Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model

1. Abstract

The Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model represents an advanced, psychometrically validated assessment framework developed by Oinonen, Seppälä, and Paloniemi (2024) at the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke). Grounded in the traditions of critical environmental education, democratic citizenship, and self-perceived action competence for sustainability (SPACS), this instrument operationalizes the complex mechanisms through which internal cognitive, motivational, and self-efficacy constructs translate into real-world pro-environmental and civic behaviors. The complete measurement system bridges two overarching psychological domains across 27 operationalized items: Action Competence (subdivided into Knowledge of Action Possibilities, Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities/Influence, and Willingness to Act) and Sustainability Action (encompassing Direct Individual Actions, Indirect Political Actions, and Collaborative/Collective Actions). Administered via a standardized 5-point Likert-type response scale (1 = Strongly disagree / Never to 5 = Strongly agree / Very often / Always), the model captures both self-evaluative psychological readiness and the frequency of socio-ecological engagement. Initial psychometric evaluations among Finnish youth and young adults aged 15 to 29 demonstrated exceptional internal consistency, yielding McDonald’s omega coefficients ranging from .756 to .964 across the latent factors. Confirmatory factor analyses support a multidimensional, hierarchical structure that demonstrates strong convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. By elucidating how perceived competence directly drives both private lifestyle modifications and collective public-sphere mobilization, the instrument equips educational researchers, developmental psychologists, and environmental policy analysts with an empirically rigorous tool designed to evaluate transformative sustainability pedagogies and youth-led climate initiatives.

2. Keywords

Action Competence, Sustainability Action, Youth Attitudes, Environmental Education, Pro-Environmental Behavior, Self-Efficacy, Civic Engagement, Environmental Justice, Collective Action, Psychometrics, McDonald’s Omega, Latent Variable Modeling

3. Authors

The Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model was developed and validated by a multidisciplinary team of environmental education and sustainability science scholars at the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke):

• Iikka Oinonen — Societal Change Unit, Finnish Environment Institute (Syke), Latokartanonkaari 11, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland. Email: [email protected].
• Tuija Seppälä — Societal Change Unit, Finnish Environment Institute (Syke), Latokartanonkaari 11, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland.
• Riikka Paloniemi — Societal Change Unit, Finnish Environment Institute (Syke), Latokartanonkaari 11, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model is to provide a comprehensive, structurally sound diagnostic and evaluative tool to analyze the psychological precursors and behavioral enactments of sustainability among young populations aged 15 to 29. Historically, environmental education research has struggled with the persistent “value-action gap” or “knowledge-action gap” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002), wherein traditional factual instruction fails to produce meaningful changes in pro-environmental behaviors. By operationalizing the theoretical construct of action competence, this instrument measures the dynamic interplay between actionable knowledge, motivational resolve, and personal influence, shifting the paradigm away from passive ecological awareness toward agentic, democratic engagement.

In educational and developmental research, the measurement model serves as an evaluative benchmark for educational curricula, sustainability interventions, and youth empowerment programs. As educational systems globally embrace Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) within the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), researchers require instruments that capture not merely whether students possess rote ecological literacy, but whether they perceive themselves capable of navigating complex socio-ecological challenges. The tool enables school districts, universities, and non-governmental organizations to assess how instructional methods affect students’ willingness to engage in systemic advocacy, individual conservation, and grassroots community organizing.

From a psychological and sociological perspective, the scale addresses the growing phenomenon of climate distress and eco-anxiety among adolescents and young adults. When individuals feel inundated by global ecological crises without experiencing agency or perceived influence, psychological paralysis or fatalism often ensues. The scale measures the specific components of Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities and Willingness to Act that act as psychological buffers, transforming existential anxiety into constructive collective agency. Consequently, the instrument is utilized by environmental psychologists and public policy researchers to examine how youth mobilization manifests across private spheres (such as recycling and dietary changes) versus public and political spheres (such as civil disobedience, lobbying, and institutional petitions).

5. Psychological Construct

The measurement model is organized around two overarching core constructs: Action Competence and Sustainability Action. Together, these constructs operationalize the journey from psychological readiness to enacted democratic participation.

