to achieve effective ecological behavior is by adopting the above solutions. Regular environmental education activities are needed, and they should be guided by professionals with a high level of ecological literacy who practice ecological behavior.

In future research, we will conduct a comparative study of the different types and characteristics of the inhabitants of Guiyang City in terms of ecological literacy (i.e., socio-demographic characteristics), and we will explore more detailed suggestions to improve ecological literacy, to better understand the inherent differences in the inhabitants of ecologically advanced cities such as Guiyang City. This will help us to promote and cultivate ecological literacy according to specific characteristics of the inhabitants by proposing effective cultivation methods. The results of the current study can provide some meaningful points, which can help to improve the overall level of ecological literacy in China, and they can be used as a reference for the investigation and cultivation of ecological literacy in other countries and regions.

Supplementary information

(DOCX 36 kb)

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all the people who helped complete this research and to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Author contribution

CH, GH, and JZ contributed to the study conception and design. CH and SD participated in material preparation, data collection, and analysis. CH wrote the first manuscript draft. GH, JZ, and SD helped revise and improve the manuscript draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This research was supported by the 13th Five-Year Plan for the Development of Philosophy and Social Sciences Fund of Guangzhou (No. 2019GZYB36), Characteristic and Creative Projects of the Department of Education of Guangdong Province (No. 2018WTSCX006), and Higher Education and Teaching Reform Projects of the Department of Education of Guangdong Province (Document No. [2018] 180).

Data availability

Declarations.

Not applicable.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Guowen Huang, Email: nc.ude.uacs@wghslf .

Jiaen Zhang, Email: nc.ude.uacs@hznaej .

• Alexander R, Stibbe A. From the analysis of ecological discourse to the ecological analysis of discourse. Lang Sci. 2014; 41 :104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arcury TA. Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Hum Organ. 1990; 49 (4):300–304. doi: 10.17730/humo.49.4.y6135676n433r880. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkowitz AR, Ford ME, Brewer CA (2005) A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy, and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In: Johnson E, Mappin M, (eds.). Environmental education and advocacy: changing perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 227-266.
• Bruyere BL. The effect of environmental education on the ecological literacy of first-year college students. J Nat Resour Life Sci Educ. 2008; 37 (1):20–26. doi: 10.2134/jnrlse2008.37120x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton-Mifflin, New York
• Chai H. Researches on reliability and validity of inspection procedure in questionnaire design. World Science and Technology Research and Development. 2010; 4 :548–550. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortina JM. What is coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993; 78 (1):98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyle K (2005) Ecological literacy in America; what ten years of NEETF/Roper Research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. Available from: http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf .
• Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. The “anthropocene” IGBP Newsletter. 2000; 41 :17–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson MF (2010) Ecological literacy evaluation of the University of Iceland faculty, staff, and students: implications for a university sustainability policy[dissertation]. Reykjavik (Iceland): University of Iceland. Available from: http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ skemman.is/ContentPages/115928815. pdf.
• Gleim JA, Gliem RR (2003) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’ s Alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Columbus: Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Ohio State University. Available from: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/Gliem%20&%20Gliem.pdf ?.
• Hammarsten M, Askerlund P, Almers E, Avery H, Samuelsson T (2018) Developing ecological literacy in a forest garden: children’s perspectives. J Adventure Educ Outdoor Learn. Available from. 10.1080/14729679.2018.1517371.
• Hopkins HD, Stanley JC, Hopkins BR (1990) Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. 7 th ed. Needham Heights, Massachusetts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Huang GW. The emergence and development of ecolinguistics. Foreign Languages in China. 2016; 1 (1):9–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang GW, Ha CC (2021) The relationship between ecological literacy and ecolinguistics. For Lang Educ 1:15–19
• Huang GW, Xiao JY. The concept of “anthropocene” and ecolinguistic studies. Foreign Lang Res. 2017; 5 (14-17):30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang GW, Zhao RH (2019) What is ecolinguistics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai
• Jin L (1992) Environmental ecology. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
• Li JZ, Yuan C. On the ecologicalization of contemporary science. Academic Monthly. 1988; 7 :45–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin SY, Cai J. Environmental education evaluation of protected land based on tourists’ ecological quality-a case study of Beijing Cuihu Wetland Park. For Ecol Sci. 2019; 34 (4):451–457. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maller C, Townsend M, Pryor A, Brown P, St Leger L. Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot Int. 2006; 21 (1):45–54. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dai032. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McBride BB, Brewer CA, Berkowitz AR, Borrie WT. Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: what do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere. 2013; 4 (5):1–20. doi: 10.1890/ES13-00075.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDaniel J, Alley KD. Connecting local environmental knowledge and land use practices: a human ecosystem approach to urbanization in West Georgia. Urban Ecosyst. 2005; 8 (1):23–38. doi: 10.1007/s11252-005-1417-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrone M, Mancl K, Carr K. Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. J Environ Educ. 2001; 32 (4):33–42. doi: 10.1080/00958960109598661. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education) (2000/2004) Excellence in environmental education: guidelines for learning (K-12). NAAEE, Washington, D. C., USA.
• NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education) (2011a) Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy: executive summary. NAAEE, Washington, D. C., USA. Available from: http://www.naaee.net/sites/default/files/framework/EnvLiteracyExeSummary.pdf .
• NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education) (2011b) National environmental literacy assessment, phase two: measuring the effectiveness of North American environmental education programs with respect to the parameters of environmental literacy. NAAEE, Washington, D. C., USA. Available from: http://www.naaee.net/sites/default/files/programs/research/NELA Phase II_Report.pdf .
• Naess A (1989) Ecology, community and lifestyle: outline of an ecosophy. Rothenberg D, Trans. Cambridge: CUP.
• O’ Brien SRM (2007) Indications of environmental literacy: using a new survey instrument to measure awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of universityaged students[dissertation]. Ames: Proquest UMI Dissertations Publishing, Iowa State University.
• Orr DW (1992) Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press, Albany
• Pitman SD, Daniels CB (2016) Quantifying ecological literacy in an adult western community: the development and application of a new assessment tool and community standard. PLoS One 11(3), e0150648:1-18. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Pitman SD, Daniels CB (2020) Understanding how nature works: five pathways towards a more ecologically literate world—a perspective. Austral Ecol 1-10.
• Pitman SD, Daniels CB, Sutton PC. Ecological literacy and socio-demographics: who are the most eco-literate in our community, and why? Int J Sust Dev World. 2016; 25 (1):9–22. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2016.1263689. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitman SD, Daniels CB, Sutton PC (2017) Ecological literacy and psychographics: lifestyle contributors to ecological knowledge and understanding. Int J Sust Dev World 1-14. Available from. 10.1080/13504509.2017.1333047
• Risser PG. Ecological literacy. Bull Ecol Soc Am. 1986; 67 (4):264–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth CE (1968) On the road to conservation. Massachusetts Audubon:38–41
• Roth CE (1992) Environmental literacy: it’s roots, evolution, and direction in the 1990s. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
• Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
• Shen XY, Zhang J, Wu JW, Wang QL. Study on current cultivation situation and development countermeasures of ecological civilization literacy of primary and secondary school students in the new era-take primary and secondary school students in Beijing as an example. China Audio-visual Education. 2020; 6 :45–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR. The anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio. 2007; 36 :614–621. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stibbe A (2009) The handbook of sustainability literacy: skill for a changing world. Green Books, Dartington
• Wan QQ, Xu CJ, Wang L, Zhang TH. Factor construct verification of nurses’ organizational citizenship behavior scale. Chinese J Health Stat. 2015; 32 (6):922–925. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang LL, Jin XL, Lu L. The investigation about the public ecological civilization literacy and scientific popularization. China Environ Manage. 2017; 9 (3):52–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang RS. From materialized civilization to ecological civilization-ecology for sustainable development. World Science and Technology Research and Development. 1998; 20 (2):87–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu JG, Xiang WN, Zhao JZ. Urban ecology in China: historical developments and future directions. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014; 125 :222–233. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu ML (2010) Structural equation modeling: operation and application of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.
• Wu ML (2013) Structural equation modeling: advanced AMOS practice. Chongqing University Press, Chongqing
• Xiao ZH, Fan JJ. Indicator system for measuring and assessing language ecology. Linguistic Sci. 2011; 10 (3):270–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu MC, Lei Y, Yang TJ (2019) Environmental ethics, second edn. Higher Education Press, Beijing
• Zhao JZ, Yan Y, Deng HB, Liu GH, Dai LM, Tang LN, Shi LY, Shao GF. Remarks about landsenses ecology and ecosystem services. Int J Sust Dev World. 2020; 27 (3):196–201. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2020.1718795. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou J (2017) Data analysis of questionnaire: six types to SPSS analysis. Publishing House of Electronics Industry, Beijing

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on ecological literacy: A contribution to the underlying mechanism in linguistic ecology

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft

Affiliation School of International Studies, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China

Contributed equally to this work with: Yang Chen, Jiaen Zhang

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (YC); [email protected] (JZ)

Affiliations School of Foreign Studies, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, Center for Ecolinguistics, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Affiliation College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Chinese Ethnic Minority Languages and Literature, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China

• Changchen Ha, 
• Yang Chen, 
• Jiaen Zhang, 
• Shumin Dong

• Published: June 29, 2023
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286
• Reader Comments

In today’s society, citizens’ ecological literacy (ecoliteracy) is critical for their understanding of sustainable development. This study used a questionnaire designed to quantitatively assess ecoliteracy from a linguistic ecology perspective. First, an underlying mechanism model for ecoliteracy was designed based on the results of previous studies. Then, the ecoliteracy level assessment scores of Guiyang inhabitants were combined with the respondents’ corresponding lifestyle characteristics to explore the effectiveness of interventions in affecting the participants’ ecoliteracy levels. The results showed that the formation and development of ecoliteracy is a dynamic and circular process that revolves around variables of independent, dependent, mediating, moderating and control. The various factors in the model interact and operate evenly along a particular path. As for the level of lifestyle characteristics, participants’ ecoliteracy levels had a statistically significant relationship with their attitudes regarding the importance of nature, participating in outdoor activities, and improving their ecoliteracy levels; as well as the frequencies regarding daily outdoor activity, the main activities in ecological areas, participation in volunteer activities, and use of ecological knowledge. The respondents with the highest levels of ecoliteracy had the most positive attitudes and engaged in ecological actions with the highest frequency. The lifestyle intervention features here are of great significance to the harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural environment and are also helpful for improving human health.

Citation: Ha C, Chen Y, Zhang J, Dong S (2023) The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on ecological literacy: A contribution to the underlying mechanism in linguistic ecology. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0287286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286

Editor: Muhammad Kamran Khan, Northeast Normal University, CHINA

Received: December 28, 2022; Accepted: May 30, 2023; Published: June 29, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Ha et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research and Planning Fund of the Ministry of Education of China (No. 20YJAZH013.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The United Nations has formulated the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for guiding global development efforts from 2015 to 2030, to address the social, economic, and environmental aspects of development. Subsequently, researchers from different countries or regions began to solve specific problems in different ways, such as the significance of sustainable use of material resources for green growth [ 1 ], study of environmental quality and financial stress index in developing countries [ 2 , 3 ], relationship between natural resources and economy in different regions [ 4 – 7 ], exploration of sustainable development in the United States and India [ 8 – 10 ]. Studies on ecological civilization and ecological cities are also reported in China [ 11 , 12 ]. Ecological literacy (ecoliteracy) plays a very important role for sustainable development, which is the focus of our article.

“Literacy” is originally a concept from linguistic research, which focuses on “the ability to read and write” [ 13 , 14 ]. With the development of interdisciplinary trends, the applied scope of literacy has continued to expand. It can be defined as “the knowledge or capability in a particular field or fields” [ 14 ]. The phrase “in a particular field or fields” means that it can be used in combination with a specific discipline. In a broader sense, ecoliteracy combines ecology and linguistics and has the same disciplinary foundation as the study of linguistic ecology [ 15 ]. However, ecoliteracy is not limited to these two disciplines but is, in fact, part of a larger set of terms [ 14 , 16 ]. Researchers and scholars in different disciplinary fields, who apply different theories from different perspectives, produce significantly different concepts and frameworks (e.g., [ 14 , 16 – 21 ]). Some studies focus on individuals’ levels of ecological knowledge [ 20 , 22 ], while others consider attitudes toward ecological issues and content related to ecological behavior or other aspects of ecological topics [ 11 , 16 , 21 , 23 – 25 ].

This study focused on an interdisciplinary perspective that combined ecology and linguistics (called linguistic ecology) to define ecoliteracy [ 11 , 15 ]. Ecoliteracy is concerned with the ecologically sustainable development relationship between individual humans, humans and society, and humans and nature. It emphasizes the knowledge and ability of human beings in the ecological field [ 12 ]. Our ecoliteracy research framework included five dimensions [ 11 ]: ecological knowledge literacy (EKNL), ecological awareness literacy (EAWL), ecological ethics literacy (EETL), ecological emotional literacy (EEML), and ecological behavioral literacy (EBEL).

In the future, ecoliteracy will play a vital role in human survival and development. People will be required to have the ability to learn and understand the concepts and basic principles of ecology and live a sustainable life, accordingly implying that ecoliteracy is no longer unique to ecologists. In the work of political scientists, business leaders, professionals, or in education at all levels, ecoliteracy is an important component and key skill [ 26 ]. Previous studies on ecoliteracy have focused primarily on the theoretical research aspects of developing its connotation, ecosystems, sustainability, and interdisciplinary aspects [ 14 , 15 , 17 , 27 – 29 ]. However, relatively little attention has been paid to assessing individuals’ levels of ecoliteracy and cultivation of ecoliteracy [ 11 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 30 , 31 ]. Research on the combination of ecoliteracy and lifestyle characteristics is even rarer [ 32 , 33 ].

Therefore, this study focused on lifestyle interventions for ecoliteracy. First, the underlying mechanisms of ecoliteracy were explored from the theoretical perspective of linguistic ecology. Lifestyle characteristics as the core concept were then examined and the inhabitants of Guiyang City, one of China’s top ten ecologically advanced cities, were used as subjects for a case study. The main purpose was to discover differences in the levels of ecoliteracy among Guiyang inhabitants with different lifestyle characteristics. This article addressed two specific research questions: (1) What is the underlying mechanism of ecoliteracy in linguistic ecology? (2) Are there any differences in the levels of ecoliteracy among Guiyang’s inhabitants with different lifestyle characteristics?

