The research team, led by Cemile Nihal Yurtseven of the Department of Sports Management, surveyed 320 undergraduates drawn from a faculty population of roughly 600 students. The sample size was not chosen arbitrarily. Using a 95 percent confidence level, an expected proportion of 0.50, and a margin of error of 0.05, the researchers calculated that a minimum of 234 participants was required after applying a finite population correction. They set an operational recruitment target of 300 to buffer against non-response, and ultimately collected usable data from 320 students aged 18 to 24, with a mean age of 21.3 years. The cohort included 128 students from Coaching Education, 106 from Sports Management, and 86 from Physical Education and Sport Teaching, with a near-even gender split of 53.1 percent male and 46.9 percent female.

At the heart of the study was a 20-item climate change knowledge test adapted from an instrument previously used in a nationwide study of Indonesian adolescents. The questionnaire probed factual knowledge across six domains: the causes of climate change and greenhouse gases, environmental and health effects, sport-related effects, mitigation, adaptation, and environmental policies. Each item offered three response options—true, false, or I do not know—with correct answers scored one point and incorrect or uncertain answers scored zero, yielding a total score from 0 to 20. Internal consistency of the dichotomously scored items was assessed with the Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 coefficient, which came in at 0.78, a value conventionally interpreted as acceptable. The authors are careful to note, however, that this coefficient speaks only to internal consistency, not to content, construct, or criterion validity, and that a full psychometric re-validation of the adapted instrument remains a task for future research.

The headline numbers are striking. The mean knowledge score was 12.6 out of 20, with individual scores ranging from 4 to 19. Applying the a priori cut-offs adopted from the source study—low for 0 to 10 correct answers, moderate for 11 to 15, and high for 16 to 20—the researchers classified 38.4 percent of participants as having low knowledge, 41.6 percent as moderate, and only 20.0 percent as high. In other words, nearly four in ten future sport professionals fell below the moderate threshold on a test covering the basic science and practical implications of climate change. Interestingly, female students outscored male students on average (13.2 versus 12.1), but this raw difference dissolved once other variables were accounted for in the multivariable analysis, suggesting it reflected confounding rather than an independent gender effect.

To move beyond raw percentages, the team employed a two-tier statistical strategy. First, Pearson’s chi-square tests examined associations between categorical participant characteristics and knowledge level, with Cramér’s V calculated as a measure of effect size. Then, because the knowledge outcome comprised three ordered categories but the proportional-odds assumption required for ordinal logistic regression was violated (the test of parallel lines yielded p < 0.05), the researchers turned to multivariable multinomial logistic regression. This approach does not require the effects of explanatory variables to be constant across cumulative outcome thresholds, making it the appropriate choice for a three-category outcome. The low-knowledge group served as the reference category, and adjusted odds ratios with 95 percent confidence intervals were estimated for both moderate versus low and high versus low knowledge. Multicollinearity was checked using variance inflation factors, all below the conventional threshold of 5, and overall model significance was assessed with the likelihood-ratio chi-square test while explanatory performance was summarized using Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R².

The regression results tell a coherent story about where climate knowledge comes from. Prior environmental education emerged as the strongest independent predictor: students who had previously received climate- or environment-related education had 2.34 times the odds of high versus low knowledge compared with those without such education (95 percent CI 1.28 to 4.26, p = 0.006), and 1.62 times the odds of moderate versus low knowledge (p = 0.031). The chi-square analysis reinforced this pattern dramatically: among students with prior environmental education, 29.6 percent achieved high knowledge and only 24.2 percent fell into the low category, whereas among students without it, the figures were 13.3 percent and 48.4 percent respectively—a difference that was highly significant (χ²(2) = 23.18, p < 0.001, Cramér’s V = 0.269).