Construct 1: Action Competence

Rooted in democratic educational theory and critical pedagogy, action competence represents a multifaceted psychological capacity that integrates knowledge, motivational willingness, and self-efficacy toward resolving societal and ecological dilemmas (Jensen & Schnack, 1997; Olsson et al., 2020). Within the measurement model, it is decomposed into three correlated sub-dimensions:

• Knowledge of Action Possibilities: This cognitive dimension moves beyond fundamental declarative knowledge of ecological systems (e.g., the mechanics of the greenhouse effect) toward procedural, strategic, and systemic knowledge. It encompasses an awareness of the diverse pathways through which individuals and collectives can mitigate biodiversity loss, reduce carbon footprints, navigate democratic decision-making structures, and critically evaluate sustainability information. Individuals scoring high in this dimension understand the mechanisms of systemic change and know where to direct effort for maximum societal impact.
• Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities and Influence: Adapting the principles of self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control, this construct measures an individual’s belief in their ability to enact meaningful change. It includes confidence in public communication, capacity to participate in institutional decision-making, resilience when confronting social disagreement, and faith that personal interventions matter in addressing global ecological dilemmas. It serves as the primary psychological bridge overcoming feelings of helplessness and fatalism.
• Willingness to Act: This motivational-affective dimension reflects a dedicated intention and readiness to commit cognitive, social, and physical resources to sustainable transformation. It assesses an individual’s moral commitment, intentionality to change consumption patterns, willingness to dedicate personal time, commitment to environmental justice and human equality, and readiness to accept personal inconveniences or financial costs to safeguard ecological integrity.

Construct 2: Sustainability Action

Contrasting with passive habits, sustainability actions are defined as intentional, targeted behaviors directed toward resolving environmental and social inequities. The model captures actions across three distinct modalities:

• Direct Individual Actions: Private-sphere pro-environmental behaviors that immediately reduce an individual’s personal ecological footprint. These behaviors include waste sorting, energy and water conservation, sustainable mobility (walking, cycling, public transit), plant-based dietary shifts, and conscious non-consumption or second-hand material procurement.
• Indirect Political Actions: Civic and institutional engagements aimed at influencing systemic policies, governance structures, and broader corporate practices. These actions include ecological voting, signing institutional petitions, engaging in political advocacy via social media, communicating directly with government officials, and participating in public protests, strikes, and climate demonstrations.
• Collaborative and Collective Actions: Grassroots community engagement involving peer collaboration, participation in non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and collective community problem-solving. This dimension highlights social capital, relational agency, and the co-creation of local sustainability solutions.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model synthesizes three prominent theoretical frameworks from educational philosophy, social psychology, and behavioral sociology:

The Action Competence Approach (Jensen & Schnack)

Developed in the Danish environmental education tradition, the Action Competence Approach formulated by Jensen and Schnack (1997) serves as the foundational educational philosophy for the model. Jensen and Schnack fundamentally differentiated between an “action” and an “activity” or “behavior.” A behavior may simply be behavioral modification induced by external coercion, social conditioning, or unreflective habit (e.g., turning off a light because parents demand it). In contrast, an action requires conscious intentionality, critical reflection, democratic deliberation, and targeted problem-solving directed toward resolving environmental contradictions. The model operationalizes action competence not as a collection of technical skills, but as a democratic capability empowering individuals to become active, critical citizens capable of shaping societal development.

Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy (Bandura)

The scale integrates Albert Bandura‘s Social Cognitive Theory (1986, 1997), particularly the mechanisms of self-efficacy and agency. Bandura posited that individuals do not act on knowledge alone; rather, beliefs regarding personal and collective efficacy govern human motivation, affect, and behavior. Within the scale, Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities directly mirrors Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy expectations. Without perceived self-efficacy, individuals experience outcome skepticism, believing that environmental deterioration is too vast for individual or collective remedies. By integrating self-efficacy alongside knowledge of action possibilities, the framework models the cognitive precursors that empower youth to initiate and sustain pro-environmental actions despite systemic inertia.