The theoretical basis of this study is linguistic ecology, which is also called language ecology, ecology of language, or ecological linguistics [ 34 ]. The research content of ecologists and linguists is different in this interdisciplinary field [ 35 ], which is due to significant differences in researchers’ backgrounds in natural science and social science, respectively. The discipline of “linguistic ecology” is an extension of social science for linguists and involves sociolinguistics, functional linguistics, linguistic typology, and other sub-disciplines [ 36 – 40 ]. For ecologists, this discipline expands natural sciences and is concerned with environmental science, statistics, geography, biology, climatology, and other related disciplines [ 11 , 41 , 42 ]. In this study, linguistic ecology is primarily understood from the perspective of the natural sciences, and it is a new discipline with roots in human ecology.

In linguistic ecology, the internal indicators of ecoliteracy include five dimensions (EKNL, EAWL, EETL, EEML, and EBEL), among which EKNL is an important foundation, EAWL indicates the direction of action, EETL emphasizes moral standards, EEML is the internal driving force, and EBEL is the ultimate fundamental goal (see [ 11 ]). Under each dimension, four second-level indicators guide different aspects of the content in that dimension. They are simultaneously affected by many other surrounding factors (i.e., external environmental factors and personal characteristics factors). The underlying mechanism of ecoliteracy is summarized in Fig 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

(Note: The details of second-level indicators are shown in Endnotes [ 11 ]).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g001

Fig 1 indicates that the underlying mechanism of ecoliteracy comprises five variables. The model systematically visualizes the formation and development of ecoliteracy, a dynamic and cyclical process.

The independent variable in this study referred to the internal cognitive factors of the inhabitants of Guiyang City, that is, the second-level indicators under the five dimensions of ecoliteracy. The cognitive factors of ecological knowledge, awareness, ethics, and emotions are at the base of the model. The participants’ mastery of these four aspects affected their corresponding ecoliteracy levels. These four dimensions of ecoliteracy will then affect the ecological behavior of inhabitants and produce specific EBEL. Under the combined effect of these five-dimensional levels (FDs) of ecoliteracy, the overall level of inhabitants’ ecoliteracy is formed.

The dependent variable in this study was ecoliteracy demonstrated by the inhabitants of Guiyang City.

The mediating variable includes FDs, which bridge the second-level indicators of ecoliteracy and the overall ecoliteracy (OEL) level and play an intermediary role. Moreover, for ecoliteracy as a dependent variable, FDs are independent variables.

The moderating variable (the moderator) in this study emphasized the external environmental factors that affect the ecoliteracy levels of the Guiyang inhabitants. These factors include political, economic, cultural, social, language, and educational environments. Therefore, they indirectly interfere with inhabitants’ levels of ecoliteracy.

The control variables in this study were personal characteristics, i.e., sociodemographic factors (gender, age, ethnicity, living area and type, educational background, current main identity, and family structure), as well as lifestyle (psychographics) of the participants (see the following section for details).

Inhabitants’ ecoliteracy characterization under the model reacts with the various internal cognitive factors of ecoliteracy and affects the level of ecoliteracy. Fundamentally, the ultimate goal of the model presented in this study is to promote China’s ecological civilization construction, sustainable development, and harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural environment. These factors also become external environmental factors that affect inhabitants’ ecoliteracy, cyclically driving its formation and improvement.

Data description

We designed an effective questionnaire for this study to explore ecoliteracy levels [ 11 ]. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Foreign Studies, South China Agricultural University (200921). The questionnaire consisted of three parts, covering a total of 60 survey questions (including a self-assessment question on the respondents’ ecoliteracy level). The first part was related to sociodemographic characteristics (11 questions) [ 12 ]. The second part was in the form of a five-point Likert scale, which was used to examine the participants’ ecoliteracy levels (40 questions) with a score range (40–200) described elsewhere [ 11 ]. The third part considered participants’ attitudes toward ecological issues and their ecological behaviors (i.e., lifestyle characteristics; eight questions).

The second part was the core content of the questionnaire, which quantitatively evaluated the participants’ ecoliteracy levels. Specific questions were designed based on second-level indicators under the five dimensions of ecoliteracy, as shown in Fig 1 . Each dimension included eight survey questions (score range: 8–40). After testing, the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.888) and validity (estimate: 0.67; CR: 0.95; AVE: 0.49) of the questionnaire were determined to be within reasonable ranges. To date, the first two parts of the survey have been completed [ 11 , 12 ]. This study focused on the third section of the questionnaire, specifically as a combined study of the second and third parts. After understanding the ecoliteracy levels of participants with different lifestyle characteristics and analyzing the reasons for the results, strategies were proposed to improve low levels of ecoliteracy in participants.

Specifically, the lifestyle characteristics measured in the questionnaire referred to attitudes of importance to nature, participating in outdoor activities, and improving the level of ecoliteracy, as well as behavior in terms of frequency of daily outdoor activities, frequency of main activities in ecological areas, frequency of participation in volunteer activities related to ecological and environmental protection, and frequency of using ecological knowledge (S1 Questionnaire). The third part included another question to examine the main factors contributing to the participants’ ecoliteracy. This question was mainly designed for an in-depth exploration of ways to improve the level of ecoliteracy and was not directly related to the aim of this report. Therefore, this question was not analyzed or discussed. These seven lifestyles may contribute important benefits for individuals and society. They remind people to develop great living habits while protecting the eco-environment and promoting the sustainability of the community’s natural and social environment.

Data collection and analysis

The survey collection process was completed by May 2021. The survey was undertaken by combining online participation and paper distribution, strictly limited to the population of the ten administrative regions of Guiyang City, and was randomly sampled at specific percentages. The subject of this study is all the permanent inhabitants of Guiyang, that is, the population who had lived in Guiyang City for more than half a year before the start of the investigation. We sent out 1,100 questionnaires, and 988 valid questionnaires were analyzed, constituting a survey ratio of 1:5000 of inhabitants of each administrative region of Guiyang City. The number of questionnaires exceeded the minimum sample size needed to achieve a significance level of α = 0.01 [ 12 ] and was based entirely on voluntary participation. Participants’ informed consent was obtained in the form of a multiple-choice question before the questionnaire began (fully anonymized), and they were allowed to discontinue the survey at any time. If the participants were minors, their informed consent and the answers to the questionnaire were assisted by their parents or guardians.

Microsoft Excel was used for data collation [ 11 , 12 ] and the statistical software SPSS 25.0 was used for analysis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed as the main statistical method. Data on lifestyle characteristics were collated first. A one-way ANOVA was undertaken on ecoliteracy levels and lifestyle characteristics. Significant differences in OEL levels and FDs among Guiyang inhabitants with different lifestyle characteristics were determined at p <0.05. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Posthoc tests were also performed. However, due to space limitations, the results of the OEL only were used to consider the ecoliteracy levels of the participants from the overall representation. Finally, this article focused on analyzing lifestyle characteristics that showed significant differences, and data without statistical significance was not discussed. Intervention effects on inhabitants’ lifestyles were observed according to factors with significant differences.

According to the research questions raised in this article, after we have sorted out the underlying mechanism of ecoliteracy from the perspective of linguistic ecology, this section focuses on the results of combining different lifestyle characteristics with ecoliteracy. Through the data results, it can be seen what kind of lifestyle is beneficial to people’s ecoliteracy level. This also proves how the underlying mechanism of ecoliteracy works from another aspect.

Attitude toward the importance of nature

The different attitudes of the Guiyang inhabitants toward nature reflected their different levels of ecoliteracy ( Fig 2 ). The one-way ANOVA results show that the participants’ attitudes toward nature were significantly different regarding their OEL levels and FDs ( Table 1 ). The significance coefficients of this factor were all p = 0.000. Inhabitants of Guiyang City who considered nature to be very important in their lives had the highest levels of OEL (165.12±13.973, 82.56%), EKNL (30.85±4.865, 77.13%), EAWL (34.22±3.707, 85.55%), EETL (37.14±3.046, 92.85%), EEML (36.24±3.263, 90.60%), and EBEL (26.67±5.271, 56.68%). With the decline in inhabitants’ attitudes toward nature, there was a slight upward trend in the level of ecoliteracy within five dimensions (OEL, EAWL, EETL, EEML, and EBEL). Overall, however, the level of ecoliteracy gradually declined with a decrease in positive attitudes toward nature.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.t001

In further multiple comparisons, the results were as follows. The Guiyang inhabitants who considered nature to be very important in their lives (“strongly agree”) had significantly higher OEL levels than those who chose “agree” ( p = 0.000), “not sure” ( p = 0.000), “disagree” ( p = 0.000), or “strongly disagree” ( p = 0.000), with the average score differences greater than 10 points: 12.618, 16.409, 16.032, and 27.409, respectively. The OEL levels of inhabitants who believed that nature was completely unimportant in their lives (“strongly disagree”) were significantly lower than those of participants who selected “agree” ( p = 0.000), “not sure” ( p = 0.004), or “disagree” ( p = 0.007), with average score differences higher than 10 points: 14.792, 11.001, and 11.377, respectively. In addition, participants who thought that nature was quite important in life (“agree”) scored significantly higher than those with the attitude of “not sure” ( p = 0.048) on the OEL level, with an average score difference of 3.791.

Attitude toward participating in outdoor activities

The average score percentages of different attitudes toward participating in outdoor activities and the differences reflected in OEL levels and FDs are shown in Fig 3 . The subsequent one-way ANOVA showed that the attitudes toward the importance of participating in outdoor activities greatly impacted all levels of ecoliteracy and that there were significant differences, with all coefficients at p = 0.000 ( Table 2 ). Those who thought participating in outdoor activities was very important (“strongly agree”) had the highest average OEL level scores (165.23±15.095, 82.62%). In contrast, Guiyang inhabitants who believed that participating in outdoor activities was completely unimportant (“strongly disagree”) had the lowest average OEL level scores (137.45±26.086, 68.73%). Regarding FDs, participants who chose the option “strongly agree” had significantly higher ecoliteracy scores than those who chose one of the other four options, and they also had the highest levels of ecoliteracy in their corresponding dimensions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.t002

In the posthoc tests conducted on this dataset, the participants who held a very important attitude (“strongly agree”) toward outdoor activities were different in their OEL levels from those who chose “agree” (p = 0.000), “not sure” (p = 0.000), “disagree” (p = 0.000), or “strongly disagree” (p = 0.035). Among them, the difference between the average of participants who chose “strongly agree” and “agree” was the smallest (9.144), and the difference between “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree” was the largest, with a score difference of 27.775. In addition, the OEL levels of Guiyang inhabitants who held an “agree” attitude were significantly higher than those who held a “disagree” attitude (p = 0.019), with an average difference of 15.819 .

Attitude toward improving the level of self-ecoliteracy

Differences in the levels of ecoliteracy among inhabitants with different levels of interest were subtle ( Fig 4 ). The results of the one-way ANOVA showed that respondents with different interests in improving their ecoliteracy levels had significant differences in their OEL levels and FDs. The significance coefficients were all p = 0.000. Participants who were very interested in improving their ecoliteracy levels had the highest OEL level scores (168.38±15.138, 84.19%), while those who were not interested in improving their ecoliteracy levels at all had the lowest OEL level scores (141.33±9.722, 70.67%). The results are presented in Table 3 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.t003

It can be seen from the posthoc test results that the inhabitants who were very interested in improving their ecoliteracy levels (“strongly agree”) had significantly higher scores than those who were somewhat interested (“agree,” p = 0.000), “not sure” ( p = 0.000), not interested (“disagree,” p = 0.000), or not interested at all (“strongly disagree,” p = 0.000), with average score differences of 10.190, 21.219, 22.078, and 27.049, respectively. Those who were more interested (“agree”) in improving their ecoliteracy levels had significantly higher OEL levels than those who were “not sure” ( p = 0.000), not very interested (“disagree”, p = 0.000), or not interested at all (“strongly disagree”, p = 0.000); the average score differences were 11.029, 11.889, and 16.860, respectively.

Frequency of daily outdoor activity

Behavioral characteristics represent a way of contact with the real world which can help train citizens to think and act ecologically and professionally [ 43 ]. In terms of OEL levels and FDs, the results of the one-way ANOVA ( Table 4 ) show that there was no significant difference in the frequency of outdoor activities among the respondents corresponding to EAWL ( p = 0.117), EETL ( p = 0.231), and EEML ( p = 0.066). However, OEL ( p = 0.000), EKNL ( p = 0.000), and EBEL ( p = 0.000) differed significantly according to the frequency of outdoor activities. The average percentage scores of the results for each level are shown in Fig 5 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g005

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.t004

As shown in Table 4 , the scores of the participants’ OEL levels gradually increased from the choice of “not at all” to engaging in outdoor activities more than seven times per week (≥7), which had the highest OEL levels (164.58±17.700, 82.29%), and participants who chose “not at all” had the lowest OEL levels, with an average score of only 153.92±16.647 (76.96%).

The posthoc test results showed respondents who engaged in outdoor activities seven times or more per week had significantly higher OEL levels than those who did so 3–4 times a week ( p = 0.003), 1–2 times a week ( p = 0.000), or not at all ( p = 0.000), with average score differences of 4.771, 6.997, and 10.658, respectively. The inhabitants who engaged in outdoor activities 5–6 times a week showed significantly higher OEL levels than those of inhabitants who indicated 1–2 times ( p = 0.002) or not at all ( p = 0.000) with average differences in scores of 4.601 and 8.261, respectively. In addition, those who engaged in outdoor activities 3–4 times a week also had significantly higher OEL levels than inhabitants who chose “not at all” ( p = 0.004), with a score difference of 5.887.

