Vol. 17 No. 2 (2026)
Special Issue: SI_TGEO

Implications for Geography Education from Research on Climate Change Misinformation – A Systematic Review

PDF
Neli Heidari
Department of Geography Education, Institute of Geography, University of Bremen, Germany
Marvin Schlamelcher
Geography Editorial Team, Westermann Group, Germany
Philipp Schmid
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, The Netherlands
PRISMA Flow Diagram Adapted Based on Page et al. (2021)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.n.hei.17.2.241.263
Categories

Published 2026-06-07

Keywords

  • climate change education,
  • climate change misinformation,
  • climate change disinformation,
  • climate change denial,
  • geography education

How to Cite

Heidari , Neli, Marvin Schlamelcher, and Philipp Schmid. 2026. “Implications for Geography Education from Research on Climate Change Misinformation – A Systematic Review”. European Journal of Geography 17 (2):S.241-S.263. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.n.hei.17.2.241.263.

Copyright (c) 2026 Neli Heidari , Marvin Schlamelcher, Philipp Schmid

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2026-02-06
Accepted 2026-05-31
Published 2026-06-07

Abstract

Climate change misinformation poses a significant challenge to public understanding of climate science and to education systems as it undermines trust in science and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Geography education, positioned at the intersection of human-environment-relations and socio-scientific issues, plays a crucial role in addressing this challenge. However, there is a gap in geography education research regarding how to address climate change misinformation in geography education. Thus, the aim of this systematic literature review is to synthesize empirical research on climate change misinformation in educational contexts to derive implications, with particular relevance for geography education and its research. Following PRISMA guidelines, n = 17 peer-reviewed empirical studies were analyzed with respect to research settings, methodological approaches, meta-lenses, assessed learning outcomes (knowledge, strategies, and attitudes) and key findings. The results indicate a predominant focus in secondary education in Global North countries and on qualitative research approaches. Studies tend to prioritize strategy-based and attitudinal outcomes aimed at detecting misinformation, often in digital and social media contexts. In terms of meta-lenses, there is strong emphasis on Nature of Science. Intervention approaches on media literacy as well as inoculation and debunking are highly represented, whereas climate change education and AI-related misinformation remain underrepresented. Based on these findings, the review identifies key gaps in current research and derives implications for future geography education and its research in particular with respect to climate change education.

Highlights:

