Rooting plant awareness: development of a tool to explore human-plant relationships

Abstract

Background

Although plants play a crucial role in ecosystems and human well-being, public awareness of their ecological significance remains limited. Furthermore, no validated construct or instrument currently exists to systematically assess plant awareness.

Methods

This study presents an operationalisation and statistical validation of the plant awareness construct through a newly-developed assessment tool. Using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on data from 858 Austrian students across three school types and an expert group (botanists), this study is the first to validate plant awareness as a measurable psychological construct with distinct dimensions.

Results

Results provide evidence for the proposed construct’s dimensionality and show internal consistency within its dimensions (attention, knowledge, attitudes). Comparing the dimensions, we found that attitudes towards plants were generally positive, knowledge varied depending on educational exposure, and attention tended to be low.

Conclusion

Both the construct and the assessment tool offer initial insights into the structure of individual relationships with plants. By reliably distinguishing between individuals with varying levels of plant awareness, the tool demonstrates its applicability in research and education. The findings of this study provide a step towards a better understanding of human–plant relationships and pave the way for further research into connections with nature.

Introduction

Plant awareness refers to the recognition, understanding, and valuation of plants’ ecological and societal roles (Dünser et al., 2024b; Parsley, Daigle & Sabel, 2022; Stagg & Dillon, 2022). It is foundational to sustainability, as plants underpin food systems, climate regulation, and biodiversity, and are connected to nearly every Sustainable Development Goal (Amprazis & Papadopoulou, 2025; Gosnell et al., 2025). However, cultural representations—from children’s literature (Schussler, 2008) and science textbooks (Link-Pérez et al., 2010) to journal covers (Fančovičová, Prokop & Kubíčková, 2022)—frequently undervalue plants, contributing to low public awareness of their complex functions (Sanders, 2007).

This limited understanding has tangible consequences: misperceptions reduce support for plant-focused conservation (Balding & Williams, 2016) and introduce aesthetic and geographic biases in resource allocation, favouring attractive, conspicuous, or broadly distributed species (Adamo et al., 2021; Adamo et al., 2022). Plant awareness, defined as attention to plants, understanding of their roles, and attitudes reflecting their value, is thus multidimensional. It shapes how people notice plants, interpret their functions, and prioritise their conservation and use (Gosnell et al., 2025).

Fostering plant awareness is both an educational and policy imperative. Higher awareness strengthens support for plant-inclusive conservation, reduces funding and research biases, and informs more effective climate and biodiversity policies (Adamo et al., 2021; Adamo et al., 2022; Balding & Williams, 2016; Bofferding & Kloser, 2015). By advancing plant awareness, societies can better recognize plants’ contributions to human well-being and translate that recognition into action, aligning with environmental and social objectives.

Related theories and concepts for understanding plant awareness

Scientific knowledge becomes socially actionable only when it is supported by a public that actively engages with and applies it. Civic epistemologies—societal practices for validating and integrating scientific knowledge (Jasanoff, 2005)—help explain why (botanical) knowledge alone often fails to inform decisions (Knight et al., 2008; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). In the case of plants, this “plant civic epistemology” is particularly weak: despite growing scientific understanding of plants’ ecological complexity, societal practices often fail to reflect this knowledge. For example, studies show that students from kindergarten through college are more capable of recalling and naming animals than plants (Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2011; Schussler & Olzak, 2008) and exhibit a marked preference for studying animals over plants (Wandersee, 1986). This disconnect is further evidenced by the systematic neglect of plants in textbooks (Schussler et al., 2010; Uno, 2009) and laboratory work, where botanical content is frequently marginalised. Such patterns demonstrate how botanical knowledge, despite its scientific robustness, struggles to translate into educational priorities or public consciousness.

However, educational interventions offer promising pathways to bridge this gap. Nyberg & Sanders (2014) demonstrated that hands-on activities, such as having students grow pea plants and document their development, can foster both observational skills and emotional connections to plants. These examples align with Mach et al.’s (2020) call for the “coproduction of knowledge”, where researchers and the public collaborate to generate actionable insights. Such approaches decentralise knowledge production, ensuring that botanical science is not only understood but also applied in ways that address societal challenges like biodiversity loss and climate change.

However, in many Western contexts, weak public engagement with plant-related civic epistemologies limits the diffusion of plant awareness into education, policy, and everyday practice. While individual perceptual shifts (e.g., philosophical reflection or experiential learning) can foster appreciation for plants, systemic change is equally critical (Kacprzyk, 2026). Institutional arrangements that legitimise and mobilise plant knowledge as a public good, such as equitable funding for botany education, inclusive policy frameworks, and cross-disciplinary collaborations, are necessary to counter cultural biases. Without such structures, the marginalisation of plants in civic discourse and sustainability efforts will persist, undermining the ethical foundations of conservation.

Furthermore, complementary perspectives on human–nature relations highlight mechanisms of disconnection at individual and societal levels. The “wheel of disconnection” (Beery et al., 2023) shows that limited personal experiences, sociocultural norms, and institutional barriers constrain nature connectedness and, by extension, plant awareness. Evidence from local contexts illustrates how gaps in botanical knowledge and insufficient institutional support can be countered through skills-building, community-based conservation, and other participatory approaches (Beckwith, Johansson & Huff, 2022). Co-production of knowledge among scientists, educators, and communities enhances relevance, legitimacy, and adoption compared to traditional one-way dissemination (Mach et al., 2020). Additionally, recent plant-focused citizen science demonstrates that co-produced, context-specific engagement can increase participation and facilitate shared knowledge creation in local contexts (Gibson et al. 2026).

The relationship between plant awareness and the broader construct of nature connectedness (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013; Tam, 2013) reveals a hierarchical yet interdependent dynamic. Nature connectedness—often measured through validated scales such as the NR-6 (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013) or Environmental Identity Scale (EID) (Clayton et al., 2021; Clayton & Opotow, 2003)—captures an individual’s cognitive, affective, and experiential bonds with the natural world. Tam’s (2013) empirical synthesis of connection-to-nature measures demonstrates strong convergence across all of these constructs. However, given that plants are frequently marginalised in cultural and educational contexts (Fančovičová, Prokop & Kubíčková, 2022; Link-Pérez et al., 2010; Schussler, 2008), plant awareness may serve as a specific mechanism for addressing broader disconnection, especially in fields where plants are consistently undervalued.