Frequency of main activities in ecological areas

In terms of OEL levels and FDs for activities in ecological areas, the average score percentages for each dimension showed subtle differences among the frequencies ( Fig 6 ). The results of the one-way ANOVA ( Table 5 ) showed no significant difference in the activity frequencies in terms of their EAWL ( p = 0.069) and EETL ( p = 0.062). There were significant differences in OEL ( p = 0.000), EKNL ( p = 0.000), EEML ( p = 0.000), and EBEL ( p = 0.000). Those respondents who visited ecological areas more than twice a week had the highest OEL levels (167.30±17.769, 83.65%). Inhabitants who did not visit ecological areas (“not at all”) had the lowest OEL levels (154.89±16.779, 77.45%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.t005

According to the posthoc test results, the inhabitants of Guiyang City who visited ecological areas more than twice a week exhibited OEL levels significantly higher than those who visited these areas 1–2 times a week ( p = 0.004), 1–2 times a month ( p = 0.000), 1–6 times a year ( p = 0.000), or almost never (“not at all”) ( p = 0.000), with average score differences of 4.906, 9.009, 10.352, and 12.407, respectively. In addition, the OEL levels of citizens who were active in ecological areas 1–2 times a week were significantly higher than those of the inhabitants who visited them 1–2 times a month ( p = 0.002), 1–6 times a year ( p = 0.000), or almost never (“not at all”) ( p = 0.000), with average score differences of 4.103, 5.446, and 7.500, respectively.

Frequency of participating in volunteer activities

The volunteer activities discussed here only relate to protecting the eco-environment (see Fig 7 for preliminary statistics). Based on the survey results of the one-way ANOVA ( Table 6 ), no significant difference was observed in EAWL ( p = 0.137) and EETL ( p = 0.075) levels. However, significant differences were observed in the levels of OEL ( p = 0.000), EKNL ( p = 0.000), EEML ( p = 0.002), and EBEL ( p = 0.000). Inhabitants who participated in volunteer activities had the highest OEL levels (169.24±17.576, 84.62%), and inhabitants who did not participate in volunteer activities at all (“never”) had the lowest OEL levels (154.20±15.594, 77.10%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g007

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.t006

In the posthoc tests, inhabitants who participated in volunteer activities often had significantly higher OEL levels than those who only participated “sometimes”( p = 0.001), “hardly ever” ( p = 0.000), or “never” ( p = 0.000), with relatively large differences: 7.856, 10.746, and 15.045, respectively. Inhabitants who often participated in volunteer activities also had significantly higher OEL levels than those who participated only “occasionally” ( p = 0.002), “hardly ever” ( p = 0.000), or “never” ( p = 0.000), with average differences in scores of 5.454, 8.344, and 12.642, respectively. The levels were significantly higher for those participating in volunteer activities than for those who did not ( p = 0.025) or never participated ( p = 0.000). Finally, the OEL levels of inhabitants who “hardly ever” participated in volunteer activities were significantly higher than those of inhabitants who did not participate at all (“never”) ( p = 0.002), with an average score difference of 4.298.

Frequency of using ecological knowledge

The average score percentages of ecoliteracy levels corresponding to the different frequencies of ecological knowledge use are shown in Fig 8 . One-way ANOVA was used to determine whether the different frequencies of the use of ecological knowledge by the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a significant effect on their OEL levels and FDs. The results ( Table 7 ) show that there were no significant differences in the levels of EAWL ( p = 0.107) and EETL ( p = 0.266), based on the different frequencies of ecological knowledge use in study or work. However, significant differences were observed in the levels of OEL ( p = 0.000), EKNL ( p = 0.000), EEML ( p = 0.000), and EBEL ( p = 0.000). Those participants who always used ecological knowledge in their study or work had the highest OEL levels (168.97±19.576, 84.49%), while those who did not use ecological knowledge at all (“never”) had the lowest OEL levels (153.22±16.988, 76.61%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.g008

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.t007

In the posthoc tests, the OEL levels of Guiyang inhabitants who “always” used ecological knowledge in their study or work were significantly higher than those who chose “sometimes” ( p = 0.000), “hardly ever” ( p = 0.000), or “never” ( p = 0.000). The average differences in scores were 8.911, 12.518, and 15.742, respectively. Inhabitants who often used ecological knowledge had significantly higher OEL levels than those who only “sometimes” used it ( p = 0.000), “hardly ever” used it ( p = 0.000), and “never” used it ( p = 0.000), with differences between the average values of 5.250, 8.856, and 12.081, respectively. Respondents who used ecological knowledge only “sometimes” had significantly higher OEL levels than those who used ecological knowledge “rarely ever” ( p = 0.003) or “never” ( p = 0.000), with average differences in scores of 3.606 and 6.831, respectively.

This section is a sequential discussion of the data results of this study. The aim is to reveal the meaning behind the data and the pathways to improve the ecoliteracy level for different individuals or groups, thereby broadening the scope of application as an interdisciplinary content of ecoliteracy and linguistic ecology.

Guiyang inhabitants’ attitudes toward nature directly reflect their impression of nature, which affect their levels of ecoliteracy, particularly EAWL. Inhabitants who believe nature is highly important have strong ecological awareness and affection for nature. It further stimulates their desire to gain ecological knowledge, using such scientific knowledge to strengthen their levels of ecoliteracy and then using their ecological ethics to restrain themselves, as reflected in ecological behavior.

As for the effect of attitude toward the importance of nature on the corresponding level of ecoliteracy, there are many cases consistent with the results of this study[ 32 , 44 ], whether in the consciousness of most people or in relevant researches. The implications of relevant research are as follows: people’s perceptions of nature will change over time, as will their attitudes toward nature [ 32 , 45 ]. This study found that Guiyang inhabitants’ attitudes toward nature are influenced by various factors, such as their educational background, family influence, and the media. Therefore, deepening their understanding and internalization of the concept of ecological sustainability and reflecting on their current ecologically unsustainable behaviors can enhance their levels of ecoliteracy.

When ecological problems become increasingly prominent, the role of nature in people’s lives has become increasingly significant. This means that we have to focus on the inhabitants of Guiyang City, who are currently unconcerned with nature. This study can infer that most inhabitants of Guiyang City believe that nature is “very important” (“strongly agree”) or “relatively important” (“agree”) (n = 860), accounting for 87.04% of all participants. On the other hand, the proportion of those respondents who think nature is “unimportant” (“disagree”) or “completely unimportant” (“strongly disagree”) (n = 53) was only 5.36%. Therefore, when ecoliteracy is raised among inhabitants who consider nature unimportant, the influence of surrounding people is critical. Through interpersonal communication and joint work, they can indirectly influence low-level ecoliteracy inhabitants to reflect on their attitudes toward nature. This can result in higher levels of ecoliteracy.

The inhabitants of Guiyang City who have a very positive attitude toward outdoor activities may not necessarily participate in those activities frequently, but do express the intention to participate. Such a tendency can directly affect their ecological awareness, emotional reactions, and propose more restrictive conduct through ecological ethics and therefore develop a higher level of EEML. These aspects are sufficient to motivate them to gain a higher level of ecoliteracy. Otherwise, inhabitants with a negative attitude about participating in outdoor activities will not have enough love for the outdoors, including ecology and nature. Therefore, this part of the population shows a lower level of ecoliteracy. The results of this section support the views of Sebba, Pitman et al. and others to varying degrees [ 32 , 46 ].

It was also found that the number of participants who found outdoor activities unimportant or completely unimportant was very small (n = 26), accounting for only 2.63% of all participants. This percentage was sufficient to show that overall, the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a very positive attitude toward participating in outdoor activities, which is the first step in engaging in outdoor activities, which, in turn, will have an effect on positive ecological behavior. As a result, only three sets of data showed significant differences in the posthoc test of both levels of EKNL and EAWL. The most direct reason for this was that attitude toward outdoor activities reflected the level of thinking or awareness. At present, the publicity and education about ecology in Guiyang City are considered positive, and they strive to instill awareness and the helping of others. Therefore, in addition to consciously going outside into nature, people must influence others to jointly enhance a connection with nature and improve ecoliteracy levels [ 47 ]. However, the small difference in EKNL levels was due to this factor not being directly related to the level of ecological knowledge. Thus, strengthening the guidance of ecological awareness, ethics, emotions, and behaviors for those who are resistant to participating in outdoor activities and subtly improving their attitudes toward participating in outdoor activities is essential. This is an advantageous step in improving ecoliteracy levels.

Attitude toward improving level of self-ecoliteracy

Those inhabitants of Guiyang City who were very interested (“strongly agree”) and quite interested (“agree”) in improving their ecological knowledge and understanding, as well as their level of ecoliteracy, had the highest levels of ecoliteracy, which were significantly higher than those of the other three levels of interest. This showed that interest in a particular field was relevant to the effect of knowledge and the cultivation of ability within that field. Tobias also pointed out that people interested in a subject will acquire more knowledge about it because they actively spend time on activities in that subject [ 48 ]. Over time, interest in this area has motivated people to form inherently stable literacy. Based on the results of this research, a high level of ecoliteracy was formed. In contrast, those Guiyang inhabitants who were less interested (“disagree” and “strongly disagree”) in ecological knowledge, understanding, and their ecoliteracy levels, had very low levels of ecoliteracy. However, the number of inhabitants in this group was small (n = 61), accounting for only 6.17% of the total participants. In summary, most inhabitants of Guiyang City (an ecologically advanced city) could manage their ecoliteracy level. Their good self-management has achieved the steady development of Guiyang’s ecologically-aware civilization.

Whether the ecoliteracy countermeasures proposed in each part of this research can be successfully realized depends on the interests of the inhabitants. This section further validates some of the discussion by Pitman et al., and Lin and Cai [ 32 , 49 ]. The results showed that the proportion of very interested people (“strongly agree”) and quite interested (“agree”) in improving their ecological knowledge and understanding, and ecoliteracy levels reached 82.09% (n = 811). This suggests that many strategies proposed by this study, after such comparison of differences, are likely to be realized. Therefore, when we strive to implement measures for improving inhabitants with low ecoliteracy, attention needs to be given to those who are not very interested in their own ecoliteracy. Other measures can be more effectively implemented when their interests are successfully cultivated.

In terms of daily outdoor activity, the ecoliteracy difference was specifically evident in ecological knowledge and behavior. Those inhabitants usually deeply understood the eco-environment because they had more ecological knowledge and took the initiative to visit nature areas to participate in activities, or they devoted themselves to nature just for exercise. Regardless of the reasons, they directly touched the sky, earth, flowers, trees, various animals in nature, and rocks, in contrast to viewing such things through windows or literature. Impressions of ecological knowledge are more profound when ecosystems are visited. Therefore, respondents who often participate in outdoor activities differed from other inhabitants with respect to levels of EKNL. The increase in the frequency of daily outdoor activities improved not only the inhabitants’ inherent EKNL, but also the use of their ecological knowledge to think critically about ecological issues because of what they saw and heard outdoors. This caused their EBEL to become significantly higher than that of other inhabitants. Under the combined effect of “knowledge” and “action,” the differences in the frequency of daily outdoor activities can produce significant differences in their ecoliteracy levels.

The research results here support the viewpoint of several researchers, such as McDaniel and Alley, Pitman et al. [ 33 , 50 ]. They generally agree that with the increase in the frequency of daily outdoor activity, the level of ecoliteracy will be improved, especially the effect on the grasp of ecological knowledge and ecological action practice is relatively significant. For this characteristic behavioral factor, countermeasures can be found from two perspectives (the inhabitants and ecoliteracy), but the countermeasures are both aimed at those respondents who participate in outdoor activities less frequently and encourage those inhabitants to participate outside.

From their perspective, physical health is important and a prerequisite and foundation for successful study or work. This makes it easier to guide them toward participating in outdoor activities. In recent years, the nationwide physical fitness campaign has gradually been promoted and will indirectly influence the outdoor activity participation frequency of Guiyang inhabitants. From the perspective of ecoliteracy itself, special attention needs to be paid to learning ecological knowledge and the practice of ecological behavior of these inhabitants. We also need to inspire outdoor activity participants to include those who usually do not participate in. Then, the inhabitants with low frequency of daily outdoor activity are initiated to participate in outdoor activity and learn about ecology. This is more effective than learning about ecology through education alone. Ecological knowledge implemented through ecologically-based actions will effectively improve the ecoliteracy levels of inhabitants.

The landscape presented by the ecological area was more concentrated, and inhabitants did not need to seek nature. Local signage can allow information about plants, for example, to be provided and thus produce a certain level of understanding and knowledge of ecology from simple attendance. This may improve levels of EKNL. In terms of EEML, inhabitants willing to take the initiative to enter an ecological area for activities have a certain understanding of the ecology and environment, and want to discover further. Therefore, inhabitants who frequently visit ecological areas have higher EEML levels than those who do not. The comprehensive effect of these types of literacy on the behaviors of citizens leads to significant differences in their levels of EBEL. Ultimately, inhabitants often visiting ecological areas have a higher level of ecoliteracy, while inhabitants being less active in ecological areas have a relatively low level of ecoliteracy.

The views in this article are similar to those of Hammarsten et al. and Wells et al. [ 51 , 52 ]. Among them, Wells et al. advocated learning plant science knowledge, cultivating interest in plants and improving the ecoliteracy of participants through participation in horticultural activities. Optimization of management and citizens should be prioritized to improve ecoliteracy levels in the process of ecological area activities.

On the one hand, managers must ensure the comprehensive and accurate introduction of different species in ecoregions so that more inhabitants are willing to visit. Managers in ecological areas also need to have a higher level of ecoliteracy and be able to continuously broaden their ecological knowledge to further improve their ecoliteracy levels. On the other hand, we still need to pay attention to the individuals of Guiyang inhabitants. Levels of ecoliteracy may not directly be improved when activities in ecological areas are offered; however, activities in ecological areas will reduce the pressure on citizens, cultivate an appreciation of nature, and so indirectly improve ecological knowledge of the area, and thus ecoliteracy. Therefore, this study advocates that the inhabitants of Guiyang City undertake activities in ecological areas after their daily study or work, not only to improve their physical and mental health but also for their ecoliteracy levels.

