4.2. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the statistical software tool JASP was used to analyse the questionnaire on the basic factors that motivate young people towards the CE and GD. The data were checked for multivariate assumptions (normality, linearity, homogeneity, and homoscedasticity). All assumptions were met except for minor heteroscedasticity problems. A review of the data did not reveal any missing data values. The EFA analysis was conducted using the guidelines described in Preacher and MacCallum [
48].
An inter-item correlation matrix was constructed to assess the suitability of the items of the instrument. Gunuc and Kuzu [
49] highlighted that correlation coefficient values greater than 0.90 indicate redundancy of the items. To determine the factor solution to be extracted, the Kaiser criterion [
50] and scree plot [
51] were used. The Kaiser criterion of eigenvalue greater than 1.0 was used to retain the number of factors [
52]. Hair et al. [
53] highlighted the need for a KMO value above 0.50 and the significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity before proceeding with EFA. A factor loading value of 0.71 and above is considered to be “excellent”, 0.70–0.63 “very good”, 0.62–0.55 “good”, 0.54–0.45 “fair”, and 0.44–0.32 “poor” [
54]. Both statistical assumptions and theoretical considerations were employed in retaining the useful items and extracting the latent factors in a parsimonious and interpretable manner. Since the normality assumptions were satisfied, Maximum Likelihood was used as the method of factor extraction.
The factor analysis appropriateness was examined using Bartlett’s sphericity test to determine if the correlations among variables are sufficiently high enough to indicate the existence of factors [
55]. This can be calculated by Bartlett’s test of sphericity, where if the significance value is less than 0.05, then the matrix is not an identity matrix. Another test is the Keiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO), which represents an index that identifies the degree of correlation among variables [
55]. In the KMO analysis, a value of 0.6 or higher is considered acceptable for performing factor analysis [
56]. Both tests indicated that factor analysis is feasible, allowing for further analysis. In the present study, the KMO sampling adequacy value was found to be 0.899, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ
2 = 3602.653 (171),
p < 0.001). The KMO and Bartlett’s test statistics provided support for performing EFA. Parallel analysis and scree plot examination revealed four common factors, and a four-factor model was tested based on theory. Based on the statistical analysis, four common factors were defined: Ability, Knowledge, Qualification, and Belief. Questions were divided into four factors named according to their relevance. Due to the expected correlation of the factors, the highest probability estimate with direct circumference rotation was used. When testing all 19 questions, we used the criterion that the loadings should be greater than 0.40.
Table 2 shows the factor loadings. The model had a simple structure, with each item loading on only one factor. This model had a moderate fit: the RMSEA showed a reasonable fit of 0.092, 90% CI [0.08, 0.10], whereas the TLI (0.87) indicated room for possible improvement.
We used the reliability test to check how strongly our items “it together”. The reliability of all four factors was very high, with Cronbach’s α 0.93 for the “ability” factor, 0.87 for the “knowledge” factor, 0.86 for the “qualification” factor, and 0.82 for the “belief” factor. The mean scores for each factor were: “ability” factor M = 7.21 (SD = 3.28), “knowledge” factor M = 8.549 (SD = 3.27), “qualification” factor M = 19.038 (SD = 5.75), and “belief” factor M = 23.86 (SD = 4.50).
The presentation of the path diagram with respect to the four chosen factors is shown in
Figure 3.
4.2.1. Belief in the Principles and Priorities of the Circular Economy
The results of the statistical analysis are shown in
Table A4. The results of the survey are shown graphically in
Figure 4.
The analysis results show that young people believe in the principles and priorities of the CE (
Figure 4). For most of the belief questions (
Q.1–5), most answered that they fully agreed with the statements. We did not find any significant differences when we compare respondents’ answers from different countries.
Most respondents to question Q.1 answered that the priorities of the GD and CE principles are the starting point for ensuring Europe’s long-term sustainability. For question Q.2, most respondents answered that they are convinced that implementing the GD and the CE Action Plan will bring about positive, sustainable change in Europe. Most respondents answered question Q.3 that they are confident that the CE principles and priorities set out in the GD can help achieve global sustainability. Most respondents feel that they need further education and training on the preferences of the GD and the principles of the CE (Q.4). Most strongly believe education is necessary for better understanding and awareness of sustainable development. Respondents firmly believe they need more knowledge about the GD and CE to become more sustainable (Q.5). When respondents were asked if they were aware of the sustainable consequences of their daily activities (Q.6), most agreed.
4.2.2. Knowledge, Information, and Ability of Young People for Practical Implementation of the CE
The results of the statistical analysis are shown in
Table A5. The results of the survey are shown graphically in
Figure 5.