  • Conceptualizes the determinants of climate change misinformation and identifies interventions that address these determinants in the context of climate change education for geography.
  • Provides a systematic overview of peer-reviewed empirical studies on climate change misinformation in educational contexts.
  • Derives implications for transforming climate change education in geography from the findings of the systematic literature review.
PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Abed, F., & Barzilai, S. (2023). Can students evaluate scientific YouTube videos? Examining students’ strategies and criteria for evaluating videos versus webpages on climate change. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12762
  2. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432
  3. Allchin, D. (2023). Ten competencies for the science misinformation crisis. Science Education, 107(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21746
  4. Anderson, E. (2011). Democracy, public policy, and lay assessments of scientific testimony. Episteme, 8(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.3366/epi.2011.0013
  5. Arnot, G., Pitt, H., McCarthy, S., Warner, E., & Thomas, S. (2024). ‘You can’t really separate these risks, our environment, our animals and us’: Australian children’s perceptions of the risks of the climate crisis. Health Promotion International, 39(2), daae023. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae023
  6. Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 1052–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9
  7. Bernsteiner, A., Schubatzky, T., & Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C. (2023). Misinformation as a societal problem in times of crisis: A mixed-methods study with future teachers to promote a critical attitude towards information. Sustainability, 15(10), 8161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108161
  8. Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
  9. Brodsky, J. E., Brooks, P. J., Scimeca, D., Todorova, R., Galati, P., Batson, M., Grosso, R., Matthews, M., Miller, V., & Caulfield, M. (2021). Improving college students’ fact-checking strategies through lateral reading instruction in a general education civics course. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00291-4
  10. Bromme, R., & Thomm, E. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12252
  11. Bueno-Picazo, M., & Tirado-Olivares, S. (2026). Generative AI in geography education: Content creation and conversational AI-supported learning to promote environmental awareness. European Journal of Geography, 17(2), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.m.bue.17.2.034.048
  12. Chang, C.-H. (2023). Climate change education: Knowing, doing and being. Routledge.
  13. Chang, C.-H. (2024). Learning to know, do, be and live together for climate change education: A reflection on practices that work in the context of geographical education. J-READING Journal of Research and Didactics in Geography, 13(1), 71–82. http://www.j-reading.org/index.php/geography/article/view/399
  14. Chang, C.-H., & Pascua, L. (2016). Singapore students’ misconceptions of climate change. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2015.1106206
  15. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753–1820. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RV0D15J
  16. Cook, J. (2016). Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. Oxford University Press.
  17. Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., Trecek-King, M., Schade, G., Jeffers-Tracy, K., Fessmann, J., Kim, S. C., Kinkead, D., Orr, M., Vraga, E., Roberts, K., & McDowell, J. (2023). The cranky uncle game—Combining humor and gamification to build student resilience against climate misinformation. Environmental Education Research, 29(4), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2085671
  18. Cresswell, T. (2013). Geographic thought: A critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
  19. Damico, J. S., & Baildon, M. C. (2022). How to confront climate denial: Literacy, social studies, and climate change. Teachers College Press.
  20. de Miguel González, R. (2024). Powerful geography and the future of geographic education. Dialogues in Human Geography, 14(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206241229219
  21. Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
  22. Doss, C., Mondschein, J., Shu, D., Wolfson, T., Kopecky, D., Fitton-Kane, V. A., Bush, L., & Tucker, C. (2023). Deepfakes and scientific knowledge dissemination. Scientific Reports, 13, 13429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39944-3
  23. European Parliament. (2025). Flash Eurobarometer FL014EP: Social media survey 2025 (v1.00) [Data set]. http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/s3592_fl014ep_eng
  24. Fearnley, F. (2020). Social media as a tool for geographers and geography educators. In N. Walshe, & G. Healy (Eds.), Geography education in the digital world: Linking theory and practice (pp. 75–86). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274909-8
  25. Gold, A. U., Oonk, D. J., Smith, L., Boykoff, M. T., Osnes, B., & Sullivan, S. B. (2015). Lens on climate change: Making climate meaningful through student-produced videos. Journal of Geography, 114(6), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2015.1013974
  26. Guenther, L., Ibrahim, Y., Lüdemann, J., O’Brian, C. I., Pavenstädt, C. N., Sievert, I. J., Brüggemann, M., Rödder, S., & Schnegg, M. (2024). Social constructions of climate futures: Reframing science’s harmful impact frame across news media, social movements, and local communities. Environmental Communication, 18(3), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2305827
  27. He, Y., Tani, S., & Puustinen, M. (2024). GeoCapabilities approach to climate change education: Developing an epistemic model for geographical thinking. Journal of Geography, 123(2–3), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2024.2334946
  28. Henderson, J. A., Drewes, A., Trauth, A. E., Thayer, N., & Hemsley, K. (2025). How geography and politics shape teachers’ engagement with climate change science standards. Environmental Education Research, 31(12), 2507–2530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2441198
  29. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
  30. Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