This individual-level construct is further expanded by the human-nature disconnect framework (Beery et al., 2023), which underscores that disconnection is not merely the absence of connection but an actively produced state through sociocultural, institutional, and political processes, including at both individual and societal levels. While plant awareness is assessed at the personal level—through one’s capacity to perceive, understand, and value plants—its development is profoundly shaped by the structural impediments identified in Beery et al.’s (2023) “wheel of disconnection.” Plant awareness illustrates how individuals become disconnected, often beginning with limited personal experience (Stagg & Dillon, 2022).

This disconnection is reinforced by cultural norms, such as the underrepresentation of plants in media (Fančovičová, Prokop & Kubíčková, 2022; Schussler, 2008) and by institutional biases, including the underfunding of plant conservation (Balding & Williams, 2016). Thus, mirroring Beery’s ideas, plant awareness exists at the intersection of personal cognition (nature connectedness) and societal context (human-nature disconnect): plants are underrepresented in children’s literature (Schussler et al., 2010), science curricula (Uno, 2009), and conservation campaigns (Albert, Luque & Courchamp, 2018; Mammola et al., 2020), which collectively perpetuate a cycle of disconnection.

Furthermore, plants are especially vulnerable in human-nature relationships because their static, silent, and often unnoticed roles in ecosystems and daily life attract less human attention. Unlike charismatic megafauna, plants lack sensory cues such as movement or vocalisations that typically engage people (Balas & Momsen, 2014; New, Cosmides & Tooby, 2007). As a result, they potentially may be more susceptible to extinction of experience (Soga & Gaston, 2016; Soga & Gaston, 2020) and shifting baseline syndrome (Soga & Gaston, 2018).

Current measurement, limitations, and the need for improvement

Progress is hampered by the absence of a clearly defined, empirically validated construct and a corresponding measurement approach (Brkovic, Sanders & Nyberg, 2025). Terminology has shifted from “plant blindness” (Wandersee & Schussler, 2001) to “plant awareness disparity” (Parsley, 2020) and, more recently, “plant awareness” (Dünser et al., 2024b; Pany et al., 2022), reflecting a move away from pathologising perception toward a broader socio-cognitive framing (Albuquerque et al., 2025). Yet inconsistencies in definitions and dimensionality, and the lack of a comprehensive instrument, impede assessment across individual, regional, and cultural contexts (Brkovic, Sanders & Nyberg, 2025; Stagg, Hetherington & Dillon, 2024).

Existing tools typically capture fragments—such as attitudes or self-reported interest—without integrating multiple dimensions or linking measures across studies (Fančovičová & Prokop, 2010; Parsley, Daigle & Sabel, 2022). Concept clarity is crucial for cumulative science: well-specified constructs support coherent theorising, enable placement within a nomological network, and improve comparability across studies (Gerring, 2012; Green, 2014; Locke, 2003). Within this framework, a construct is a term that describes and specifies the unique attributes of a phenomenon (Lambert & Newman, 2023).

A pivotal contribution to developing the phenomenon into a construct came from Parsley (2020), who introduced plant awareness disparity (PAD) to address ableist connotations in the original terminology. Building on this, Parsley, Daigle & Sabel (2022) developed and validated the Plant Awareness Disparity Index (PAD-I), the first comprehensive self-report instrument to measure plant awareness (disparity) across four components: attention, attitude, knowledge, and relative interest. The instrument underwent rigorous development, including expert review, pilot testing with qualitative interviews, and two rounds of exploratory factor analysis (N = 1,062 and N = 553), resulting in a 25-item version, providing the first empirically validated tool to assess plant awareness and test educational interventions.

However, the PAD-I has faced critiques regarding its conceptual and methodological limitations. Parsley, Daigle & Sabel (2022) themselves noted that the instrument was developed primarily with undergraduate biology students in the US, a sample that was 74.3% female and 69.1% white, raising concerns about generalisability to more diverse populations. They also observed that, while the knowledge component improved significantly in their pilot study, attention and relative interest changed little, suggesting that knowledge-deficit models alone may be insufficient to address all aspects of plant awareness disparity.

These critiques were extended by demonstrating that students typically held positive attitudes toward plants, guided by evaluations based on aesthetic features and ecosystem services (Dünser et al., 2024a). However, interest in plants was notably low and specific to certain activities, clarifying that attitude and interest are conceptually distinct constructs (a differentiation sometimes unclear in existing literature; see Krapp & Prenzel, 2011) that require separate measurement. Furthermore, the deficit-oriented framing might inadvertently pathologise normal variations in plant awareness (Albuquerque et al., 2025) which underlines the need for a solution-oriented, strength-based approach that focuses on cultivating high plant awareness rather than merely measuring its absence.

After having explored the dimensions of plant awareness separately in several studies (Dünser et al., 2024b; Dünser et al., 2024a; Pany et al., 2022; Pany et al., 2026), in this paper, we present the statistical validation of the entire construct, which is the final step of construct development, following the three-step guideline of Lambert & Newman (2023): (1) definition and conceptualisation; (2) operationalisation; and (3) validation. The first step, definition and conceptualisation, has already been completed through a Delphi study that developed an expert-validated, theory-based definition of plant awareness (Dünser et al., 2024b). Experts defined plant awareness as a “multidimensional construct encompassing attention, understanding, and attitudes towards plants” (p. 1064). Variables such as interest in plants (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Krapp, 2007), mentorship, and emotions, in contrast, were identified as factors affecting plant awareness (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1. The plant awareness construct with its dimensions, as well as factors that affect plant awareness (adapted from Dünser et al., 2024b; p.1065).

A validated plant awareness tool, based on the consensus-based definition (Dünser et al., 2024b), can help identify how individual gaps in attention, understanding, or attitudes toward plants correspond to structural barriers described in the “wheel of disconnection” (Beery et al., 2023). For instance, low attention scores may be linked to sociocultural norms that make plants less visible in urban environments (Soga & Gaston, 2016), while limited understanding may reflect educational systems that prioritise animal biology over botany (Link-Pérez et al., 2010).

Furthermore, with a rigorous construct and validated tool, researchers and practitioners can assess individual plant awareness and, by extension, draw inferences about how societal, institutional, and educational systems foster or hinder it (Brkovic, Sanders & Nyberg, 2025). By situating plant awareness at the nexus of individual cognition (nature connectedness) and societal context (human-nature disconnect), researchers and practitioners can design targeted interventions—such as community-based conservation programs (Beckwith, Johansson & Huff, 2022) or plant-focused civic education—that address both personal and systemic dimensions of the human-plant relationship.

Standardised assessment thus supports targeted policy and educational design, helps correct biases in conservation attention (Adamo et al., 2022; Balding & Williams, 2016), and ultimately contributes to broader educational and societal transformation (Jasanoff, 2005). To address this measurement gap, this study advances the field from definition to application. Building on the Delphi-based construct definition, we translated the multidimensional conceptualisation of plant awareness into an assessment tool that can be used at the individual level and adapted for broader contexts (Dünser et al., 2024b).