Volunteer experiences related to the ecology and environment can significantly affect the levels of ecoliteracy among Guiyang inhabitants, which is mainly reflected in their ecological knowledge, emotions, and behaviors. Participating in volunteer activities related to ecological and environmental protection is an active behavior of inhabitants and a manifestation of EBEL. These volunteers hoped to help complete the activities through their ecoliteracy, while wanting to deliver ecological content to the people they served. Citizens who want to participate in such volunteer activities also strongly appreciate and respect the eco-environment and have a high level of EEML. In terms of EKNL, by participating in volunteer activities for ecological and environmental protection, they will acquire a certain amount of ecological knowledge during the training and activities before such events, which not only improves the service ability of the volunteers but also enhances their EKNL levels. When their overall levels of ecoliteracy are improved, their willingness and ability to continue participating in volunteer activities related to ecological and environmental protection are also enhanced.

The research perspective that affirms the participation of related volunteer activities to improve people’s ecoliteracy level and protect the well-being of human survival has been verified [ 53 , 54 ]. In this part of the study, the number of Guiyang inhabitants who always or often chose to participate in volunteer activities related to ecological and environmental protection was relatively small (n = 170), accounting for only 17.21% of all participants. In contrast, 59.92% (n = 592) of the participants reported that they “hardly ever” or “never” participated in volunteer activities related to ecological and environmental protection. This gap was proportionally very wide; more than half of Guiyang inhabitants rarely participated in volunteer activities related to ecological and environmental protection, and such activities could significantly affect their ecoliteracy levels. This requires the cultivation of inhabitants’ service awareness and encourages them to actively participate in ecological and environmental protection services to improve their levels of ecoliteracy. Increasing citizen participation in volunteer activities in the eco-environment will improve the ecoliteracy level effectively and quickly.

The frequency of using ecological knowledge is directly related to a person’s level of EKNL, which is also explained by repeated training in a certain subject as an indispensable part of mastering a skill. Therefore, the inhabitants of Guiyang City who used ecological knowledge more frequently in their studies or work had higher levels of EKNL than those who did not. This fosters a significant appreciation for the eco-environment, gradually forming the EEML discussed in this study. Furthermore, inhabitants who improve their levels of EKNL and EEML through this approach will have ecological behaviors that are superior to others; i.e., they use their good ecological knowledge and emotions in their learning or working behaviors so that their overall levels of ecoliteracy are higher than those of inhabitants who use ecological knowledge less frequently. In other words, ecological knowledge’s important role in forming ecoliteracy is demonstrated again [ 11 , 25 ].

Ecological knowledge is one of the most basic and important factors in the development of ecoliteracy. At present, the inhabitants of Guiyang City who always or often used ecological knowledge in their studies or work only accounted for 26.52% of the sample (n = 262), while inhabitants who rarely (“hardly ever”) or never use ecological knowledge accounted for 43.83% (n = 433), i.e., nearly half of the local inhabitants rarely use ecological knowledge in their studies or work. However, some learning or working content is not related to ecological knowledge; therefore, a question would be raised: how do people use ecological knowledge in their ordinary life? From the perspective of linguistic ecology, the finding of countermeasures can be focused on ecological discourse for situations in which the content of study or work has low relevance to the eco-environment. That is, in the act of their study or work, they should consciously use eco-beneficial discourses and control their wasteful behavior through ecological actions. Such inhabitants should gradually form strong ecological emotions and improve their ecoliteracy.

Conclusions

Ecoliteracy is a key factor in achieving sustainable development in human society, and its role always exists in the harmonious relationship between humans and nature [ 32 ]. Currently, research on ecoliteracy issues is mainly concentrated within the discipline of ecology (e.g., [ 20 ]), and it is quite rare to use an interdisciplinary perspective for analysis, particularly the perspective of linguistic ecology (e.g., [ 11 ]). Therefore, this research on ecoliteracy is significant to the development planning of Guiyang City, the tenth most ecologically advanced city in China, and it is also significant to other cities in China and other countries. Based on constructing an ecoliteracy mechanism model, this article has analyzed and discussed a series of lifestyle characteristics factors and has determined three main conclusions.

First, from the perspective of linguistic ecology, the formation and development of ecoliteracy are carried out under dynamic and circular models. The coordination of five variables is required, including the independent variable (second-level indicators), mediating variable (FDs), moderating variable (external environmental factors), dependent variable (ecoliteracy), and control variable (personal characteristics) for improving the ecoliteracy and cycle of conscience of Guiyang inhabitants. Ultimately, an ecosystem can be built where humans and nature live harmoniously.

Second, this study considers the various variables in the ecoliteracy mechanism model but the focus has been on lifestyle characteristics (control variables). The study found that the seven characteristic lifestyle factors investigated here led to differences in the frequency of the participants’ activities, with significant differences in their OEL levels and, to varying degrees, in their FDs. This means that both the attitudes of Guiyang inhabitants toward ecological issues and their practice of ecological activities had strong positive effects on their ecoliteracy.

Third, improvements in inhabitants’ ecoliteracy can also promote changes in physical literacy. It is beneficial for enhancing the health and well-being of future generations [ 55 ]. Based on the results of the lifestyle intervention factors in this study, Guiyang inhabitants are encouraged to first maintain a positive attitude toward nature and then participate in outdoor activities and manage their ecoliteracy. On a personal level, such an attitude allows people to take the initiative to step into nature to strengthen their ecoliteracy and undertake physical exercise such as hiking, mountain climbing, or visiting forest parks. Not only does this improve health and reduce work- and life-related stress, but it also promotes ecoliteracy.

Although this study is significant for the sustainable development of society, it has a few limitations that should be further explored. Currently, the core of this study is "ecoliteracy", which is placed under the framework of linguistic ecology to explore the interaction between lifestyle interventions and ecoliteracy, but the realization of sustainable development goals has not been discussed. In subsequent studies, we can continue to apply the study of lifestyle interventions and ecoliteracy into the broader context of sustainable development and discuss its effectiveness on the realization of SDGs, such as the intrinsic value in Quality Education (SDG 4), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) and Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12).

• In our study, before the one-way ANOVA, the data were tested for homogeneity of variance. If the homogeneity of variance had p <0.05, and the ratio of the maximum-to-minimum-variance of the factor was greater than 3, this factor needed to use a robust test method for mean equality to examine significant differences and trends. The two rows of values in F and p in each Table were evaluated by this method. The superscript “1” designates the F-value and significance of the Welch test. The superscript “2” designates the F-value and significance of the Brown-Forsythe test.
• EKNL: Ecosystem knowledge; Knowledge of damage to the eco-environment; Knowledge of the relationship between humans and nature; Ecological and environmental protection knowledge.

EAWL: Ecological and environmental protection behavior subject consciousness; Ecological and environmental protection value awareness; Awareness of the severity of current ecological and environmental problems; Making judgments on the ecological and environmental damage encountered.

EETL: Correctly recognizing the relationship between humans and nature; The ethics and morality of protecting the eco-environment; Affirming the role of nature; Respecting and cherishing all living things.

EEML: Awe of the natural environment; Love for the natural environment; Sensitivity to natural environment protection; Ability to take responsibility for ecological and environmental issues.

EBEL: Daily practice of environmental protection; Participation in environmental education activities; Scientific environmental protection skills and methods; Positive influence on the environmental protection behavior of others.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.s001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.s002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287286.s003

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all the people who helped complete this research and the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improving the manuscript.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 8. Bird L, Kreycik C, Friedman B. Green power marketing in the United States: a status report, 11th ed.; National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A2-44094, Golden, Colorado, USA; 2008.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 17. Orr DW. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. State University of New York Press, Albany, USA; 1992.
• 28. Capra F. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. Random House Digital, Inc, New York, NY; 2004.
• 36. Haugen E. The ecology of language. In Dil A.S. (ed.). The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1972; pp. 325–339.
• 40. Stibbe A. Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By, 2nd ed.; Routledge, London, UK; 2021.
• 45. Haraway DJ. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, New York; 2013.

You searched for:

Ecological literacy - preparing children for the twenty-first century, playful activities promote the development of ecological literacy in young children.

The focus of this study was on the development of ecological literacy in young children through a series of classroom-based “recreational activities” planned and implemented by the teacher. Ecological literacy includes an understanding of basic ecological principles, such as the idea that all living organisms interact and exist in a complex web of relationships. The development of ecological literacy plays a critical role in shaping an individual’s attitude toward sustainability and an understanding of how promoting a sustainable environment relates to fairness in the economic, ecological and social spheres of society.

This study was conducted with four- and five-year-old children in a school in Brazil. The teacher used a sequence of activities including dramatization, games, drawings and group discussions to help children understand the scientific concept of a food web. This approach is based on the understanding that young children learn through observation, experimentation and debate, and that these experiences can be facilitated through playful activities. When used as a pedagogical tool, playful activities provide enjoyment, decision-making, choice, discovery and child-led questions and solutions. For this study, the playful activities introduced by the teacher were presented in a four-step sequence: knowing, experiencing, reflecting, and evaluating. Each step included several different “interventions” or activities. The activities were videotaped, allowing for an analyzes of children’s engagement in the activities.

Results indicated that the playful activities relating to the scientific concept of the food web were effective in fostering observation, attention, and imagination. They also contributed to the development of oral and written expression and vocabulary expansion. Only children with prior knowledge about animals and their diet gained new understanding of the concept of a food web. However, even the children with no prior familiarity with the subject recognized relationships between living organisms and had some realization of their role in it. This realization helped children appreciate the importance of caring for animals and plants.

These findings highlight the role of play in stimulating the involvement and curiosity of young children. These findings also suggest that playful activities can be effective in promoting improved understanding about the relationships between animals, plants, and food. A playful approach, then, can be used to foster ecological literacy in young children.

de Brito Miranda, A.C., Jófili, Z., dos Anjos Carneiro-Leão, A.M., (2017). Ecological literacy - Preparing children for the twenty-first century. Early Child Development and Care, 187(2), 192-205.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1226353

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR RESEARCH DIGEST

Our monthly Research Digest will alert you to timely research from the field. Feel free to also sign up for our other publications like Finding Nature News, if you're not already subscribed.

Explore our Research Digest Archive

MADE POSSIBLE WITH SUPPORT FROM:

MADE POSSIBLE WITH ONGOING SUPPORT FROM:

A collaborative research library of:

Connect to more resources through our eeResearch collaboration with the North American Association for Environmental Education, combining articles, syntheses and research summaries for the field of environmental education and the children and nature movement.

SUPPORT OUR WORK

Help us make sure that all children live, learn and grow with nature in their daily lives.

Essay on Environmental Literacy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Environmental Literacy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Environmental Literacy

Understanding environmental literacy.

Environmental literacy means knowing about nature and how our actions affect it. It’s like learning to read the world around us. When we understand the air, water, plants, and animals, we can make better choices to keep our planet healthy.

Why It Matters

Being environmentally literate is important because it helps us care for our home, Earth. If we know what harms our environment, we can work to stop it. This knowledge lets us live in a way that doesn’t hurt nature.

Learning and Acting

Schools teach us about the environment, but we also learn by doing. Planting trees, recycling, and saving water are ways to practice what we learn. When we act, we make a real difference.

Everyone’s Role

Everyone can help, no matter how young or old. By being environmentally literate, we can all contribute to a healthier planet. Sharing what we know with friends and family spreads the word even further.

250 Words Essay on Environmental Literacy

Environmental literacy is about knowing how nature works and how we fit into the environment. It’s like being able to read and understand the language of the earth. When we are environmentally literate, we can make choices that help our planet.

Caring for our world is very important. If we don’t look after the earth, we can face big problems like dirty air, no clean water, and animals losing their homes. Being smart about the environment means we can stop these problems from getting worse.

Learning About Nature

To become environmentally literate, we need to learn about plants, animals, and how everything in nature is connected. This can start with simple things like planting a tree or watching birds. Schools can teach us, and we can also learn from books, movies, and even games that talk about the environment.

Doing Our Part

Everyone, including kids, can do things to help. Turning off lights when we leave a room, recycling bottles and papers, and using less water are good ways to start. When we do these things, we show that we care about our planet.

Sharing Knowledge

Sharing what we know about the environment with friends and family can help them become environmentally literate too. The more people understand and care about the earth, the better we can all work together to protect it.

Being environmentally literate is not hard. It’s about learning, caring, and doing our part to keep our world healthy and beautiful for now and the future.

500 Words Essay on Environmental Literacy

Environmental literacy is knowing about the Earth’s environment and how humans fit into it. It means understanding the air, water, land, and living things around us and how they all work together. It is like being able to read and write about nature. When someone is environmentally literate, they can make choices that help keep our planet healthy.

The Importance of Being Environmentally Literate

Being environmentally literate is very important because our world is facing big problems like pollution and climate change. If we learn about these issues, we can start to fix them. It is just like if someone is sick, you need to know what is wrong before you can help them get better. Our Earth is like a patient that needs our help, and environmental literacy is the medicine we need to use.

What Does Environmental Literacy Include?

Environmental literacy covers many things. It includes knowing how nature works. For example, how rain falls from the clouds, how plants grow, and how animals live in different places. It also means understanding how humans use natural resources like water, wood, and minerals. Lastly, it is about learning what happens when we don’t take care of our world, like when too much trash hurts animals and plants.

How Can We Become Environmentally Literate?

To become environmentally literate, we can start by learning from books, videos, and teachers about the environment. We can also go outside and see nature for ourselves. Watching birds, planting a garden, or picking up trash at the park can teach us a lot. We can also talk to our friends and family about what we learn and why it is important to care for the Earth.

Actions for an Environmentally Literate Person

An environmentally literate person doesn’t just know about the environment; they also do things to help. They might recycle, save water, or ride a bike instead of asking for a car ride. They might also tell others about how to be kind to the environment. By doing these things, they are showing that they care and are trying to make a difference.

Environmental Literacy in Our Daily Lives

We can use environmental literacy every day. When we choose a snack, we can think about where it came from and how it was made. When we turn off lights we are not using, we save energy. And when we learn about new ways to help the environment, we can try them out. Every small choice can add up to a big change for our planet.