Two other factors carried independent weight. Students who primarily relied on scientific or academic information sources had 1.89 times the odds of high versus low knowledge (95 percent CI 1.07 to 3.32, p = 0.029), although the association for moderate versus low knowledge did not reach significance (AOR = 1.45, p = 0.063). Senior-year students also fared better, with 1.76 times the odds of high versus low knowledge (95 percent CI 1.01 to 3.04, p = 0.045) and 1.41 times the odds of moderate versus low knowledge (p = 0.038), a pattern the authors attribute plausibly to cumulative university-level educational exposure. Notably, academic program itself—whether a student studied coaching, sport management, or physical education teaching—showed no significant association with knowledge level, meaning the deficit cuts across the entire faculty rather than being confined to any single discipline. The overall model was statistically significant (likelihood-ratio χ² = 34.12, p < 0.001), though its Nagelkerke pseudo-R² of 0.18 indicates that the included variables explain only a modest share of the variance in knowledge, leaving ample room for unmeasured influences such as socioeconomic status, environmental attitudes, and general academic performance.

Why should the sports world care about these numbers? The study’s discussion section lays out the technical case with unusual clarity for a survey paper. Heat exposure increases the risk of dehydration, heat-related illness, and impaired exercise performance; air pollution during physical activity adversely affects respiratory and cardiovascular health; and climate-driven changes in natural environments are already altering outdoor recreation and sport tourism. Coaches and exercise professionals who cannot recognize these hazards, or who lack the factual grounding to evaluate environmental information critically, cannot make evidence-informed decisions about athlete safety, training continuity, or climate-responsive event management. The authors also raise a subtle point about information environments: young people absorb climate content largely through news and social media, which may build general awareness without necessarily producing scientific understanding of complex processes such as greenhouse gas emissions, radiative forcing, and climate feedbacks. Multiple exposures to climate information, prior research suggests, do not automatically translate into correct understanding—yet this study did not assess the quantity, quality, or credibility of media exposure, so that reading remains preliminary.

The authors are equally candid about the limits of what their design can establish. Because the data are cross-sectional, causal and temporal relationships cannot be determined; students with pre-existing environmental interest may have been more likely to seek out environmental education or scientific sources, creating the possibility of self-selection and reverse causation. The single-centre, voluntary online recruitment may have attracted students with greater pre-existing climate interest, limiting generalizability to other universities and regions in Türkiye and beyond. The cut-offs defining low, moderate, and high knowledge were adopted from the source study rather than empirically derived, and the smaller high-knowledge group (n = 64) means the multinomial model estimates for that category should be interpreted cautiously, particularly given that no separate a priori power calculation was performed for the regression. These caveats do not undermine the central observation, but they do temper any temptation to read the associations as proof that environmental education causes higher climate literacy.

The practical implication is a call to action for curriculum designers. The authors argue that climate-related content could be woven into existing sport sciences programs through concrete topics: heat-illness prevention, air-quality hazards during physical activity, sustainable sport-event management, environmentally responsible facility operation, and critical evaluation of climate-related information. Whether such integration actually improves knowledge and professional decision-making is precisely what the study cannot demonstrate—and exactly what the authors say must be tested next, through multicentre longitudinal studies and educational intervention trials. For a generation of students who will soon be guiding athletes through hotter summers, dirtier air, and less predictable weather, the message of this study is hard to ignore: awareness is not the same as understanding, and the gap between the two may be measured in the safety and performance of the athletes they will one day train.

Subject of Research: Climate change knowledge and associated factors among undergraduate sport sciences students: a single-center cross-sectional study at a Turkish university

Article Title: Climate change knowledge and associated factors among undergraduate sport sciences students: a single-center cross-sectional study at a Turkish university

Article References: Yurtseven, C. N., Kaya, A., Cavusoglu, S. B., Ercan, Ö., Uslu, A., & Kantar, A. N. (2026). Climate change knowledge and associated factors among undergraduate sport sciences students: a single-center cross-sectional study at a Turkish university. Frontiers in Public Health, 14, Article 1964700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1964700

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1964700

Keywords: Climate, change, knowledge, associated, factors, undergraduate, sport, sciences, students, single-center, cross-sectional, Turkish