Since we also seek to generate initial validity evidence to situate the construct within a broader theoretical framework, support comparability across studies, and inform interventions in education and policy, the present study pursues two objectives:

• (1)Operationalise the plant awareness construct in a tool for assessing an individual’s plant awareness (point 2 on the checklist by Lambert & Newman, 2023).
• (2)Obtain and analyse empirical evidence to take first steps for validating the plant awareness construct (point 3 on the checklist by Lambert & Newman, 2023).

Materials & Methods

The plant awareness assessment tool

In a first step, we used the checklist by Lambert & Newman (2023) to operationalise the plant awareness construct (see also DeVellis & Thorpe, 2021). This process generated selected items to effectively represent the dimensions of plant awareness (Dünser et al., 2024b). To link the items with the dimensions of plant awareness, we followed four key principles:

• (1)Dimensionality: Each item was designed to specifically target one of the dimensions of plant awareness, ensuring a comprehensive and nuanced assessment and making possible the validation of the dimensions.
• (2)Relevance in everyday life: We prioritised items that reflect the everyday experiences of respondents, focusing on common plant species, herbs, and basic ecological concepts. We conducted this study because previous research indicates low plant awareness, which we assessed using simple baseline items (e.g., Pany et al., 2022).
• (3)Empirical grounding: Many items were adapted from existing research in the field of plant awareness, leveraging the insights of previous studies (e.g., Asshoff et al., 2019; Buck et al., 2019; Gladwell et al., 2012; Ryplova & Pokorny, 2020; Schunko & Brandner, 2022).
• (4)Sustainability linkages: We aimed to connect plant awareness to broader sustainability issues by incorporating items related to relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This approach aligns with the theoretical framework proposed by Amprazis & Papadopoulou (2020); Amprazis & Papadopoulou (2025). The complete item universe and item origins are shown in Table S1.

Scales of the plant awareness assessment tool

We developed one scale each for the three proposed dimensions of plant awareness: attention, knowledge, and attitudes. Scale development was informed by theoretical implications of DeVellis & Thorpe (2021) and used for the overwhelming part already published and peer reviewed structures. Scale values were computed as unweighted sum scores. All scales are designed in a way that higher scores indicate higher plant awareness. As effect size for group comparisons, the ordinal η² was used (Cohen, 2008).

The operationalisation of the three dimensions—attention, knowledge, and attitudes—employs various tools that have already been tested and published in different papers. The tool for assessing attention is based on recollection from a picture (Pany et al., 2026). The knowledge subscales cover identification items already used in Pany et al. (2022), evapotranspiration items (Ryplova & Pokorny, 2020), and practical knowledge (Schunko & Brandner, 2022). Finally, the attitude items are taken from (Dünser et al., 2024a) who already validated and tested the reliability of the scale, as well as the evaluative valences underlying the individual items. Subsequently, all items were expert-validated by a group of 13 experts (six male, seven female; seven plant awareness researchers, six botany educators, two psychologists).

“Attention” scale.

Using the definition of the Delphi study, we understand attention towards plants within this paper as follows: “Attention towards plants encompasses the capacity to consciously perceive, recognise, and distinguish plants from their surroundings.” (Dünser et al., 2024b, p. 1064). Using this definition, attention can be understood as a selective cognitive mechanism (Koivisto, Kainulainen & Revonsuo, 2009; Lamme, 2003; Lamme, 2005) which enables the visual system to prioritise certain information (Carrasco, 2011). This is necessary as processing all incoming stimuli is impossible because processing is limited by the metabolic costs of neural activity (Rensink, 2014).

Different cognitive processes thus amplify relevant features and attenuate less relevant ones (Prinz, Müsseler & Rieger, 2017), representing an important evolutionary advantage. Working memory plays a central role in selective attention by temporarily holding and manipulating information during complex tasks (Hitch, Allen & Baddeley, 2024). Finally, attention is often influenced by past experiences, emotional associations, and stored knowledge in long-term memory (Collins & Curby, 2013; Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). When specific values or objectives are introduced, attentional focus can be sustained for extended periods, even for low-priority stimuli (Wolfe & Horowitz, 2017).

For this first validation of the plant awareness construct, the attention dimension was operationalised as a recall task (see Schussler & Olzak, 2008) in the form of a free listing exercise after looking at an image of a typical Central European landscape (Pany et al., 2026). Researchers frequently use sketches or paintings in vision and attention studies because they allow precise control over visual stimuli while still conforming to established principles of ecological visual perception, such as face processing (Frischen, Eastwood & Smilek, 2008), spatial frequency statistics (Graham et al., 2012), and eye-movement patterns (Fuchs et al., 2011). The drawing was designed to represent a plausible Central European landscape using Austrian land-use data and species diversity information (e.g., Ehrendorfer et al., 2022).

Species groups were included in roughly ecological proportions, while accounting for practical constraints such as the impossibility of depicting the true numerical dominance of insects or the small size of many organisms. Decisions, such as depicting more plant than animal species, limiting red tones due to common red-green weakness, and focusing on a spring/early-summer scene to maximise visual variety, were made based on perceptual and ecological reasoning. Expert discussions led to refinements, including additional flowering plants, fungi, and well-known animal species. A professional graphic designer then created the final digital drawing, following strict instructions to ensure accurate diagnostic features, relative sizes, and high recognizability. Items were positioned naturalistically, though proportional adjustments were necessary to enhance recognisability on a screen.

After looking at the drawing for a maximum of 60 s, students were asked to write a list of all objects they could remember. To assess attention towards plants, we focused on a group of plants that are relevant in students’ everyday life and, thereby, easier to recognise: useful plants (Krüger & Burmester, 2005). Therefore, we examined the frequency with which the ten most prominent useful plants depicted in the image, including the apple tree and the strawberry, appeared in participants’ free recall lists.

“Knowledge about plants” scale.

In operationalising the “knowledge about plants” dimension, we follow its definition as “(…) encompass(ing) an individual’s understanding of plants, their needs and life processes, their essential contributions to ecosystems, as well as their interconnectedness and interaction with most life, including humans and their culture.” (Dünser et al., 2024b, p. 1064). This broad conceptualisation is grounded in constructivist and conceptual-change perspectives, which view “understanding” as the organisation and restructuring of interconnected concepts rather than the accumulation of isolated facts (Amin, Levin & Levrini, 2023).