Environmental literacy is a tool that helps us understand and take care of our world. By learning about the environment and acting to protect it, we can make sure our planet stays beautiful and healthy for a long time. It is like being part of a team where everyone is working together to win a very important game – the game of keeping our Earth safe for all living things.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Environmental Health
• Essay on Chores At Home
• Essay on Environment Advocacy

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Assessing ecological literacy and its application based on linguistic ecology: a case study of Guiyang City, China

• Research Article
• Published: 26 October 2021
• Volume 29 , pages 18741–18754, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Changchen Ha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8251-1864 1 ,
• Guowen Huang 1 , 2 ,
• Jiaen Zhang 3 , 4 &
• Shumin Dong 5  

4208 Accesses

7 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

To address the frequent emergence of ecological problems, ecology has intersected with various disciplines. From the perspective of linguistic ecology, ecological literacy is an important concept that combines the subjects of ecology and linguistics. It not only discusses ecological issues, but also establishes a linguistic framework. Here, we constructed a quantitative method of assessing ecological literacy from the perspective of linguistic ecology. Ecological literacy was divided into five parts: ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. Each of these was set with four quantitative indicators that were evaluated through eight questions. A case study was conducted to investigate the ecological literacy of the inhabitants of Guiyang City, one of China’s top ten ecologically advanced cities. The results showed that the proposed assessment method was an effective way to evaluate the level of ecological literacy comprehensively. In the case analysis, the overall ecological literacy level of Guiyang inhabitants was relatively good, and the levels of the five specific dimensions of them in descending order were as follows: ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological knowledge literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. The results of this study are conducive to the production of targeted ways to improve the level of ecological literacy for sustainable development.

Similar content being viewed by others

Examining (in)justice, environmental activism and indigenous knowledge systems in the Indian film Kantara (Mystical Forest)

Goutam Karmakar & Payel Pal

A differentiated approach to Indigenous pedagogies: addressing gaps in teachers’ knowledge

Johanna Funk & Tracy Woodroffe

Environmental Literacy

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Since the 1900s, with the accelerated development of the economy, science, and technology, human life has greatly improved. Meanwhile, it has also brought about many global ecological problems pertaining to population, resources, and the environment. In particular, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which began at the end of 2019, has once again sounded the alarm regarding human attitudes and behavior toward nature. In the context of the tense relationship between humans and the natural environment, researchers in many countries and different fields have started looking at the surrounding world from an ecological perspective, re-examining the thoughts and behavior of humankind, and working hard to solve environmental problems. Thus, the phenomenon of so-called ecologicalization in contemporary science has formed many emerging interdisciplinary subjects related to ecology (Li and Yuan 1988 ), including environmental ecology (Jin 1992 ), human ecology (Wang 1998 ), urban ecology (Wu et al. 2014 ), and linguistic ecology (Alexander and Stibbe 2014 ; Huang 2016 ). The key point is to study many problems in human production and life from the perspective of ecology or by using the principles of ecology.

It is crucial to our survival and development to establish integrity in the relationship between humans and nature. Therefore, we must understand life-sustaining ecosystems and their operating methods, while gaining ecological knowledge. This is the basis for ecological literacy, which plays an important role in the sustainable development of society. With the emergence of multiple negative factors, such as industrialization, urbanization, population growth, resource consumption, and the endangerment and extinction of species, the current epoch has been named the Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000 ; Steffen et al. 2007 ; Scholz 2011 ; Huang and Xiao 2017 ), signaling a series of changes to the relationship between humans and nature. People are generally worried that the overall level of ecological literacy in many countries and regions is insufficient to make effective decisions for an ecologically sustainable lifestyle. Although ecological knowledge and ecological literacy are only contributing factors to sustainable development, they are fundamental and cannot be replaced by other factors. This has prompted various countries and regions to assess the level of ecological literacy and promote research in this area.

Ecological literacy involves many factors, making its assessment especially complicated. In recent years, many researchers have developed ecological literacy assessment tools and applied them to research on middle school and secondary education (NAAEE 2011a , 2011b ; Shen et al. 2020 ). At the same time, some researchers have focused on the ecological literacy of adults (Arcury 1990 ; McDaniel and Alley 2005 ; Davidson 2010 ; Pitman and Daniels 2016 ; Pitman et al. 2016 , 2017 ). Other studies on ecological literacy have covered a more comprehensive age range, by including both adolescents and adults (Wang et al. 2017 ; Lin and Cai 2019 ). But because such studies cover a wider range of ages, the scope of other factors, such as regional selection, is usually relatively small.

In China, research on ecological literacy and the related characteristics of inhabitants in ecologically advanced cities is important because it is conducive to the generation and optimization of sustainable decisions. Here, we concentrated on ecological literacy in Guiyang City, China. We proposed an assessment method based on linguistic ecology. We applied the proposed method to a case study of the inhabitants in Guiyang. We asked three questions: (1) What does the term “ecological literacy” mean in the perspective of linguistic ecology? (2) How can ecological literacy be assessed in an efficient and meaningful way in China? (3) What can we learn from the case study of Guiyang City about the inhabitants’ ecological literacy level? These research questions are answered in the next two sections.

Concepts and methods

• Linguistic ecology

In the expansion of ecology to the humanities, the combination of ecology and linguistics has formed an emerging discipline, called linguistic ecology or the ecology of language. From the perspective of ecology, the roots of linguistic ecology can be traced back to research on human ecology. Human ecology advocates the use of ecological methods to explore the relationship between humans and nature. Rusong Wang ( 1998 ), a well-known ecologist in China, described human ecology as the combination of ecology, sociology, economics, and other disciplines at different levels. Although these disciplines have different origins, they all involve the subject of the relationship between humans and nature, and they require the application of systematic, comprehensive, and evolutionary ecological methods.

Linguistic ecology emphasizes the influence of language on the sustainable relationship of life, including the relationships between language and humans, humans and other species, and humans and the physical environment. Linguistic ecology aims to reveal the interaction between language and the environment, mainly through the study of the ecological factors of language and the relationship between language and the ecological environment (Alexander and Stibbe 2014 ; Huang 2016 ), with the ultimate aim of enhancing ecological awareness and ecological literacy. This means that ecological philosophy is an important guiding factor. Linguistic ecology also refers to the problem of ecological thought. Such practices can serve as a guide to achieve agreement between knowledge and action, solving the ecological problems, and changing the ecological status quo.

• Ecological literacy

Literacy and environmental literacy

The term “literacy” first appeared in the late nineteenth century. It was originally exclusive to the fields of reading and writing and referred to the ability to read and write (Stibbe 2009 ). It was thus terminology that first pertained to linguistics. Since the Industrial Revolution, usage of the term “literacy” has gradually expanded. In the 1960s, a literate citizen was thought to have knowledge and capability in a particular field or fields, and to be able to take effective action on many complex issues facing society (McBridge et al. 2013 ). Therefore, the term “literacy” has expanded to include knowledge of specific disciplines or problems, and it can now refer to one’s level of knowledge and capability in such fields. The terms “environmental literacy” and “ecological literacy” have since appeared in ecological research. Ecological literacy evolved from environmental literacy, and these two concepts are inseparable.

The term “environmental literacy” was first used by Charles Roth in research on the topic of understanding environmentally literate citizens (Roth 1968 ; Roth 1992 ; Morrone et al. 2001 ; O’ Brien 2007 ). But attention to the issue began in the early 1960s. Rachel Carson questioned the abnormal phenomena of the natural environment in America in her book, "Silent Spring" (Carson 1962 ). At present, the most widely used definition of environmental literacy is the one proposed by the NAAEE, which indicated that environmental literacy includes awareness and concern about the environment and environmental issues, as well as knowledge, skills, and the motivation to solve current related problems and prevent new problems (NAAEE 2000/2004 , 2011a , 2011b ; Scholz 2011 ). Although this research does not discuss the content and framework of environmental literacy directly, environmental literacy is a broader concept. Ecological literacy is a secondary concept, and it is also the development of the connotation of environmental literacy. Ecological literacy provides the necessary ecological foundation for environmental literacy.

Concepts and framework of ecological literacy in linguistic ecology

Ecological literacy is a relatively abstract concept, and scholars differ in understanding the concept and framework of ecological literacy. After Paul Risser pointed out in 1986 that America had certain shortcomings in scientific literacy, especially ecology-based literacy, many researchers began discussing the concept of ecological literacy (Risser 1986 ; Orr 1992 ; Berkowitz et al. 2005 ; Coyle 2005 ; Bruyere 2008 ; McBride et al. 2013 ; Pitman and Daniels 2016 ; Huang and Zhao 2019 ; Huang and Ha 2021 ). Coyle ( 2005 ) proposed a visual pyramid to discuss personal ecological literacy. The pyramid is composed of three levels from bottom to top: environmental knowledge, environmental attitudes, and ecological literacy. Ecological literacy is at the top of the pyramid because it is developed through personal environmental knowledge, values, and actions taken in response to environmental problems. Other researchers have divided ecological literacy into different categories: ecological knowledge, ecological attitudes, and ecological behavior (Bruyere 2008 ); or ecological knowledge literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy (Huang and Zhao 2019 ).

We submit that ecological awareness is another important part of the framework of ecological literacy in linguistic ecology. Thus, we propose the following five factors: (1) ecological knowledge literacy; (2) ecological awareness literacy; (3) ecological ethics literacy; (4) ecological emotional literacy; and (5) ecological behavioral literacy. In essence, ecological literacy refers to the acquisition and dissemination of ecological knowledge, enhancing awareness of ecological protection, and ultimately guiding the sustainable development of ecological behavior to achieve a higher level of ecological literacy. In other words, the five dimensions of ecological literacy comprise a unified whole, and each of them is almost equally important theoretically (Figure 1 ). They influence each other interactively. Of these, ecological knowledge literacy is foundational, ecological awareness literacy indicates the direction of action, ecological ethics literacy emphasizes moral standards, ecological emotional literacy is the internal driving force, and ecological behavioral literacy is the ultimate goal.

Formation process of ecological literacy

People acquire ecological knowledge through various channels such as national or local policies, social-level publicity and education, family guidance, and gradually formed ecological knowledge literacy. As ecological problems become more and more serious, ecosystems continue to be destroyed, and natural disasters frequently occur, people will have a sense of crisis and indirectly realize the importance of harmonious coexistence between humans and the natural environment. Through their own ecological knowledge, they will enhance their awareness and emotions regarding environmental protection. With strong ecological awareness, people will also be restricted by ecological ethics and morals, and their ecological awareness literacy will be regulated. Moreover, people affected by ecological ethics will continue to judge their own psychological direction based on their own emotional attitudes or ecological philosophy. Positive emotional factors will form a certain ability for ecological emotional literacy, which will provide a strong motivation for ecological behavior. Under the comprehensive effects of various national and regional regulations, as well as their own ecological knowledge, ecological awareness, ecological ethics, and ecological emotional literacy, people will carry out their own ecological protection behavior and form their own ecological behavioral literacy. Ecological literacy levels will thus be improved. After ecological literacy levels improve, further self-reflection is needed to continue to strengthen the acquisition of ecological knowledge, the enhancement of ecological awareness, the consolidation of ecological ethics, and the improvement of ecological emotion and ecological behavior. This will be more conducive to the development of ecological society, and it will produce a higher level of ecological literacy to realize the effect of ecological literacy on ecological knowledge literacy.

In July 2015, the first National Ecological Civilization Construction Summit Forum and the City and Scenic Area Ecological Civilization Achievement Conference was held in Beijing, China. The theme of the meeting was “Promoting the Construction of Ecological Civilization and Building a Beautiful Green Home”. The following cities in China were named the most ecologically advanced (i.e., “ecologically civilized”): Longyan City, Zhongshan City, Guiyang City, Qinhuangdao City, Liuyang City, Wuxi City, Xuzhou City, Dezhou City, Qingdao City, Shangri-La City (Figure 2 ).

Distribution of China’s top ten ecologically advanced cities and administrative district division of Guiyang City

Combining the actual situation of the surveyed cities and the feasibility of the survey process, we selected Guiyang City as a case study. The participants were local inhabitants, and according to the overall sampling statistics method, an effective sample size of inhabitants was randomly selected for the research.

Guiyang City is the capital of Guizhou Province. It is located in the southwestern region of China and in the center of Guizhou Province, at 106°07′–107°17′ E, 26°11′–26°55′ N (Figure 2 ). It is the political, economic, cultural, scientific, educational, and transportation center of Guizhou Province. The construction of ecological civilization in Guiyang City started early, beginning with the completion of two forest belts around the city in the 1980s. In 2002, it was designated by the State Environmental Protection Administration as the country’s first pilot unit for an ecological city with a circular economy. In 2009, there was an ecological civilization conference held in Guiyang City, and this was upgraded to the Guiyang International Forum on Ecological Civilization in 2013, the only national-level international forum on ecological civilization in China at that time. In 2018, Guiyang City was listed among the “2018 Top Ten Cities for Green Development and Ecological Civilization Construction”.

As of the end of 2018, Guiyang City has a land area of 8043.37 km 2 and a forest coverage rate of 39.19%, including six districts, three counties, and one county-level city (Figure 2 ). The permanent population (i.e., inhabitants for 6 months or longer) is 4,881,900, including an urban population of 3,682,400 and a rural population of 1,199,500, covering more than 30 ethnic minorities. We conducted a sample survey of the inhabitants of Guiyang City, taking six districts, three counties, and one county-level city in Guiyang City as the sampling level, and stratifying the inhabitants of each district (city, county) according to a certain proportion. Random sampling was used to reflect the overall level of the ecological literacy of the inhabitants in Guiyang City. One issue that needs special attention here is the definition of the research object “inhabitants”. In the survey process, combined with the statistics of the permanent population in the "Guiyang Statistical Yearbook 2019", the “inhabitants” involved in this study refer to the permanent inhabitants of Guiyang City, that is, the people who had lived in Guiyang City for 6 months or longer before the start of the survey (i.e., before September 30th, 2020) and who lived in Guiyang City throughout the survey. Other populations were not within the scope of the study.

Questionnaire design

Design steps.