  31. Hopkins, K. L., Lepage, C., Cook, W., Thomson, A., Abeyesekera, S., Knobler, S., Boehman, N., Thompson, B., Waiswa, P., Ssanyu, J. N., Kabwijamu, L., Wamalwa, B., Aura, C., Rukundo, J. C., & Cook, J. (2023). Co-designing a mobile-based game to improve misinformation resistance and vaccine knowledge in Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda. Journal of Health Communication, 28(Suppl. 2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2231377
  32. Keener, R. (2020). University students’ media informational reasoning process and its intersection with their social identities. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), INTED2020 Proceedings (pp. 2949–2957). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020.0877
  33. Kops, M., Schittenhelm, C., & Wachs, S. (2025). Young people and false information: A scoping review of responses, influential factors, consequences, and prevention programs. Computers in Human Behavior, 169, 108650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108650
  34. Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Ali, A., Bak-Coleman, J., Barzilai, S., Basol, M., Berinsky, A. J., Betsch, C., Cook, J., Fazio, L. K., Geers, M., Guess, A. M., Huang, H., Larreguy, H., Maertens, R., ... Wineburg, S. (2024). Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(6), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0
  35. Kresin, S., Kremer, K., & Büssing, A. G. (2024). Students’ credibility criteria for evaluating scientific information: The case of climate change on social media. Science Education, 108(3), 762–791. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21855
  36. Kresin, S., Kremer, K., Nehring, A., & Büssing, A. G. (2025). Students’ awareness and conceptions of science-related communication mechanisms on social media. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 62(3), 756–791. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21973
  37. Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1
  38. Lambert, D., & León, K. (2026). Geography teaching, racial literacy and truthfulness. European Journal of Geography, 17(2), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.d.lam.17.2.049.064
  39. Lambert, D., Solem, M., & Tani, S. (2015). Achieving human potential through geography education: A capabilities approach to curriculum making in schools. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(4), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1022128
  40. Lämmer, S., & Ohl, U. (2024). Facts and fakes – A systematic literature review on how primary school students deal with fake news from the perspective of geography education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2024.2438061
  41. Lämmer, S., & Ohl, U. (2026). Evaluating climate change fake news in German primary education: The role of students’ conceptions. European Journal of Geography, 17(2), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.s.lam.17.2.016.033
  42. Lane, R. (2025). Mitigating risks, embracing potential: A framework for integrating generative artificial intelligence in geographical and environmental education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2025.2458561
  43. Lathrop, B. N. (2025). Confronting the post-truth phenomenon in literacy education: The need for a critical media epistemology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 68(6), 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1407
  44. Lederman, J., Bartels, S., Lederman, N., & Gnanakkan, D. (2014). Demystifying nature of science: Two activities help young children understand nature of science. Science and Children, 52(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/SC14_052_01_40
  45. Lee, J., Cimová, T., Foster, E. J., France, D., Krajňáková, L., Moorman, L., Rewhorn, S., & Zhang, J. (2025). Transforming geography education: The role of generative AI in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and fieldwork. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 34(3), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2025.2459780
  46. Levy, S. R., Monahan, C., Araiza, A., Ramírez, L., & Palacios-Espinosa, X. (2025). Reducing climate change denial and increasing support for climate-friendly policies: The role of climate change education. Journal of Social Issues, 81(1), e12664. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12664
  47. Lewandowsky, S. (2021). Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409
  48. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Cook, J., van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Oreskes, N., & McIntyre, L. C. (2024). Liars know they are lying: Differentiating disinformation from disagreement. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 986. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03503-6
  49. Li, C. J., & Monroe, M. C. (2019). Exploring the essential psychological factors in fostering hope concerning climate change. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 936–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1367916
  50. McGrew, S. (2020). Learning to evaluate: An intervention in civic online reasoning. Computers & Education, 145, 103711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103711
  51. Meadows, M. E. (2020). Geography education for sustainable development. Geography and Sustainability, 1(1), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.02.001
  52. Mitchell, D., Hanus, M., Béneker, T., Biddulph, M., Leininger-Frézal, C., Zwartjes, L., & Donert, K. (2022). Enhancing teachers’ expertise through curriculum leadership—Lessons from the GeoCapabilities 3 project. Journal of Geography, 121(5–6), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2022.2149838
  53. Monroe, M. C., Plate, R. R., Oxarart, A., Bowers, A., & Chaves, W. A. (2019). Identifying effective climate change education strategies: A systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842
  54. Nygren, T., & Guath, M. (2022). Students evaluating and corroborating digital news. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(4), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1897876
  55. OECD. (2025). Empowering learners for the age of AI: An AI literacy framework for primary and secondary education (Review draft). OECD Publishing. https://ailiteracyframework.org