We acknowledge that the operationalisation of this dimension also includes factual knowledge and may therefore, at first glance, appear to function as a simple knowledge test rather than a measure of deeper conceptual grasp. However, several subscales require system-level reasoning (e.g., carbon cycle, agriculture, sustainability) or draw on practical and culturally embedded knowledge, thereby exceeding simple recall. The coexistence of factual, conceptual, and practical elements reflects the assumption that plant awareness relies on a multifaceted knowledge base that integrates global biological principles with locally grounded experience. Additionally, we would like to emphasise that “knowledge” is an important intermediary component and key for influencing attitudes (Schlegel, Breuer & Rupf, 2015), which is the reason for the prominent role of knowledge-related items in the presented instrument.

The “knowledge about plants” scale evaluates students’ foundational knowledge about plants through seven subscales: “plant species identification” (e.g., Buck et al., 2019; Kaasinen, 2019), “spice plants,” (Pany et al., 2022) “practical knowledge,” (Schunko & Brandner, 2022) “plants as living organisms” (Urry et al., 2017), “carbon cycle,” (Asshoff et al., 2019; Düsing, Asshoff & Hammann, 2019) “agriculture,” (Lampert et al., 2020) and “sustainability” (Dünser, 2022). These subscales were chosen as their content relates closely to students’ everyday experiences (Krüger & Burmester, 2005; Tunnicliffe & Reiss, 2000) or is fundamental for understanding the role of plants for ecosystems and humankind. To illustrate this, three selected subscales that are closest to students’ everyday life will be described in the following.

The “plant species identification” subscale, which represents local knowledge, requires students to identify five common mid-European plant species (e.g., Taraxacum officinale) by selecting the correct image from four options or the correct plant name from a list of four. The “practical knowledge” subscale incorporates ethnobotanical views and practical knowledge into the assessment tool. An item battery by Schunko & Brandner (2022), which focuses on the naming—like Bermudez, Diaz & De Longhi (2018)—and a follow-up question about harvesting habits for Linden tree flowers (Tilia sp.) and blackberries (Rubus sp.), is used. The corresponding harvest item was also adapted and used for other identification items like dandelions (Taraxacum officinale). The “plants as living organisms” subscale, which represents global knowledge, measures the extent to which students classify plants as living organisms relative to animals, fungi, and bacteria. To achieve this, students evaluated eight life characteristics for each organism group (animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria) as defined by Urry et al. (2017).

“Attitude” scale.

In this article, we use the definition of attitudes towards plants as “evaluated responses towards plants, such as feeling comfortable or uncomfortable around plants.” (Dünser et al., 2024b, p. 1064; Karjalainen, Sarjala & Raitio, 2010). We define these responses as evaluation of an object (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) as a valenced response to an entity (Ledgerwood, Eastwick & Smith, 2018). Although attitudes can be informed by cognitive, affective, and behavioural information (Maio & Haddock, 2007), our focus in this study is on capturing the overall evaluative orientation towards plants, rather than separately modelling its underlying components. Thus, our scale is not intended to represent the full tripartite model that informs attitudes, but to assess the outcome of these processes, namely, whether participants evaluate plants positively or negatively (in general). Therefore, we oriented our scale on prominent five-item scales that are often used to tackle similarly complex issues, like the “satisfaction of life scale” (Diener et al., 1985) that also uses rather general items. The index is not intended to replace comprehensive multidimensional attitude instruments, but rather to provide a concise, conceptually grounded measure of plant-related evaluations appropriate for large-scale surveys.

The current five-item attitude scale builds on the instrument developed by Dünser et al. (2024a), which builds on earlier attempts to measure attitudes towards plants by Fančovičová & Prokop (2010). Each of the five items targets a distinct evaluative component that is well documented in the literature. Two items assess students’ evaluative preferences for having more or fewer plants in (1) their school environment and (2) an urban setting, reflecting evidence on plants’ cognitive and emotional benefits, including improved attention and perceived restoration (Berto, 2005; Kuo, 2001; Laumann, Gärling & Stormark, 2003; Maller et al., 2009; Takayama et al., 2014; Taylor, Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). One item assesses perceived comfort when surrounded by plants, based on physiological evidence of calming effects (Gladwell et al., 2012; Karjalainen, Sarjala & Raitio, 2010; Park et al., 2011; Tsunetsugu et al., 2013). Another item targets aesthetic evaluation (“plants are beautiful”), given the acknowledged role of aesthetics in shaping positive attitudes (Dünser et al., 2024a; Hůla & Flegr, 2021; Nyberg, Brkovic & Sanders, 2021). The final item captures cultural valuation of plants within the family context (Berkes, 2017). Since all five items ask participants to provide an evaluative judgement, they align with the used definition of attitudes as valenced evaluations. The validation of the used items showed different important evaluative dimensions across all items, from aesthetic perception to emotional expressions and behavioural results of being close to plants (Dünser et al., 2024a).

Nomological network and differentiating between attitudes and interest

The distinction between attitudes and interest is subject to an ongoing debate in biology education (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011), as there are similar components that overlap in their expression (e.g., emotions). In this paper, interest is understood as a motivational state (Hidi & Renninger, 2006) emerging from a dynamic interaction between the person and the object or stimulus (Krapp, 2007). The original mixed-methods research supporting the scale examined the distinction between attitudes and interests in detail, showing that the test items assess these constructs rather than focus on plants (Dünser et al., 2024a).

Qualitative analysis revealed that students provided fundamentally different types of reasoning for interest and attitude items: attitude explanations referred to evaluative considerations (e.g., “plants are important for animals and humans because they produce oxygen”), whereas interest explanations referred to personal engagement, time investment, or social context (e.g., “I find plants beautiful but I don’t deal with them in my spare time”). Quantitative analyses further supported this conceptual separation, showing generally positive attitudes but consistently low interest.

These findings indicated the need for a concise measure that captures evaluative stance rather than given engagement. The need (and chance) to separate attitudes from interest is also evident when applying the psychological definitions of interest and attitudes, as interest is a motivational state (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), while attitudes involve an evaluative process (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Against this background, the five-item attitude scale presented in this paper (see above) aims to provide a broad yet coherent measure of students’ general evaluative orientation towards plants. Finally, in order to explore the relation of plant awareness to other constructs, we assessed interest in plants, using the 14 plant related interest items of the ROSE-Questionnaire (Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2004) (α = 0.96), and nature connectedness combining the NR-6 (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013) and the INS-scale (Kleespies et al., 2021), together consisting of seven items (α = 0.90).