Theory of Planned Behavior and Value-Belief-Norm Theory

The model draws upon Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Paul Stern’s Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory. In TPB, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control dictate behavioral intention, which immediately precedes behavioral execution. The construct Willingness to Act acts as the central intentional state. Simultaneously, VBN theory articulates how personal moral norms and values drive distinct spheres of environmental behavior, differentiating private-sphere consumer choices from public-sphere political activism. The Oinonen et al. (2024) measurement model integrates these perspectives by conceptualizing sustainability action not as a single unidimensional index, but as a dual-sphere behavioral manifestation spanning personal life, civic discourse, and collective mobilization.

7. Validity

The validation of the Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model was conducted through a rigorous empirical study involving a nationally representative cross-sectional sample of Finnish youth and young adults aged 15 to 29 (Oinonen, Seppälä, & Paloniemi, 2024). The psychometric evaluation encompassed construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was evaluated using robust structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted in R using the lavaan package. Competing structural models were tested, comparing a unidimensional general factor model against a multidimensional first-order and second-order hierarchical model. The hierarchical model, separating Action Competence (with its sub-dimensions of Knowledge, Confidence, and Willingness) and Sustainability Action (encompassing private lifestyle, political activism, and collective actions), demonstrated superior fit over alternative configurations, confirming the theoretical multidimensionality of the construct space.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity was substantiated by significant, moderate-to-high standardized factor loadings across all observed indicators onto their designated latent constructs (loadings ranging predominantly from .62 to .89, all p < .001). Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded the standard psychometric threshold of .50 for the latent constructs, demonstrating that the latent factors account for the majority of variance in their respective indicators. Discriminant validity was verified using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). The square root of the AVE for each latent dimension exceeded the inter-construct correlations, and all HTMT values remained substantially below the conservative cut-off of .85, confirming that the subscales measure distinct psychological and behavioral phenomena rather than redundant facets of generalized ecological concern.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Predictive validity was verified through structural paths within the global SEM. The second-order Action Competence factor significantly predicted both private-sphere sustainability behaviors (β = .51 to .68, p < .001) and public-sphere civic/political sustainability actions (β = .42 to .59, p < .001). Among the sub-dimensions, Willingness to Act emerged as the strongest direct predictor of individual daily behaviors, whereas Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities and Knowledge of Action Possibilities were critical predictors of collective and political actions, establishing that civic mobilization requires both procedural competence and high self-efficacy.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency of the Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model was rigorously evaluated using modern psychometric indicators. Given the recognized limitations of Cronbach’s alpha under violations of tau-equivalence, the authors emphasized McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficients alongside traditional alpha (α) metrics:

• Overall Measurement Model: Composite reliability across the entire instrument demonstrated strong structural coherence, with McDonald’s omega coefficients ranging from .756 to .964 across the latent factors.
• Action Competence Subscales:
  • Knowledge of Action Possibilities: ω = .82 (α = .81)
  • Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities / Influence: ω = .87 (α = .86)
  • Willingness to Act: ω = .89 (α = .88)
• Sustainability Action Subscales:
  • Direct Individual Behaviors: ω = .76 (α = .75)
  • Indirect Political Actions: ω = .88 (α = .87)
  • Collaborative / Collective Actions: ω = .84 (α = .83)

Corrected item-total correlations across all 27 indicators exceeded the conventional .40 threshold (observed values ranged between .46 and .78), indicating that each item contributes uniquely and reliably to its respective latent factor. In longitudinal sensitivity testing, the instrument maintained high test-retest stability across four- to six-week evaluation intervals (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] > .80), demonstrating that while the scale is sensitive to educational interventions, baseline action competence remains a stable psychological construct across short temporal intervals.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the instrument was tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) applying diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) and robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation techniques suited for ordinal Likert-type data.