To design the questionnaire, we proceeded as follows. The first step was to determine the conceptual framework and dimensions of “ecological literacy,” including ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy as the first-level indicators of ecological literacy. An analytic hierarchy process in statistics requires that the indicators considered can be investigated and measured in actual situations; this required us to construct a series of decomposition content reflecting the force and influence of the elements, and to analyze the decomposition content. This content is described in detail (Xiao and Fan 2011 ). Therefore, within the scope of each first-level indicator, after discussions with five Chinese experts and scholars in the field of ecology, especially in the field of linguistic ecology, we formulated second-level indicators under the five first-level indicators of the concept of ecological literacy in this study (Table 1 ). The weight of each first-level indicator and second-level indicator was the same, and they were regarded as equally important. It means the number of second-level indicators in each dimension has to be equal. In a similar way, the number of survey questions in each second-level indicator has also to be equal. Taking into account the actual situation of the questionnaire survey, too many or too few survey questions may affect the effectiveness of the survey results. There are four second-level indicators under each first-level indicator finally. For this study, such a number (four second-level indicators with eight questions) not only guarantees the comprehensiveness of the survey contents, but also does not reduce the effectiveness of the participants’ answers due to too many survey questions.

During the second step, we devised specific questions in the questionnaire under each second-level indicator. The topics were selected with reference to the “China Urban Public Environmental Awareness Questionnaire” developed by the Public Environmental Awareness Research Group of the State Environmental Protection Administration and the Public Environmental Awareness Research Group of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2005, and an effective survey developed by Pitman and Daniels ( 2016 ) of the University of South Australia on ecological literacy level assessment scale and questionnaire questions. At the same time, combined with China’s ecologically advanced cities and current heated issues regarding the environment, as well as the specific situation in Guiyang City, the first draft of the research questionnaire was formed. Although part of the questionnaire design draws on preliminary research results, due to the quantitative assessment of the ecological literacy level, there is currently no unified assessment scale. Therefore, we designed most of the content in this step.

The third step was to revise and improve the first draft of the questionnaire to form the final version of the questionnaire. This step involved two statistical forecast stages. After the second forecast stage, we tested the reliability of the questionnaire within an acceptable range before proceeding to the actual measurement stage. Subsequently, the forecast respondents’ opinions and suggestions on the content of the questionnaire were collected, and the content of the questionnaire was carefully analyzed and improved. Finally, after issuing the questionnaire and collecting responses during the actual measurement phase, we examined the total reliability of the questionnaire in detail, as well as the validity of the scale, to ensure the authentic validity of the survey data for data analysis.

Topic structure

The final version of the questionnaire contained 60 survey questions. Of these, there were 40 questions on ecological literacy. In what follows, we focus on discussing this part. The ecological literacy survey was designed to assess the level of ecological literacy of the inhabitants in Guiyang City, and the scores needed to be measured quantitatively. The measurement part of the ecological literacy level score of this study was designed in the form of a five-point Likert scale (five-point scoring). There were 40 survey questions, and each question had five options ( Appendix ). The options were sorted in ascending or descending order. This could better distinguish the nuances of the respondent’s ecological literacy level and thus produce more accurate measurement results. The minimum score that a respondent could get in this part was 40 points, and the maximum score was 200 points. Specifically, there were five topics: ecological knowledge, ecological awareness, ecological ethics, ecological emotion, and ecological behavior. Each topic included eight sub-topics to examine the corresponding second-level indicators of ecological literacy.

Reliability and validity

The reliability of the questionnaire, that is, whether the results of the questionnaire were internally consistent, was evaluated by Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient. Normally, a Cronbach’s Alpha above 0.70 ( α ≥0.70) indicates that the questionnaire has a certain degree of credibility (Cortina 1993 ; Gleim and Gliem 2003 ), and the higher the value, the more reliable the data results, and the greater the confidence. But if the Cronbach’s Alpha is between 0.60 and 0.70 (0.60≤ α <0.70), the result of reliability is also acceptable to the study (Zhou 2017 : 44). Two reliability tests were carried out in this study. The reliability of 97 samples in the prediction phase was tested, and the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.872 (overall ecological literacy level). Then, we tested all 494 samples used for the analysis. The Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.888 (overall ecological literacy level), and the reliability coefficients of all five dimensions were also above 0.60. Its internal consistency (the questionnaire) was thus within an acceptable range, indicating high credibility suitable for further statistical analysis of data.

The validity of a questionnaire mainly refers to the degree of validity of the questionnaire measurement results. The higher the validity of the questionnaire, the closer the collected data are to the actual purpose of the survey. Generally, the validity of a questionnaire includes content validity and structural validity (Chai 2010 ). Specifically, the content validity of a questionnaire is combined with expert judgments, and structural validity refers to the construction validity, which mainly detects the structure of a questionnaire by the factors of the Estimate, CR, and AVE. The evaluation criteria for these factors were set as Estimate above 0.45, CR above 0.60, AVE above 0.36 (Wu 2010 , 2013 ; Wan et al. 2015 ). Because the dimensions of our questionnaire are discussed in detail in the previous sections, that is, because the dimensions of the questionnaire are known, the structural validity of the questionnaire was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 23.0 software, to ensure that the questionnaire had explanatory power. After testing this, the content validity and structural validity (Estimate: 0.67; CR: 0.95; AVE: 0.49) of our questionnaire were found to be within the acceptable range.

Data collection

We adopted a combination of network distribution and paper distribution; network distribution was the main method, and paper distribution was supplementary. Online distribution involved a questionnaire network platform, with the questionnaire sent and received by e-mail; paper distribution involved using centralized fixed-point distribution and mailing. We combined the total permanent population of Guiyang City and the population of each district (city, county) in the survey area and decided to use the 10 districts (cities, counties) of Guiyang City as a benchmark, with random stratification according to a ratio of 1:10,000 sampling.

Therefore, at least 494 copies of the questionnaire needed to be distributed during the survey process of this study. The survey of participants was completely based on the principle of voluntary participation, and the survey results were anonymous. However, a minimum of 494 questionnaires were needed to guarantee the validity. In order to ensure that the minimum effective sample size drawn met the needs of the survey, we increased the number of questionnaire surveys by 10% on the basis of the minimum sample size. Thus, we needed to distribute at least 494 × (1 + 10%) = 543.4 (take 544) questionnaires. Hopkins et al. ( 1990 ) pointed out in related research that subjects who fill out questionnaires faster do not necessarily answer interview questions better, and the evaluation process should not consider speed. Thus, the speed of answering has a negligible relationship with the understanding of knowledge. Therefore, we did not have strict requirements on the answering speed of the questionnaire, although it usually took about 10–15 min to complete. The duration of the entire survey was about 6 weeks in October and November of 2020.

In this study, a total of 600 questionnaires were distributed and 591 were collected, of which 539 were valid questionnaires. Then, in accordance with the above-mentioned standard of 494 samples and the number of samples drawn in each administrative region, questionnaires that exceeded the sample size were randomly eliminated. Thus, 494 valid questionnaires were summarized, numbered, and entered into a Microsoft Excel table one-by-one.

Data analysis

We analyzed the collected data using SPSS 25.0. To do so, we analyzed the overall ecological literacy level of the inhabitants in Guiyang City. The data from this part were mainly obtained from the score statistics of the 40 questions in the questionnaire, including the normality test of the questionnaire, descriptive statistics of the overall level analysis, and descriptive statistical analysis and correlation analysis of the five dimensions of ecological literacy. Then, we conducted descriptive statistical analysis and a brief analysis of the second-level indicators in the five dimensions of ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. This was done to understand the ecological literacy of the inhabitants of Guiyang at a micro-level so that we could propose targeted strategies to improve the level of ecological literacy.

Results and discussion

Overall ecological literacy level.

The overall ecological literacy level of the participants is the total score from the 40 questions in the questionnaire. The descriptive statistics of SPSS 25.0 show that the total ecological literacy measurement scores of the 494 Guiyang inhabitants surveyed were normally distributed on the whole. The average score was 158.91 points (158.91 ± 14.693, 79.46%), with a minimum of 105 points, and a maximum of 199 points (Figure 3 ). From the score rate of the scale here, it can be seen that the overall ecological literacy level of the inhabitants of Guiyang City was relatively good. The average score rate of the questionnaire was close to 80%, which was at the middle and upper levels.

Total score histogram of ecological literacy in Guiyang City

In the descriptive statistical analysis of the five first-level indicators of the ecological literacy level of Guiyang inhabitants, we found that there were developments in the internal structure of the five dimensions of ecological knowledge literacy, ecological awareness literacy, ecological ethics literacy, ecological emotional literacy, and ecological behavioral literacy. For the problem of imbalance, there were big differences between different dimensions (Table 2 ), but the overall average score rate was higher. Each dimension consisted of eight scale questions. That is, the range of scores that the respondent could obtain was [8, 40] in each dimension.

From Table 2 , it can be seen that, among the ecological literacy levels of Guiyang inhabitants, the level of ecological ethics literacy was the highest (36.41 ± 4.010), and their average scoring rate reached 91.03%; the level of ecological emotional literacy was slightly lower than that of ecological ethics (35.35 ± 3.758), and ecological awareness literacy was lower (33.21 ± 3.918). The average scores of the interviewees were relatively low in terms of ecological knowledge literacy (29.11 ± 5.191) and ecological behavioral literacy (24.83 ± 4.775), but their average score rates were still higher than 60% (72.78% and 62.08%, respectively). The average score of these two dimensions was significantly lower than that of the other three dimensions, but from a macro point of view, the levels of these two dimensions were still within a good range. This showed that the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a high level of ecological literacy, especially in terms of ecological ethics, ecological emotion, and ecological awareness. However, there is room for improvement in the possessing of ecological knowledge and the ability and level of implementing ecological literacy in specific actions.

Subsequently, we conducted a bi-variate correlation analysis of the relationship among each dimension of ecological literacy (Table 3 ), with the purpose of exploring the correlation between each dimension and the other four dimensions. Owing to the uneven levels of all five dimensions of ecological literacy, the correlation analysis between each two dimensions can help to improve a certain specific dimension level, relying on whether they are related, whether the relationship is positive or negative, and the strength of the correlation with other dimensions. Based on a variety of statistical data, the overall situation was coordinated, and solutions were proposed in many aspects.

Table 3 shows that there was no direct correlation between ecological ethics literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( P = 0.500 > 0.05). There was a significant correlation between the other four dimensions ( P < 0.05), and it was a significant correlation at the 0.01 level. A closer look at the Pearson’s correlation coefficients shows that they were all positive numbers, so that all dimensions with correlation were positive correlations. First, the correlation coefficient between ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy was the largest ( R = 0.617**, 0.6 < R ≤ 0.8), indicating that there was a significant positive and strong correlation between ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy. Second, the correlation coefficient between ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy ( R = 0.597**, 0.4 < R ≤ 0.6), and between ecological awareness literacy and ecological emotional literacy ( R = 0.514**, 0.4 < R ≤ 0.6) was only lower than the correlation coefficient between ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy. In particular, the correlation coefficient between ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy was very close to 0.6. Therefore, ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy had a significant moderate correlation, and ecological awareness literacy and ecological emotional literacy had a significant moderate correlation, too. Third, there was a significant positively weak correlation between each dimension of ecological literacy. The correlation coefficient (0.2 < R ≤ 0.4) from high to low was as follows: ecological emotional literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( R = 0.365**), ecological knowledge literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( R = 0.338**), ecological knowledge literacy and ecological emotional literacy ( R = 0.296**), ecological knowledge literacy and ecological awareness literacy ( R = 0.288**), and ecological knowledge literacy and ecological ethics literacy ( R = 0.209**). Finally, there was a significant but very low positive correlation between a group of dimensions (0 ≤ R ≤ 0.2), namely, the correlation coefficient between ecological awareness literacy and ecological behavioral literacy ( R = 0.138**).

During the development of ecologically advanced cities, we should focus on acquiring ecological theory and the practice of ecological actions for the ecological literacy level of the inhabitants of Guiyang City. From the correlation coefficients related to the two dimensions of ecological knowledge literacy and ecological behavioral literacy in Table 3 , it can be seen that the coefficients related to them in the five dimensions are in the range of weak to very low correlation. This implies that, in the process of improving ecological knowledge literacy and ecological behavioral literacy, while taking other dimensions into account to improve both literacy indirectly, we must consciously focus on themselves. The inhabitants, who have strong ecological awareness and social responsibility, are able to strengthen their ecological knowledge, so that they can improve their ecological knowledge level. Finally, they can transform their strong ecological knowledge and ecological awareness into practice, and practice ecological literacy in their actions. Moreover, they can influence other inhabitants to become more ecologically literate.

Specific analysis of the five dimensions

Ecological knowledge literacy level.

Among the four factors of the second-level indicators of ecological knowledge literacy, the range of scores that respondents could obtain in the two questions set by each factor was [2, 10]. The inhabitants of Guiyang City scored highest for “knowledge of the relationship between humans and nature” (7.98 ± 1.481). For “ecological and environmental protection knowledge” (7.13 ± 1.471) and “knowledge of damage to the ecological environment” (7.12 ± 1.659), the difference between the average scores obtained was relatively small. Both were lower than the score for “knowledge of the relationship between humans and nature”. The average score of “ecosystem knowledge” of Guiyang inhabitants (6.89 ± 1.700) was above 60%, indicating that Guiyang inhabitants still have a good grasp of “ecosystem knowledge”. The average score of “ecosystem knowledge” was the only factor in the second-level indicators of ecological knowledge literacy that had a score lower than 70%.

It can be seen from Table 4 that the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a higher ability and better grasp of the four factors of the second-level indicators of ecological knowledge literacy, especially in “knowledge of the relationship between humans and nature”. This indicated that the participants attach great importance to all aspects of ecological knowledge. However, Guiyang inhabitants still had certain weaknesses in their grasp of “ecosystem knowledge”. This was because ecosystem knowledge is professional theoretical knowledge of ecology, and it was rare for Guiyang inhabitants to study or work in the field of ecology. It is difficult for them to acquire ecological knowledge. But in fact, the processes, functions, and components of the ecosystem, as well as the collection of processes that contribute to the planet, are all included in the broader concept of nature (Maller et al. 2006 ; Pitman and Daniels 2020 ). Therefore, ecosystem knowledge was very important for everyone. We must pay special attention to the concepts and connotations of sustainable development and ecosystem services to promote the sustainable development of human society (Zhao et al. 2020 ). In the process of cultivating and improving the level of ecological knowledge literacy, it was necessary to pay attention to this aspect of ecological knowledge in order to promote the overall ecological knowledge literacy of Guiyang inhabitants.