Content validation

To ensure the content validity of the different items, we used think-aloud protocols. This method, commonly employed in piloting questionnaires, is particularly effective in identifying misleading task descriptions and unintended interpretations, ensuring definitional distinctiveness. The use of think-aloud protocols is intended to prevent the questionnaire items from being solved by alternative means rather than assessing the intended variable (Sandmann, 2014; Völzke, 2012).

Participants ranged in age from 10 to 18 years, as targeted. Given the age and gender differences reported in botanical education (e.g., Kaasinen, 2019; Strgar, 2008), the sample included six female and six male students, with two think-aloud protocols conducted per tested age group. To ensure applicability across school types, piloting took place in a Mittelschule and a Gymnasium (see section “Sample” below). Moreover, participants with native languages other than German were included to verify that the items avoided jargon and complex phrasing, making them accessible and understandable.

Additionally, guided interviews were conducted. These interviews focused on clarifying challenging items, reviewing the understanding of specific keywords, and exploring the causes of difficulties encountered during questionnaire completion. When the think-aloud protocols did not reveal how students arrived at their conclusions, they were asked to explain their reasoning. Based on this thorough validation process, the items were revised to ensure that the assessment tool accurately assessed the desired understanding of plants. The combination of think-aloud protocols and guided interviews allowed us to align construct definitions with their operationalisation, to ensure content validity and to support interpretation of organisational and individual performance measures (Miller, Washburn & Glick, 2013).

Next, the complete assessment tool with items for all three dimensions was reviewed by 13 experts (seven female, six male) in plant awareness research (seven), botany education (four), and psychology (two), with expertise ranging from 5 to 20 years. All experts assessed each item’s alignment with its dimension, ensuring definitional distinctiveness (Colquitt et al., 2019) and confirming the general functionality of each item. This expert assessment of the items was part of the larger Delphi-study that also led to the definition of the plant awareness construct (see Dünser et al., 2024b). However, certain ambiguities stemming from expert-level understanding were addressed by simplifying the phrasing to avoid over-complication. The complete assessment tool along with a detailed rationale (Dünser, Navarro Prieto & Pany, 2024) is available online (Dünser, Navarro Prieto & Pany, 2024).

Sample

In our study, we applied known-groups validity (Davidson, 2023) to our dataset by comparing the scores of students from three different school types (Mittelschule, Gymnasium, Naturparkschule) with a group of experts. This approach evaluated whether the assessment tool effectively distinguished between groups expected to differ in plant awareness, supporting its validity for this purpose.

The selected schools include three types of schools: urban “Mittelschule” (n = 66, 56% female, mean_Age = 12.77 ± 1.68, urban “Gymnasium” (n = 370, 51% female, mean_Age = 13.52 ±  2.33), and rural “Naturparkschulen” (n = 388, 43% female, mean_Age = 12.25 ±  1.26). Mittelschulen are lower secondary schools that provide pathways to vocational training or further academic studies after completing four school years. Gymnasien are schools that offer lower and upper secondary education and are characterised by higher academic expectations and a strong focus on preparing students for university. In rural areas, Naturparkschulen are a special type of lower secondary schools with a specific focus on environmental education and regional identity in their curriculum. Naturparkschulen align teaching approaches with the mission of a local “Nature Park” using it as a resource for outdoor learning.

These structural differences suggest that variations emerge across school types regarding the three dimensions of plant awareness, and the respective subscales. Such variations may stem from place-based education and differing curricular emphases; for example, Naturparkschulen attach more importance to environmental education. Based on these distinctions, we anticipate significant differences between Mittelschulen and Gymnasien, as well as between Mittelschulen and Naturparkschulen. However, due to their respective educational focus, we expect Naturparkschulen and Gymnasien to be more similar to one another.

In addition to testing the plant awareness assessment tool across these three school types, we have tested the tool among a group of plant experts. This inclusion of experts provides another layer for the known-groups comparison (Davidson, 2023). The expert group consisted of a group of 34 members of the Austrian Flora Research Association (http://www.flora-austria.at) (n = 34, 32% female, median_Age = 51–60 years), who participated voluntarily in our study after being invited via the newsletter of the Austrian Flora Research Association. We predict that students across all school types will exhibit lower plant awareness than experts.

The number of students participating was determined by availability at three schools, where teachers were willing to support data collection. Thus, the sample size reflects the practical constraints and opportunities of the study context, rather than being based on a priori statistical considerations. While this limits the potential to optimise sample size, it ensures ecological validity and aligns with the authentic conditions of educational research.

The “Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice” (Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, 2016) guided the research team. Before participation, students and experts were informed about the aims of the research, duration, procedure, and anonymity of the data. Participation was voluntary, and only those persons that gave written consent to participate in the study were included in the data analysis. Data were collected and analysed anonymously.

Analytic strategy

In general, analyses were conducted using data from secondary 1 level students of all schools combined (i.e., neither experts nor older pupils above fourth grade of Gymnasium). The reliabilities of the scales and subscales were computed as internal consistency via Cronbach’s α, based on tetrachoric correlations from the R-package psych (Revelle, 2020). The dimensionality of the dimension knowledge was further investigated by means of a Rasch analysis applied to the whole sample, using WinSteps (Linacre, 2023) calculating person and item reliabilities, IMNSQ infit and outfit statistics. The theoretically assumed dimensionality and latent structure were tested using descriptive correlations and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), the latter computed via the R-package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012), using maximum likelihood estimation and tetrachoric correlations because of the dichotomous data format. Model fit was evaluated using the Tucker-Lewis-Index (TLI), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria (AIC and BIC), as well as the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Finally, to validate assumptions about the dimensional structure, and the influence of sociodemographic variables, we applied linear regression.

Evaluations involving group comparisons (for known-group validation) were based on the complete data set. Due to some incomplete responses, the number of used cases can be smaller than the size of the corresponding sample. For distributional reasons, the comparisons were evaluated for significant outcomes via Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise Mann–Whitney tests for post-hoc analyses. Group differences served as indicators of both construct validity and the validity of the operationalisation, assessing whether comparisons between school types and experts revealed the theoretically expected differences in accordance with known-group comparison methodology (Davidson, 2023). Additionally, divergent outcomes in group comparisons between two scales indicated that they should remain separate.

Ethics statement

According to the statute of the Ethics Committee of the University of Vienna (§2; see re-release of the statute section “Ethikkommission”, as per university gazette 2012-03-16, 18th piece, no. 106), the Ethics Committee evaluates research projects on or with humans: these are investigations which may affect the physical or psychological integrity, the sphere of privacy, other subjective rights or predominant interests of research participants. According to national laws (Austrian Universities Act 2002), the type of study presented in this article is exempt from mandatory formal ethical approval.