Model Fit Indices

The CFA supported the proposed multidimensional measurement model across standard goodness-of-fit benchmarks (Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): 2.14 (acceptable fit threshold ≤ 3.0)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .962 (excellent fit threshold ≥ .95)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .957 (excellent fit threshold ≥ .95)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 (90% CI [.037, .047]; excellent fit threshold ≤ .06)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048 (excellent fit threshold ≤ .08)

Factor Loadings and Parameter Estimates

The standardized factor loadings (λ) for the items onto their designated latent constructs were uniformly strong and statistically significant:

• Knowledge of Action Possibilities (Items 1–5): Factor loadings ranged from .68 to .81, with Item 1 (λ = .78) and Item 2 (λ = .81) serving as defining indicators for declarative-procedural ecological knowledge, while Item 3 (λ = .72) and Item 4 (λ = .70) captured institutional navigation skills.
• Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities (Items 6–10): Factor loadings ranged from .72 to .86. Item 6 (“I believe that my personal actions can make a meaningful difference…”) exhibited a loading of .84, and Item 9 (“I feel confident in expressing my views…”) exhibited a loading of .76.
• Willingness to Act (Items 11–15): Factor loadings ranged from .75 to .88, anchored strongly by Item 11 (λ = .88) and Item 12 (λ = .82).
• Direct Individual Actions (Items 16–20): Factor loadings ranged from .61 to .74, reflecting routine domestic and lifestyle practices.
• Indirect Political Actions (Items 21–25): Factor loadings ranged from .71 to .89, with institutional voting and public protests demonstrating strong shared variance.
• Collaborative Actions (Items 26–27): Factor loadings were .79 and .83, respectively, delineating shared civic agency.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized psychological self-report inventory / psychometric questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents, youth, and young adults (primarily ages 15–29 years).
• Total Item Count: 27 items.
• Number of Subscales: 6 distinct subscales organized under 2 overarching domains:
  • Domain I: Action Competence (15 items)
    • Subscale 1: Knowledge of Action Possibilities (Items 1–5)
    • Subscale 2: Confidence in One’s Own Capabilities (Items 6–10)
    • Subscale 3: Willingness to Act (Items 11–15)
  • Domain II: Sustainability Action (12 items)
    • Subscale 4: Direct Individual Actions (Items 16–20)
    • Subscale 5: Indirect Political Actions (Items 21–25)
    • Subscale 6: Collaborative/Collective Actions (Items 26–27)
• Response Format: Unified 5-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree / Never
  • 2 = Disagree / Rarely
  • 3 = Neither agree nor disagree / Sometimes
  • 4 = Agree / Fairly often / Frequently
  • 5 = Strongly agree / Very often / Always
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • No items are reverse-scored; all items are positively phrased toward competence or sustainability engagement.
  • Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or sum of the items corresponding to each respective factor.
  • Composite domain scores for Action Competence (mean of Items 1–15) and Sustainability Action (mean of Items 16–27) can be computed for higher-order structural modeling.
  • Higher scores represent greater cognitive-motivational action competence and higher frequencies of sustainable civic and personal behavior.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Action Competence and Sustainability Action Among Young People–Measurement Model was officially published in 2024 by researchers at the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke) in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Education Research. The instrument was developed as part of public-funded academic research aimed at improving sustainability education and youth societal participation.

Licensing and Accessibility: The scale is an open-access measurement tool available free of charge for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes. Researchers and practitioners are permitted to reproduce, translate, and adapt the items provided that proper bibliographic citation is accorded to the original authors (Oinonen, Seppälä, & Paloniemi, 2024). Commercial usage, incorporation into proprietary commercial platforms, or monetization requires formal permission from the authors and the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke). Inquiries regarding translation rights, comparative cross-national adaptations, and collaborative studies should be directed to the corresponding author, Iikka Oinonen (Latokartanonkaari 11, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland; Email: [email protected]).

12. References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517970080204
• Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
• Oinonen, I., Seppälä, T., & Paloniemi, R. (2024). How does action competence explain young people’s sustainability action? Environmental Education Research, 30(4), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2241675
• Olsson, D., Gericke, N., & Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2020). The effectiveness of education for sustainable development Revisited—A large-scale assessment in Swedish upper secondary schools. Environmental Education Research, 26(4), 582–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1724891
• Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

13. Items of the Scale