  56. O’Mahony, C., Brassil, M., Murphy, G., & Linehan, C. (2023). The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 18(4), e0280902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280902
  57. Onuoha, J., Eze, E., Ezeaputa, C. M.-C., Okpabi, J. U., & Onyia, J. C. (2021). Does learning geography increase climate change awareness? A comparison of school subjects’ influence on climate change awareness. Journal of Geography, 120(4), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2021.1949027
  58. Osborne, J., & Pimentel, D. (2023). Science education in an age of misinformation. Science Education, 107(3), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21790
  59. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
  60. Pearson, S., Hornsey, M. J., Bretter, C., MacInnes, S., Nylund, J. L., Rekker, S., Smith, A. E., & Wade, B. (2026). Evaluating generative AI’s potential to dispel misinformation about wind farms. Scientific Reports, 16, 13424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42790-8
  61. Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Collins, E. T., & Rand, D. G. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944–4957. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
  62. Perkins, K. M., Munguia, N., Moure-Eraso, R., Delakowitz, B., Giannetti, B. F., Liu, G., Nurunnabi, M., Will, M., & Velazquez, L. (2018). International perspectives on the pedagogy of climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200, 1043–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.296
  63. Poor, S. V., Herman, B. C., & Janney, B. A. (2025). How scientists perceive NOS and its value for science communication. Science & Education, 34, 3827–3858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00592-2
  64. Potter, W. J. (2010). The state of media literacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(4), 675–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.521462
  65. Puttick, S. (2025). Geographical education III: Changing climate, changing geographies, changing geographical education? Progress in Human Geography, 49(2), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325241313467
  66. Puttick, S., & Talks, I. (2022). Teachers' sources of information about climate change: A scoping review. The Curriculum Journal, 33(3), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.136
  67. Ranney, M. A., & Velautham, L. (2021). Climate change cognition and education: Given no silver bullet for denial, diverse information-hunks increase global warming acceptance. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.08.001
  68. Rawling, E. (2022). A framework for the school geography curriculum. The Geographical Association. https://geography.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GA-Curriculum-Framework-2022-WEB-final.pdf
  69. Reinfried, S., Aeschbacher, U., & Rottermann, B. (2012). Improving students’ conceptual understanding of the greenhouse effect using theory-based learning materials that promote deep learning. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 21(2), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2012.672685
  70. Reinfried, S., & Tempelmann, S. (2014). The impact of secondary school students’ preconceptions on the evolution of their mental models of the greenhouse effect and global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 304–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.773598
  71. Remshard, M., Kyrychenko, Y., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, M. H., Leiserowitz, A., Savoia, E., & Roozenbeek, J. (2026). Addressing climate action misperceptions with generative AI. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22564
  72. Roberts, M. (2020). Geographical sources in the digital world: Disinformation, representation and reliability. In N. Walshe, & G. Healy (Eds.), Geography education in the digital world: Linking theory and practice (pp. 53–64). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274909-6
  73. Rushton, E. A. C., Dunlop, L., & Atkinson, L. (2025). Fostering teacher agency in school-based climate change education in England, UK. The Curriculum Journal, 36(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.253
  74. Saribas, D., & Çetinkaya, E. (2025). Exploring pre-service teachers’ reasoning levels on pseudoscientific and scientific texts. Science & Education, 34(5), 3589–3613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00583-3
  75. Schlamelcher, M. S., Heidari, N., & Schmid, P. (2025). Klimawandelleugnung in der geographischen Bildung begegnen: Konzepte, Strategien und Professionalisierungsansätze. In D. Pijetlovic, J. von Au, & Virtuelle Akademie Nachhaltigkeit (VAN) (Eds.), Klimawandel und Bildung: Konzepte, Methoden und Perspektiven transformativer Klimabildung (pp. 271–297). oekom.
  76. Schmid, P. (2023). Using behavioral science for infodemic preparedness: The case of vaccination misinformation. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322231219684
  77. Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(9), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4
  78. Schmid, P., MacDonald, N. E., Habersaat, K., & Butler, R. (2018). Commentary to: How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. Vaccine, 36(2), 196–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.065
  79. Schubatzky, T., & Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C. (2022). Debunking climate myths is easy—Is it really? An explorative case study with pre-service physics teachers. Education Sciences, 12(8), 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080566
  80. Siani, A., Joseph, M., & Dacin, C. (2024). Susceptibility to scientific misinformation and perception of news source reliability in secondary school students. Discover Education, 3, 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00194-8
  81. Tabor, L., & Harrington, J. (2023). Teaching about local climates, global climate, and climatic change. Journal of Geography, 122(6), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2023.2284390
  82. Treen, K. M. d'I., Williams, H. T. P., & O’Neill, S. J. (2020). Online misinformation about climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 11(5), e665. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665
  83. Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 2056305120903408. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120903408
  84. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

Most read articles by the same author(s)