Results

Dimensionality of the plant awareness construct

The theoretical framework and dimensionality of plant awareness as well as interest imply clear expectations about the factorial structure (four-dimensional: attention, knowledge, attitudes, interest) which was tested by means of a confirmatory factor analysis (Table S2). The model fit indexes resulted in CFI (scaled value) = 0.906 (0.866), TLI = 0.903 (0.862), in spite of a significant χ² = 12,269.745 (df = 4,088, p < 0.001), and an error of RMSEA = 0.065 (scaled values: 0.036), see Table S2 in the supplements for estimates, standard errors, and confidence intervals. Table 1 shows the intercorrelations between attention, knowledge, and attitude, which are small to moderate, though significant.

Table 1. Scale intercorrelations with confidence intervals in brackets.

Significant correlations are printed in bold, exact p-values are shown in the upper half of the table.

	Attention	Knowledge	Attitudes
Attention	–	0.17 p = 1.60e−5	0.04 p = 0.3902
Knowledge	0.17 [0.10; 0.25]	–	0.28 p = 4.15e−11
Attitudes	0,04 [−0.05; 0.12]	0.28 [0.20; 0.35]	–

Reliability for all three dimensions showed sufficient to high consistency (see Table 2): Cronbach’s α resulted in acceptable values for attention and attitudes, and excellent ones for knowledge (Field, 2024; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The reliability for the subscales measuring knowledge also ranged from sufficient to high, with values spanning from 0.73 for “practical knowledge” to 0.94 for “Categorizing plants as living organisms” (Table S3).

Table 2. Reliability of the plant awareness dimensions (Cronbach’s α).

Dimension	Cronbach’s α
Attention	0.78
Knowledge	0.96
Attitudes	0.77

Rasch analysis confirmed the internal consistency of the knowledge dimension (across all groups). The analysis yielded a person reliability of 0.88, indicating sufficient consistency in the measurement of individual ability across the dataset. The item reliability with 0.99 demonstrated that the set of items is well-targeted to the participants’ abilities and sufficiently robust to replicate the findings in similar samples. Fit statistics supported the assumption of Rasch homogeneity: the IMNSQ infit for persons was 0.99, and the outfit was 1.06, while the IMNSQ infit for items was 0.99, and the outfit was 1.07. These values fall well within the acceptable range (0.7–1.3), confirming that both items and persons conform to the expectations of the Rasch model. No items or participants had to be excluded from the analysis due to misfit or extreme responses, reinforcing the validity of the dataset and the usability of the itemset for the sample.

Known-groups comparison

For the dimension attention (values could range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum score of 10), we found a clear differentiation between students and experts, whereas students from the different types of school did not differ (see Table 3). Regarding knowledge, students from Gymnasium keep pace with those from Naturparkschulen, however, not those from Mittelschule. The experts stand out as the most homogeneous group with the smallest standard deviations. For the knowledge dimension (values could range from a minimum of 4 to a maximum score of 78), Kruskal–Wallis with post hoc analysis via pairwise Mann–Whitney tests (with Holm correction) found highly-significant differences between all school types and the expert group. Medium-level differences were observed between Mittelschule and other school forms, while only minimal differences emerged between Gymnasium and Naturparkschulen (see Table 3 and Fig. 2; for exact p-values see Table S4). Standard errors and confidence intervals are available in (Table S5). Students from Naturparkschulen outperformed or matched those from Mittelschule and Gymnasium in local and practical knowledge subscales. In contrast, Gymnasium students scored higher in global knowledge subscales. All Kruskal–Wallis tests for the knowledge subscales were highly significant (p < 0.001; exact p-values see Table S6) and are presented as boxplots in the (Figs. S1–S7).

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of the three dimensions of plant awareness (attention, knowledge, attitudes), interest, and nature connectedness, as well as effect sizes (ordinal η²) and p-values for the four subsamples Mittelschule, Gymnasium, Naturparkschule, and experts.

		Attention		Knowledge		Attitudes		Interest		Nature connectedness
	N	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Mittelschule	66	0.59	0.84	36.09	11.5	19.29	3.67	18.82	10.28	24.75	6.65
Gymnasium	370	0.82	1.15	46.28	10.72	19.10	3.67	25.21	12.24	22.55	6.90
Naturparkschule	388	0.76	1.05	47.31	10.21	20.04	3.14	38.75	7.51	26.23	6.57
Experts	34	2.41	1.79	66.18	6.35	22.74	1.93	49.13	4.97	33.68	2.88
Kruskal Wallis test
Ordinal η2 all groups		0.0611		0.1300		0.0428		0.289		0.112
Ordinal η2 between schools		0		0.0472		0.00856		0.240		0.0554
Ordinal η2 students vs. experts		0.0616		0.0878		0.0348		0.0737		0.0602
p-value		2.45E−09		2.2E−16		5.07E−13		2.2E−16		2.2E−16
H (χ2)		1.395		113.88		39.571		250.17		98.234
df		3		3		3		3		3

Figure 2. Boxplots showing differences in knowledge aboutplants between the four subsamples Mittelschule, Gymnasium, Naturparkschule, and experts.

Attitudes towards plants were generally positive (values could range from a minimum of 5 to a maximum score of 25). Post hoc analysis using pairwise Mann–Whitney tests (with Holm correction) shows highly significant differences in attitudes between all students and experts. Significant differences are also found for all other pairs, except between Mittelschule and the other school forms. The mean comparison also reflects this, as experts’ attitudes towards plants are higher than those of students (see Table 3 & Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Boxplots showing differences in attitudes towards plants between the four subsamples Mittelschule, Gymnasium, Naturparkschule, and experts.

Nomological network

The values for nature connectedness could range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum score of 42. Experts report the highest nature connectedness (33.68 ± 2.88), followed by Naturparkschule students (26.23 ± 6.57), Mittelschule students (24.75 ± 6.65), and Gymnasium students (22.55 ± 6.90). Experts not only score highest but also exhibit the least variability, while Gymnasium students show the lowest mean and the highest variability among the groups (see Table 3).

An open key question resulting from the Delphi study (Dünser et al., 2024b) was whether interest should be treated as a distinct variable or whether it should be merged with the attitude dimension. Mean comparisons show that while attitudes differ only slightly between students (ordinal η² = 0.0428) interest differences between schools are very distinct (η² = 0.289; see Table 3 & Fig. S8).

