DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.27258.1 ISSN: 2398-502X

A rapid review of the cross-cultural relevance of measurement tools for the assessment of eco-anxiety and other climate change-related psychological constructs

Claire Niedzwiedz, Aminah Collery, Eliud Kibuchi, Fred Orina, Hellen Meme, Mercy Atieno Odhiambo, Charles Newton, Cindy Gray, Symon Kariuki
Show PDF Cite
Background As the mental health consequences of climate change become increasingly visible, eco-anxiety and related responses, such as climate distress are emerging as critical areas of research. Many measurement tools now exist, but questions remain about their conceptual clarity and cross-cultural relevance, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). This rapid review synthesised survey-based instruments assessing these constructs, focusing on their cross-cultural relevance. Methods A systematic search of 10 databases identified peer-reviewed studies published between January 2019 and February 2025 reporting the development, validation, translation, or adaptation of tools measuring eco-anxiety or related constructs. Data were synthesised narratively, alongside an AI-assisted thematic content analysis of questionnaire items examining constructs, focus of concern, and cultural adaptability. Results Seventy-three studies were included, covering 23 measurement tools and 297 questionnaire items, predominantly developed in high-income countries and validated with university students or online adult samples. Several tools have multiple translations, yet formal cross-cultural validation in LMIC is limited. Emotional responses (e.g. anxiety, sadness, grief ) dominated (65.3% of items), followed by cognitive responses such as worry and rumination (21.5%) and moral or value-based distress (15.8%); somatic and existential dimensions were rarely assessed. Most items focused on personal concerns (71.0%), with fewer addressing social (22.2%), global/ecological (11.8%), or local place-based (6.7%) dimensions. Over half of items were generally interpretable across cultures, but one in seven embedded value-contingent moral assumptions such as personal guilt (15.5%), and a similar proportion implicitly assumed conditions, such as regular media exposure to the climate crisis, consumer choice, and individual environmental agency (14.5%). Conclusions Most instruments lack sensitivity to diverse cultural, social, and ecological contexts, overemphasising individual emotional distress while underrepresenting the relational, systemic, and place-based concerns most relevant in climate-vulnerable regions. Future tools should be co-developed with local populations to inform equitable global mental health responses to climate change.

More from our Archive