Ecological awareness literacy level

Among the eight questions considered for ecological awareness literacy, the range of scores that the inhabitants of Guiyang City could obtain in the two questions of each second-level indicator was [2, 10]. The respondents scored higher on average in this part than for the ecological knowledge literacy part. Only the average score rate (7.21 ± 1.571) of the second-level indicator of “awareness of the severity of current ecological and environmental problems” was below 80%. The average score of “ecological environmental protection value consciousness” was the highest (9.11 ± 1.254). Meanwhile, the participants’ understanding was relatively good in terms of “making judgments on the ecological environmental damage encountered” (8.88 ± 1.385) and “ecological environmental protection behavior subject consciousness” (8.01 ± 1.456).

The descriptive statistical analysis results of the second-level indicators of ecological awareness literacy in Table 5 showed that the level of ecological awareness literacy of Guiyang inhabitants is relatively good, and most inhabitants realize the value of ecological environmental protection. At the same time, many inhabitants could make effective judgments when encountering eco-environmental damage. This was due to the correlation between ecological awareness literacy and ecological ethics literacy (0.597**), and ecological emotional literacy (0.514**). This was affected and restricted by ecological ethics literacy and ecological emotional literacy. However, ecological awareness is basically formed by good ecological education among the inhabitants of Guiyang; only education can truly change people’s consciousness (Huang and Zhao 2019 ). If the ecological awareness of the inhabitants of Guiyang City is to be improved, the focus should be on two aspects: “ecological environmental protection behavior subject consciousness” and “awareness of the severity of current ecological and environmental problems”. In particular, the index of “awareness of the severity of current ecological and environmental problems” still needs to be taken seriously. We have to allow more inhabitants to work hard to maintain the surrounding living environment on the basis of being aware of the severity of the current ecological problems through further publicity and education. The construction of ecological civilization in Guiyang City was relatively good, but there were still certain ecological problems. Our process of consciously maintaining or optimizing the ecological environment of Guiyang City can nurture and drive other urban inhabitants to realize the seriousness of ecological problems and jointly seek solutions.

Ecological ethics literacy level

The consideration of the ecological ethics level of Guiyang inhabitants comprised eight questions, and the fluctuation range of each second-level indicator in scores was [2, 10] theoretically. The average score of the four factors of ecological ethics literacy was relatively high, and the score ratio was above 85%. The score ratios for “affirming the role of nature” (9.38 ± 1.092) and “respecting and cherishing all living things” (9.36 ± 1.073) reached more than 90%, and the difference in the scores between the two was small. In contrast, the average scores of “the ethics and morality of protecting the ecological environment” (8.89 ± 1.422) and “correctly recognizing the relationship between humans and nature” (8.78 ± 1.417) were low but still higher than many other second-level indicators factors.

Table 6 shows that the status of the ecological ethics of the inhabitants of Guiyang City was relatively good in general. Among the four factors, the minimum score for “affirming the role of nature” was 3 points, and the minimum score for the other three factors was 4 points. The maximum scores for these factors were all full marks. From this perspective, the inhabitants of Guiyang City had a high level of ecological ethics, mainly influenced by the development of ecological ethics in China. In China, ecological ethics and environmental ethics are used in parallel, and their development has gone through three research stages: the 1970s was the incubation stage, the 1980s was the exploratory stage, and the 1990s was the birth and rapid growth stage (Yu et al. 2019 ). However, Chinese traditional culture contains a wealth of environmental ethics, such as the principle of “one yin and one yang is the Tao” in Yi-ology, the ethical wisdom of the “innateness of all things” and “the harmony between humans and nature” in Confucianism, the ethical ideas of “Tao to follow nature” and “rule by doing nothing” in Taoism, and the Buddhist ethical concept that “all beings are equal” (Yu et al. 2019 ). In this study, the penetration of these ecological ethics gradually formed the ecological ethics literacy of Guiyang inhabitants. If the level of ecological ethics continues to improve, the focus should be on the improvement of “the ethics and morality of protecting the ecological environment” and “correctly recognizing the relationship between humans and nature”. For individuals, the formation of ecological ethics and moral concepts is a long process. One way to improve this is to integrate ecological education with ecological knowledge, so that people can systematically master the theory of ecological ethics and clearly understand the relationship between humans and nature for guiding practice. This includes adhering to the “universal symbiosis” in deep ecology and maximizing the “symbiosis phenomenon” (Naess 1989 ; Huang and Zhao 2019 ). But from the macro-level of ecological literacy, people can focus on other relatively low levels of ecological literacy on the basis of maintaining the level of ecological ethics literacy to ensure that the overall level of ecological literacy is steadily improved.

Ecological emotional literacy level

The consideration of the level of ecological emotional literacy is also reflected by the eight questions under the four second-level indicators. The range of scores that respondents could obtain in each indicator was [2, 10] theoretically. The average score (9.43 ± 0.980) for “awe of the natural environment” of the respondents in ecological emotional literacy was the highest average score among the 40 questions in the entire scale, and the standard deviation fluctuated little. The score ratio was close to 95%. At the same time, this item was the only element among all scale questions that had a minimum of 5 points. The average score level of the other three factors was above 80%, in order from high to low: “love for the natural environment” (9.17 ± 1.154), “ability to take responsibility for ecological and environmental issues” (8.66 ± 1.282), and “sensitivity to natural environment protection” (8.09 ± 1.349).

Through the descriptive statistical analysis in Table 7 , we relied on the questionnaire data of the second-level indicators of Guiyang inhabitants’ ecological emotional literacy to further demonstrate the respondents’ ecological literacy levels in this dimension. The overall level of this part is still high, due to the good natural environment in Guiyang City. As stated in Sect. 2.3, Guiyang’s forest coverage rate was 39.19%, with beautiful mountains and clear waters. There are many natural landscapes for inhabitants to experience, e.g., Huaxi National Urban Wetland Park, Hongfeng Lake Scenic Area, Nanjiang Grand Canyon, and Qianling Mountain Park. When discussing the development of the ecological literacy of children in forest parks, some researchers point out that training children in forest parks will allow them to use all their senses to observe and acquire meaningful situations in the natural world. They will get sense of belonging and become ecologically literate (Hammarsten et al. 2018 ). Therefore, among the inhabitants of Guiyang City, children will stimulate ecological emotion under the guidance of their parents and teachers, while adults will generate ecological emotions based on their own experiences and perception of nature. Over time, they will subconsciously develop respect and love for nature. However, they have been living in areas with a good ecological environment and are facing fewer ecological problems, making the inhabitants relatively insensitive to natural environmental protection issues. Therefore, they might not take the initiative to be responsible for environmental problems; this needs to be improved. Guiyang inhabitants can improve their ecological emotional literacy level in two aspects: “sensitivity to natural environment protection” and “ability to take responsibility for ecological and environmental issues”. This important improvement process can be achieved by outdoor education, especially in terms of the judgment and perception of current environmental problems, which will increase the sensitivity to the natural environment. Responsibility training in education can enable the inhabitants to develop a sense of social responsibility that emerges spontaneously. But objectively speaking, the lowest score of the participants on these two factors was 4 points, and the highest score was 10 points, indicating that the participants were basically qualified in the mastery of these two factors and have a good emotional state regarding ecological problems. In the process of optimizing the overall level of ecological literacy, it is also possible to temporarily focus on other dimensions.

Ecological behavioral literacy level

Among the four second-level indicators of Guiyang inhabitants’ ecological behavioral literacy, each indicator was examined by two scale questions, and the fluctuation range of the score was [2, 10]. The average scores of the second-level indicators of ecological behavioral literacy were low. Only the average score rate (8.59 ± 1.392) of “daily practice of environmental protection” was above 80%. The lowest score of the respondents was 4 points, and the highest score was 10 points. These are roughly equivalent to the scores of multiple second-level indicators in other dimensions. However, the average score rate of the other three factors of ecological behavioral literacy was low. The average score of “scientific environmental protection skills and methods” was the lowest (4.68 ± 1.741). This indicated that many Guiyang inhabitants had less of a grasp of environmental protection skills and methods. They do not know how to protect the surrounding ecological environment in daily work, study, and life. Although the average scores of the other two items were higher than that for “scientific environmental protection skills and methods,” the average score ratio did not reach 60%. The average scores of these two differed only slightly, with “positive influence on the environmental protection behavior of others” at 5.88 ± 1.801 and “participation in environmental education activities” at 5.68 ± 1.699.

The statistical analysis in Table 8 shows that Guiyang inhabitants generally scored low in terms of ecological behavioral literacy, and there was a lot of room for improvement. This was mainly due to the fact that there were still many inhabitants who have not implemented their ecological theoretical knowledge and ecological ideology into actual action. The ultimate goal of ecological literacy is to enable inhabitants with ecological theoretical knowledge and ecological ideology to take action on environmental problems. Ecological behavioral literacy is an important part of the process of maintaining or improving the level of ecological literacy of the inhabitants in Guiyang City. At the level of environmental protection skills and methods, it is necessary to adopt a variety of ways to promote scientific skills in order to achieve ecological behavioral literacy. The factor with the lowest average score in this part is gradually improving; at the same time, the inhabitants of Guiyang City should be actively involved in environmental education activities, and efforts should be made to actively influence the surrounding inhabitants through the practice and supervision of their own ecological environmental protection behavior. For the purposes of this study, only by integrating ecological knowledge, ecological awareness, ecological ethics, and ecological emotion into ecological behavior can the multiple indicators of the level of ecological behavioral literacy be effectively improved.

Conclusions

We used the concepts of linguistic ecology to conduct quantitative research on five aspects of ecological literacy: knowledge, awareness, ethics, emotion, and behavior. These aspects provided valid assessment criteria for assessing ecological literacy, and they can serve as a new direction for ecological research and development. Our study was an exploration of interdisciplinary research, combining ecology with linguistics. We found that the participants in our case study differed considerably in their level of ecological literacy among these five aspects. Thus, we propose the following three targeted solutions.

First, we must pay attention to the content and development of ecological education, including classroom education and outdoor education. This will affect the level of ecological literacy in different ways, and it is one of the most effective ways to cultivate ecological literacy. Ecological education will have the most direct impact on the level of ecological knowledge, involving various aspects of ecological knowledge, such as ecological professional knowledge, ecological ethics knowledge, and ecological and biological knowledge in nature.

Second, we should encourage the inhabitants of Guiyang City to actively devote themselves to appreciating local natural scenery, strengthening outdoor activities, and feeling the charm of nature. On the basis of receiving ecological education, the relevant departments need to increase outdoor activities. This will enhance physical fitness, while allowing inhabitants to appreciate nature. By getting closer to nature, we can better recognize the seriousness of ecological problems.

Finally, we must take action to express everything related to ecology through our own behavior, to achieve the goal of improving ecological literacy. After recognizing ecological problems, solutions need to be implemented in action. The best way to achieve effective ecological behavior is by adopting the above solutions. Regular environmental education activities are needed, and they should be guided by professionals with a high level of ecological literacy who practice ecological behavior.

In future research, we will conduct a comparative study of the different types and characteristics of the inhabitants of Guiyang City in terms of ecological literacy (i.e., socio-demographic characteristics), and we will explore more detailed suggestions to improve ecological literacy, to better understand the inherent differences in the inhabitants of ecologically advanced cities such as Guiyang City. This will help us to promote and cultivate ecological literacy according to specific characteristics of the inhabitants by proposing effective cultivation methods. The results of the current study can provide some meaningful points, which can help to improve the overall level of ecological literacy in China, and they can be used as a reference for the investigation and cultivation of ecological literacy in other countries and regions.

Data availability

The datasets and materials used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

Alexander R, Stibbe A (2014) From the analysis of ecological discourse to the ecological analysis of discourse. Lang Sci 41:104–110

Article   Google Scholar  

Arcury TA (1990) Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Hum Organ 49(4):300–304

Berkowitz AR, Ford ME, Brewer CA (2005) A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy, and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In: Johnson E, Mappin M, (eds.). Environmental education and advocacy: changing perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 227-266.

Bruyere BL (2008) The effect of environmental education on the ecological literacy of first-year college students. J Nat Resour Life Sci Educ 37(1):20–26

Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton-Mifflin, New York

Chai H (2010) Researches on reliability and validity of inspection procedure in questionnaire design. World Science and Technology Research and Development 4:548–550

Google Scholar  

Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78(1):98–104

Coyle K (2005) Ecological literacy in America; what ten years of NEETF/Roper Research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. Available from: http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf .

Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The “anthropocene”. IGBP Newsletter 41:17–18

Davidson MF (2010) Ecological literacy evaluation of the University of Iceland faculty, staff, and students: implications for a university sustainability policy[dissertation]. Reykjavik (Iceland): University of Iceland. Available from: http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ skemman.is/ContentPages/115928815. pdf.

Gleim JA, Gliem RR (2003) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’ s Alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Columbus: Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Ohio State University. Available from: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/Gliem%20&%20Gliem.pdf ?.

Hammarsten M, Askerlund P, Almers E, Avery H, Samuelsson T (2018) Developing ecological literacy in a forest garden: children’s perspectives. J Adventure Educ Outdoor Learn. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2018.1517371 .

Hopkins HD, Stanley JC, Hopkins BR (1990) Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. 7 th ed. Needham Heights, Massachusetts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Huang GW (2016) The emergence and development of ecolinguistics. Foreign Languages in China 1(1):9–12

Huang GW, Ha CC (2021) The relationship between ecological literacy and ecolinguistics. For Lang Educ 1:15–19

Huang GW, Xiao JY (2017) The concept of “anthropocene” and ecolinguistic studies. Foreign Lang Res 5(14-17):30

Huang GW, Zhao RH (2019) What is ecolinguistics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, Shanghai

Jin L (1992) Environmental ecology. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Li JZ, Yuan C (1988) On the ecologicalization of contemporary science. Academic Monthly 7:45–51

Lin SY, Cai J (2019) Environmental education evaluation of protected land based on tourists’ ecological quality-a case study of Beijing Cuihu Wetland Park. For Ecol Sci 34(4):451–457

Maller C, Townsend M, Pryor A, Brown P, St Leger L (2006) Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot Int 21(1):45–54

McBride BB, Brewer CA, Berkowitz AR, Borrie WT (2013) Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: what do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere 4(5):1–20

McDaniel J, Alley KD (2005) Connecting local environmental knowledge and land use practices: a human ecosystem approach to urbanization in West Georgia. Urban Ecosyst 8(1):23–38

Morrone M, Mancl K, Carr K (2001) Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. J Environ Educ 32(4):33–42

NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education) (2000/2004) Excellence in environmental education: guidelines for learning (K-12). NAAEE, Washington, D. C., USA.

NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education) (2011a) Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy: executive summary. NAAEE, Washington, D. C., USA. Available from: http://www.naaee.net/sites/default/files/framework/EnvLiteracyExeSummary.pdf .

NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education) (2011b) National environmental literacy assessment, phase two: measuring the effectiveness of North American environmental education programs with respect to the parameters of environmental literacy. NAAEE, Washington, D. C., USA. Available from: http://www.naaee.net/sites/default/files/programs/research/NELA Phase II_Report.pdf .

Naess A (1989) Ecology, community and lifestyle: outline of an ecosophy. Rothenberg D, Trans. Cambridge: CUP.

O’ Brien SRM (2007) Indications of environmental literacy: using a new survey instrument to measure awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of universityaged students[dissertation]. Ames: Proquest UMI Dissertations Publishing, Iowa State University.

Orr DW (1992) Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press, Albany

Pitman SD, Daniels CB (2016) Quantifying ecological literacy in an adult western community: the development and application of a new assessment tool and community standard. PLoS One 11(3), e0150648:1-18.

Pitman SD, Daniels CB (2020) Understanding how nature works: five pathways towards a more ecologically literate world—a perspective. Austral Ecol 1-10.

Pitman SD, Daniels CB, Sutton PC (2016) Ecological literacy and socio-demographics: who are the most eco-literate in our community, and why? Int J Sust Dev World 25(1):9–22

Pitman SD, Daniels CB, Sutton PC (2017) Ecological literacy and psychographics: lifestyle contributors to ecological knowledge and understanding. Int J Sust Dev World 1-14. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2017.1333047

Risser PG (1986) Ecological literacy. Bull Ecol Soc Am 67(4):264–270

Roth CE (1968) On the road to conservation. Massachusetts Audubon:38–41

Roth CE (1992) Environmental literacy: it’s roots, evolution, and direction in the 1990s. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Shen XY, Zhang J, Wu JW, Wang QL (2020) Study on current cultivation situation and development countermeasures of ecological civilization literacy of primary and secondary school students in the new era-take primary and secondary school students in Beijing as an example. China Audio-visual Education 6:45–51

Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR (2007) The anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36:614–621

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stibbe A (2009) The handbook of sustainability literacy: skill for a changing world. Green Books, Dartington

Wan QQ, Xu CJ, Wang L, Zhang TH (2015) Factor construct verification of nurses’ organizational citizenship behavior scale. Chinese J Health Stat 32(6):922–925

Wang LL, Jin XL, Lu L (2017) The investigation about the public ecological civilization literacy and scientific popularization. China Environ Manage 9(3):52–58

Wang RS (1998) From materialized civilization to ecological civilization-ecology for sustainable development. World Science and Technology Research and Development 20(2):87–98

Wu JG, Xiang WN, Zhao JZ (2014) Urban ecology in China: historical developments and future directions. Landsc Urban Plan 125:222–233

Wu ML (2010) Structural equation modeling: operation and application of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.

Wu ML (2013) Structural equation modeling: advanced AMOS practice. Chongqing University Press, Chongqing

Xiao ZH, Fan JJ (2011) Indicator system for measuring and assessing language ecology. Linguistic Sci 10(3):270–280

Yu MC, Lei Y, Yang TJ (2019) Environmental ethics, second edn. Higher Education Press, Beijing

Zhao JZ, Yan Y, Deng HB, Liu GH, Dai LM, Tang LN, Shi LY, Shao GF (2020) Remarks about landsenses ecology and ecosystem services. Int J Sust Dev World 27(3):196–201

Zhou J (2017) Data analysis of questionnaire: six types to SPSS analysis. Publishing House of Electronics Industry, Beijing

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all the people who helped complete this research and to the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improving the manuscript.

This research was supported by the 13th Five-Year Plan for the Development of Philosophy and Social Sciences Fund of Guangzhou (No. 2019GZYB36), Characteristic and Creative Projects of the Department of Education of Guangdong Province (No. 2018WTSCX006), and Higher Education and Teaching Reform Projects of the Department of Education of Guangdong Province (Document No. [2018] 180).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Studies, South China Agricultural University, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640, Guangdong, China

Changchen Ha & Guowen Huang

Center for Ecolinguistics, South China Agricultural University, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640, Guangdong, China

Guowen Huang

College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640, Guangdong, China

Jiaen Zhang

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Circular Agriculture, No. 483 Wushan Road, Guangzhou, 510640, Guangdong, China

School of Chinese Ethnic Minority Languages and Literature, Minzu University of China, No. 27 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing, 100081, China

Shumin Dong

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CH, GH, and JZ contributed to the study conception and design. CH and SD participated in material preparation, data collection, and analysis. CH wrote the first manuscript draft. GH, JZ, and SD helped revise and improve the manuscript draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Guowen Huang or Jiaen Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

(DOCX 36 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ha, C., Huang, G., Zhang, J. et al. Assessing ecological literacy and its application based on linguistic ecology: a case study of Guiyang City, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29 , 18741–18754 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16753-7

Download citation

Received : 26 January 2021

Accepted : 22 September 2021

Published : 26 October 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16753-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Environmental literacy
• Sustainable development
• Ecologically advanced city
• Guiyang City
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ecoliteracy.org

The Intelligence of Ecological Design

How ecological design promotes awareness in health, healing, and wholeness.

The most important discovery of the past two centuries is that we are joined in one fragile experiment, vulnerable to bad judgment, shortsightedness, greed, and malice.

Though divided by nation, tribe, religion, ethnicity, language, culture, and politics, we are comembers of one enterprise stretching back through time beyond memory, but forward no further than our ability to recognize that we are, as Aldo Leopold once put it, plain members and citizens of the biotic community.

This awareness carries both an imperative and a possibility. The imperative is simply that we ought to pay full and close attention to the ecological conditions and prerequisites that sustain all life. That we seldom know how human actions affect ecosystems or the biosphere gives us every reason to act with informed precaution. And, because of the scale and momentum of the human presence on Earth, it is utter foolishness to assert otherwise.

There is also the possibility that in the long gestation of humankind we acquired an affinity for life, Earth, forests, water, soils, and place, what E. O. Wilson calls "biophilia". That is more than a defensible hypothesis—it is the best hope for our future. For real hope, as distinguished from wishful thinking, we ought not look first to our technological cleverness or abstractions about progress of one kind or another, but rather to the extent and depth of our affections, which set boundaries to what we do and direct our intelligence to better or worse possibilities. The possibility of affection for our children, place, posterity, and life is in all of us. It is part of our evolutionary heritage. It is embedded in all of our best religious teachings. And it is now a matter of simple self-interest that we come to realize the full extent of the obligations that arise from an alert, thorough, and farsighted affection.

Perhaps biophilia helps to explain the rise of something that is beginning to look a great deal like a worldwide ecological enlightenment. The global transition to wind and solar energy systems has begun in earnest. Sustainable agriculture and forestry are gaining ground. The art and science of energy-efficient building is flourishing. The possibilities for transforming manufacturing and technology to mimic natural systems are revolutionary. The science of ecological healing and restoration has made significant progress.

The most exciting career opportunities that I know add the word "environment" to fields such as design, planning, medicine, business, law, journalism, education, agriculture, and development. Small nongovernmental organizations such as the Bioneers, Rocky Mountain Institute, the Center for Ecoliteracy, Schumacher College, Ecotrust, the Jane Goodall Center, and Ocean Arks are influential worldwide. The Internet is opening new possibilities for citizens of the world to cooperate, spread ideas, and hold governments accountable. Still, I think H. G. Wells had it right when he said that we are in a race between education and catastrophe. This race will be decided in all of the places, including classrooms, that foster ecological imagination, critical thinking, awareness of connections, independent thought, and good heart.

For its part environmental education is becoming well established in nonprofit organizations, public agencies, schools, colleges, and universities. The words "environmental education," however, imply education about the environment, just another course or two, a curricular outbuilding to the big house of formal schooling where the really important things go on. But we will have to aim toward a deeper transformation of the substance, process, and scope of education at all levels. The title of my 1992 book, Ecological Literacy , identifies that goal, which is built on the recognition that:

• The disorder of ecosystems reflects a prior disorder of mind, making it a central concern to those institutions that purport to improve minds. In other words, the ecological crisis is in every way a crisis of education.
• The problem, as Wes Jackson once said of agriculture, is one education, not merely in education.
• All education is environmental education … by what is included or excluded we teach the young that they are part of, or apart from, the natural world.
• The goal is not just mastery of subject matter but making connections between head, hand, heart, and cultivation of the capacity to discern systems — what Gregory Bateson once called "the pattern that connects."

An ecologically literate person would have at least a basic comprehension of ecology, human ecology, and the concepts of sustainability, as well as the wherewithal to solve problems. Taken to its logical conclusion, the goal of making all of our students ecologically literate would restore the idea that education is first and foremost a large conversation with technical aspects, not merely a technical subject. Whatever the state of our pedagogical research, the life of the mind is and will remain a mysterious and serendipitous process only somewhat influenced by formal instruction (sometimes to no good effect). As a large conversation, we would restore to the subject of education the importance that every great philosopher from Plato, through Rousseau, to Dewey and Whitehead assigned to it. Education, as they knew, had to do with the timeless question of how we are to live. And in our time the great question is how we will live in light of the ecological fact that we are bound together in the community of life, one and indivisible, now threatened by human numbers and carelessness.

There are four conclusions to be drawn. First, if ecological education is confined to schools that function like islands within a larger sea of ecological ruin — malls, highways, urban blight, rural slums, and pollution — they will eventually fail to transform anything. To be effective, education must engage the wider society. Second, nongovernmental organizations, schools, colleges, universities can be catalysts to a wider transformation of the culture and society, all the more so because of the dereliction of governments and business. Third, if they are to be transformative, the educational environment, campus, and curriculum must themselves be transformed to reflect ecological realities. Fourth, the goal of ecological literacy is not a passive kind of literacy to be confused with reading, as important as that is, but rather the active cultivation of ecological intelligence, imagination, and competence, which is to say design intelligence.

A word about the third and fourth points: Thoreau went to Walden, he said, in order to drive some of the problems of living into a corner where he could study them. In like manner, might it be possible to drive some of the problems of sustainability confronting the rising generation into a setting such as the school or university, and to render them into courses, curriculum, research, and eventually solutions? For example, beginning in 1995 I organized an effort with students, faculty, and members of the public to design and build an environmental studies center at Oberlin College. Students met in 13 planning sessions and thereafter with a group of architects and designers to develop the concepts finally embodied in the Adam Joseph Lewis Center. The goals they selected for the project included energy efficiency, use of solar energy, wastewater recycling, elimination of toxic materials, and a building that would learn over time while functioning as a microcosm in which to study some of the challenges of building sustainability at a community scale. These also became central to the educational mission that evolved from the project.

The result is a building and landscape that has become a laboratory for the study of ecologically-engineered solutions for wastewater; solar energy; ecological restoration; ecological design; data gathering, analysis and display; landscape management; horticulture; and the art of communicating these things to the wider public. But these subjects require mastery of skills different from those required to build an industrial society. We've aimed, accordingly, to foster in our students the specific capacities to appraise costs on a life cycle basis, analyze whole systems, and master new tools such as geographic information systems, as well as the practical skills required to harvest sunshine, grow food, design buildings, restore landscapes, and initiate change.

The Lewis Center, in turn, was instrumental in catalyzing the formation of the Cleveland Green Building Coalition, a 75-acre community-supported farm, a $13 million building project in downtown Oberlin organized by three recent graduates, and a new company consisting of three students and one faculty member focused on commercializing the art and science of the analysis and display of data such as buildings' energy performance. The Lewis Center was also instrumental in encouraging college trustees to adopt a comprehensive environmental policy for the college that includes the goal of becoming climatically neutral. In other words, the building was a means to the larger ends of improving ecological competence, ecological design skills, and initiating real changes.

The challenge to us as educators is to equip our students with the practical skills, analytic abilities, philosophical depth, and moral wherewithal to remake the human presence in the world. In short order, as history measures these things, they must replace the extractive economy with one that functions on current sunlight, eliminates the concept of waste, uses energy and materials with great efficiency, and distributes wealth fairly within and between generations. We will have to recast the systems by which we provision ourselves with food, energy, water, materials, and livelihood, and by which we handle our wastes. These, in turn, imply the need to design organizations that are capable of ecological design. The particular skills of ecological design necessary to a future that is sustainable and spiritually sustaining are in turn means to a still larger end of fostering hope in a world of growing despair, and anger, and its offspring, terrorism, whether by individuals, organizations, or governments.

A headline in the Science section of The New York Times dated March 16, 2004 read "Side by Side, Palestinians and Israelis Repair a Ruined River." Imagine that! To comprehend the ecology of a river and the human systems that impact it requires ecological intelligence emerging across the conventional boundaries of disciplines. For Israelis and Palestinians to join together in an endeavor to heal across the chasm rent by hatred, fear, and violence is a still larger design challenge having to do with the connections between human ecology, natural systems, and the possibilities of forgiveness and redemption. Ecological design aims toward this kind of healing in the awareness that health, healing, wholeness, and holy are one and indivisible.

This essay appeared originally in Resurgence, September/October 2004.

SUPPORT EDUCATION FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PEOPLE AND THE PLANET

More like this.

Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World

Michael Pollan says our book "makes a critical contribution to rethinking how we teach our children about their place in nature. The best book of its kind."

What We Can Learn From Leonardo

Leonardo's union of art, science, and design demonstrates the thinking needed to create sustainable societies.

Beauty Plus Education Equals a More Sustainable World?

By allowing beauty to play a role in education, we may find the answers we need to foster more sustainability in the world.

Ecoliteracy in your Inbox!

Get ideas, inspiration, and knowledge to help you teach and model sustainable practices in your school community.

We never sell or share your private information.