However, interest plays a significant role in explaining the relation of the plant awareness dimensions attention, knowledge and attitude with other constructs. For example, we predicted the scale nature connectedness, which consists of seven items such as “I like being outdoor in nature”, in a linear regression model by attention, knowledge and attitude, producing an adjusted r² = 0.3263 (p = 2.24e−16, F = 75.27, df1=3, df2 = 457). Adding interest as a predictor, adjusted r² was increased to 0.3666, with p = 2.2e−16, F = 67.57, df1 = 4, df2 = 456) and a highly significant coefficient of interest (0.12628, s.e. = 0.02302, p = 6.85e−08). This also means that the high explanatory value of interest as a single predictor (adjusted r² = 0.1729, p = 2.2e−16, F = 97.19, df1 = 1, df2 = 459) collapsed substantially when attention, knowledge and attitude were also included.

Influence of sociodemographic variables on plant awareness

The dimensions of plant awareness (attention, knowledge, attitude) are in part dependent on sociodemographic characteristics, according to a multiple linear regression with age, gender (dummy variable “male"), and type of school as predictors (with Gymnasium as anchor category). Regressions, confidence intervals and effect sizes can be found in Table S7. Differences from Gymnasium were only noted for Mittelschule in knowledge. Being male predicted less awareness in all variables except for knowledge. Attitude decreased with age, but attention increased.

Discussion

Results show that plant awareness exists as a separate construct, including a robust definition, conceptualisation, and validation. Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the proposed three-dimensional structure of the plant awareness construct based on the proposed definition (Dünser et al., 2024b). The model fit reached the cutoff scores (>0.90 for TLI or CFI, and RMSEA < 0.08). Higher cutoff scores are often applied (TLI or CFI > 0.95 or RMSEA < 0.06) based on Hu & Bentler (1998) who, however, rather recommend “close to” criteria instead of an absolute cutoff (p. 449). Due to the complexity of the construct, we consider the scores as a good basis for further refinement of the tool (see Groskurth, Bluemke & Lechner, 2023; Marsh, Hau & Wen, 2004) for a critical discussion of absolute benchmarks).

The three dimensions are distinctly separated (see Table S2) yet remain correlated (see Table 1), which supports the proposed dimensionality of the construct. Attitudes and attention show no correlation, which may be explained by the low number of items for attitude and the differing item difficulties of the attention scale (which consists of rather difficult items) and the attitude scale (which consists of rather easy items). The correlation of knowledge with both other dimensions underlines the importance of environmental education as a door opener to foster plant awareness (Mach et al., 2020).

Based on observed differences, we propose a hierarchical structure in which attitudes towards plants form a universal and foundational baseline, as reaffirmed by Dünser et al. (2024a). The assessed attitudes are positive and consistent across students and experts (see Table 3) regardless of predictors. Knowledge, by contrast, is more exclusive, influenced by multiple factors, and displaying broader variability. Attention—at least evaluated as a recall free-list task—emerges as the mostadvanced and challenging dimension to achieve.

Given the theoretical distinction between attitudes and interest, the data provide cautious support for treating interest as a related but distinct dimension, in line with previous work (Dünser et al., 2024b; Dünser et al., 2024a). The confirmatory factor analysis shows that interest loads on a separate factor (see Table S2), which is consistent with the conceptual differentiation between attitude and interest outlined in the literature (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Krapp, 2007).

At the same time, the correlations between interest and the three dimensions of plant awareness indicate that the constructs are not completely independent. The linear regression further suggests that the direct effect of interest on nature connectedness decreases substantially once its influence is mediated through these three dimensions, supporting its role as an intervening variable rather than a standalone core dimension of plant awareness.

Further empirical evidence for treating attitudes and interest as different constructs is given when comparing the different school types in our samples: attitudes show only very minor differences (see Fig. 2), whereas interest shows a strong discriminative effect (see Fig. S8). This is not consistent with the assumption that both variables lie on a common latent scale. In that case, school differences would occur on both variables or none. Overall, we interpret these findings as tentative empirical support for separating interest from attitudes.

Known-group comparison (Davidson, 2023) further proves the validity and reliability of the tool as it was possible to differentiate between the groups in the prognosed way: experts’ values were the highest in all three scales representing the three dimensions of plant awareness followed by Naturparkschule and Gymnasium with Mittelschule as worst performing (see Fig. 2 and Table 3). As expected, students from Naturparkschulen surpass students from Mittelschule and Gymnasium or equal them in the local knowledge subscales (plant identification, spice plants) and the practical knowledge subscale, while students from Gymnasium score higher in the global knowledge subscales (agriculture, living organisms, sustainability, carbon cycle; see Table S6). The Rasch analyses provide robust evidence for the internal consistency and one-dimensionality of the knowledge dimension. Across diverse groups, the fit statistics, person reliability, and item reliability of the Rasch metrics demonstrated that the instrument performs well in measuring the intended construct among the intended participants and can be used across multiple age groups. This highlights the minimal ambiguity and understandability of items, as the assessment tool could be used in all school forms and ages in Austria producing reliable data regardless of upbringing, age or language spoken at home. No items or participants exhibited significant misfit, further reinforcing the validity of the testing tool for subsequent analyses.

By integrating CFA and linear regression, this study presents a first validation of the plant awareness construct and a theory-driven assessment tool that can advance research and educational practice. Our results prove that the operationalisation of the items depict the construct and the separation of the corresponding dimension well. The validity of the tool was supported by CFA. Dimensions themselves showed strong scale consistency in terms of Cronbach’s α (Field, 2024), reflecting high item fit. Across diverse groups, psychometric values demonstrated that the instrument performs well in measuring the intended construct within the aimed participants.

While the dimensions of plant awareness are now well-defined, the predictors fail to coherently explain variation among participants within the construct. Linear regression showed the impact of different factors regarding different dimensions and subscales, although their impact was not as prominent as assumed. We neither found clarity by comparing our findings to the already ambiguous findings of previous literature about the dimensionality and direction of the impact of the assessed socio-economic predictors. Amprazis, Papadopoulou & Malandrakis (2019) found differences in the naming of plants (in our conceptualisation a subcategory of the dimension knowledge) between male and female students. In our study, being male consistently predicted lower attention and attitudes but not knowledge, suggesting that gender differences in plant awareness may be linked to social or cultural influences, as is known from other educational contexts and variables, (e.g., Baram-Tsabari & Yarden, 2011; Strgar, 2008).

We assume that stronger factors underlie the assessed predictors. The impact of different cultures, regions, and local transfer of knowledge and values regarding organisms may be even stronger than anticipated. We adopt an ethnobotanical perspective that views knowledge as a system interconnected with understanding, values, beliefs, and worldviews (defined by Gosnell et al., 2025). We argue that vertical knowledge transfer—passing knowledge from one generation to the next—may be a particularly significant factor. To better understand this process, we propose shifting focus from broad sociocultural assessments. Instead, we suggest examining the roles played within the parental generation and the extent to which both values and knowledge are transmitted (Stagg, Hetherington & Dillon, 2024).

Limitations of the study

This study establishes an initial framework for assessing plant awareness. While linear regression clarified the relationship between plant awareness and interest, nature connectedness provides a limited example of the additional explanatory value of interest beyond plant awareness, as it primarily involves attitude rather than attention and knowledge. In further research, other reference constructs, like willingness to protect the environment (Abdul-Wahab, 2008) or willingness to act against climate change (Xie et al., 2019), should be tested to obtain a better understanding of the plant awareness nomological network.

The presented assessment tool is specifically adapted to the flora and ecological context of northern and central Europe, particularly Austria, and includes locally relevant plant, animal, and fungal species, especially in the plant identification subscale and the attention assessment tool. When using this tool outside Europe, adaptations would be necessary to replace the depicted species and landscape elements with those representative of the target region’s native biodiversity, land-use patterns, and cultural significance. Additionally, the seasonal and geographical context (e.g., spring/summer in Austria) would need to be adjusted to align with local ecological conditions and the familiarity of participants with regional species. Without such modifications, the tool’s validity and reliability in assessing plant awareness could be compromised.

The scales presented in the tool provide a first foundation for assessing the different dimensions of plant awareness. However, there is room for improvement. Further development and refinement of the scales is important to solidify the tool, but also the validity of the construct. For example, the assessment tool could be enhanced by a more differentiated scale for attitudes towards plants, focusing on cognitive and affective factors.

Simultaneously, a comparison of how different assessment tools influence the construct would be interesting. For the attention dimension, we used a free-listing recall task, which indirectly assesses attention. Thus, in the next step, a comparison between our free-listing recall task and a direct attention assessment, for instance, presented by Sanders, Nyberg & Brkovic (2024), would improve our grasp of how the assessment tool may impact the correlation between the different dimensions of plant awareness. Finally, it would provide insight into whether attention, in our validation, the most advanced dimension of plant awareness, shifts in difficulty depending on the testing method.

Conclusions

By enabling the assessment of an individual’s plant awareness, the study presented here allows conclusions to be drawn about how societal, institutional, and educational systems foster plant awareness. Following the suggestion of Beery et al. (2023), we adopted a mixed-methods approach to contribute to addressing humans’ disconnection from nature. Specifically, our findings regarding the plant awareness of individuals in Austria highlight the need to engage not only at the individual level but also from a societal standpoint. With a rigorous construct and validated tool (Brkovic, Sanders & Nyberg, 2025), we can now assess and compare plant awareness across different contexts, paving the way for educational and societal transformation (Kacprzyk, 2026).

The introduction of the assessment tool opens new opportunities that were previously unavailable (Stagg, Hetherington & Dillon, 2024). Although various educational interventions have been implemented, each relied on its own assessment method without a clear underlying dimensional framework, making comparison difficult (Brkovic, Sanders & Nyberg, 2025). The new tool facilitates the assessment and comparison of intervention impacts. Enhanced understanding of the framework supports the strategic selection and design of targeted approaches, streamlining the desired changes in plant awareness and relationships with plants (Beckwith, Johansson & Huff, 2022). Furthermore, the tool can be used to provide insights into national differences, allowing comparison of both baseline data and predictors. This step is crucial for understanding how educational systems influence plant awareness and, more importantly, for identifying underlying factors (e.g., integration of plants into everyday-life, mode of knowledge transfer), which can help establish effective actions to foster plant awareness.

Moving forward, integrating the tool into diverse educational and civic settings can bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and society (Jasanoff, 2005). As highlighted in the theoretical background, civic epistemologies emphasise that scientific knowledge only becomes actionable when sustained by public engagement and culturally specific ways of knowing. Therefore, future research should examine how different knowledge transfer methods—from formal education to community-based interventions—shape plant awareness and contribute to the development of robust plant-related civic epistemologies. This aligns with Mach et al. (2020) who call for coproduction of knowledge, where researchers and communities collaborate to generate insights that are both scientifically rigorous and socially relevant. Expanding the tool’s application across diverse contexts can enhance engagement and strengthen the societal integration of botanical knowledge, directly addressing the limited public engagement that currently characterises plant-related civic epistemologies.

Subsequently, the tool could be expanded to explore local understanding and attention-related aspects tied to regionality across different parts of the world, reflecting the multidimensional nature of plant awareness. Furthermore, its scope can extend beyond students to include a broader range of participants, from policymakers to community groups. While plant awareness has primarily been studied within educational settings, this tool enables a more comprehensive approach, allowing for an examination across society. Such expansion would not only address individual-level gaps but also structural barriers identified in the wheel of disconnection (Beery et al., 2023), thereby fostering both personal and systemic changes in how societies value and engage with plants.

Finally, when focusing on the biodiversity crisis, plants are not the only overlooked organisms. The vast amount of literature regarding plant awareness is an excellent basis to broaden the construct. This newly-built basis could be useful for addressing many other cultural biases involving other groups of organisms (e.g., insects, fungi). A clearer picture of how society regards plants opens the chance to now explore how plant awareness affects behaviours and values, which is crucial for tackling the biodiversity and climate crises through tailored educational interventions and to find answers how to lead society back to a closer connection to living organisms.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information 6. Boxplots presenting the differences between the four subsamples Mittelschule (Wr. NMS), Gymnasium (Wr. AHS), Naturparkschule, and experts, regarding the practical knowledge subscale of the knowledge scale.

Since this scale also tests frequency of collecting plants, students from Naturparkschulen who live close to a nature park collect plants more often than experts who are rather located in an urban area

Supplemental Information 15. Exact p-values for the post hoc analysis via pairwise Mann-Whitney tests (with Holm correction) of the mean comparison of the three dimensions of plant awareness.

attention, knowledge, and attitude, as well as interest between the four subsamples

Supplemental Information 16. Means, standard deviations, standard errors, and confidence intervals of the three dimensions of plant awareness (attention, knowledge, attitudes), as well as interest.

for the four subsamples Mittelschule, Gymnasium, Naturparkschule, and experts

Supplemental Information 17. Means and standard deviations of the seven subscales of the plant awareness dimension knowledge.

effect sizes (ordinal η²) and p-values for the four subsamples Mittelschule, Gymnasium, Naturparkschule, and experts

Funding Statement

Open access funding was provided by University of Vienna. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.