For question Q.7, most respondents remained neutral in their definition of the ability to explain and discuss the ideas and concepts of the GD and CE. Although 45% of young people in Austria say they know the basic concepts of the GD and CE, only 30% say they can participate in discussions about these issues more or less. Twenty-five respondents from Slovenia (42%) are convinced that they know how to explain and discuss ideas related to the concepts of the GD and the principles of the CE. In Poland, 62% of respondents generally have no or minimal ability to explain and discuss the ideas of the GD and CE. Only 2% agreed that they could explain the concepts of the GD and CE. According to the results, respondents from Greece have already heard about GDs and CEs. Still, they cannot discuss these issues in detail. Although 41% of respondents in Lithuania are familiar with the basic concepts of the GD and CE, only 20% say they are more or less able to participate in discussions on these topics.
Most respondents agreed that they had already heard about the objectives of the GD and the Circular Economy Action Plan. Looking at the results of the answers to question Q.8, young people from Austria are the most informed as they have heard the most about the GD and CE. They are followed by young people from Slovenia, Greece, and Lithuania. The analysis shows that young people from Poland are the least informed in this area. Only ten respondents from Poland said they had heard about the aims of the GD and the CE Action Plan. Ten respondents remained neutral, whereas more than half (62%) had already heard of details on this topic.
For question Q.9, most respondents remained neutral on their ability to implement, test, and apply the principle of the CE in real cases or illustrate it in case studies. Respondents from Austria, Slovenia, and Greece mainly remained neutral, and less than a quarter would be able to implement the CE in a practical case. The vast majority of respondents from Poland indicated that they would not be able to implement, study, and apply the CE, which means that participants strongly disagree (34%) or disagree (26%). The situation is similar for respondents from Lithuania, most of whom are unable to implement a CE.
4.2.3. Competence to Introduce CE and GD to Sustainable Practices
The results of the statistical analysis are shown in
Table A6. The survey results on young people’s competence to introduce the CE and GD to sustainable practices are shown in
Figure 6.
Most respondents answered question Q.10 that they do not think they receive enough support from their environment to participate and implement GD and CE priorities actively. A large proportion of respondents from Austria (37%) believe that they do not receive enough support, 40% remain neutral, and about 21% believe that support from their environment is sufficient for them to participate in the priority themes actively. Most respondents from Slovenia, Greece, and Lithuania believe they do not receive enough support from the local environment when implementing the priorities of the GD or the principles of the CE. This claim stems either from the fact that they do not know where to get this support or do not receive it when needed. Respondents from Poland are even more explicit that most do not receive enough support to implement the CE (40% totally disagree, 34% disagree).
Most young people in all countries remain more or less neutral in their assessment of young people’s activities to promote and address the challenges in their local environment regarding GD priorities and CE issues (Q.11). Their neutral stance suggests a lack of knowledge, encouragement, and opportunities for engagement.
Most remained undecided when respondents were asked if they had sufficient knowledge and understanding of GD priorities and CE principles to implement innovative solutions (Q.12). Respondents from Austria, Slovenia, and Greece took a neutral stance on this question. Among the respondents from Poland and Lithuania, it is noticeable that most of them do not think they have sufficient knowledge on this topic. Therefore, young people must obtain more knowledge.
When respondents were asked whether they could implement the priorities of the GD and the principles of the CE in their projects, business, or entrepreneurial ideas (Q.13), most were undecided. Respondents from Slovenia and Poland said they could not implement the CE principle. Only 1 out of 59 respondents from Slovenia believe that they can easily implement the priorities of the GD and CE principles in their projects or business ideas. 64% of respondents from Poland strongly disagreed (30%) and disagreed (34%) with the claim. Only five respondents agreed, whereas 26% remained neutral. Respondents from Lithuania mostly disagreed that they could not implement their ideas.
Nevertheless, almost 37% can imagine that they are good at integrating the priorities and principles of the CE into their business. Respondents from Austria and Greece mainly remained undecided. Only 20% of the Austrian respondents can imagine that the importance and principles of the CE can be well integrated into their business activities. Only 6 out of 43 respondents from Greece answered yes to this question.
When asked by respondents whether they see themselves as agents of change in the economy towards a CE (Q.14), most young people in all countries are more or less neutral. Despite the apathetic attitude of the majority, some respondents from Austria (15%) see themselves as “agents of change” who can have a strong understanding of the essential issues of the business. Young people from Slovenia want to see themselves as “agents of change” in line with the priorities of the GD, and 41% of them currently agree with this, which is an encouraging figure compared to other countries. It is also worth mentioning the results of respondents from Lithuania, where most respondents answered that they do not see themselves as shapers of change towards a CE.
Most young people in all countries disagreed when asked whether their formal education (secondary, vocational, or higher) gave them sufficient knowledge about the GD and CE priorities to work actively in this field (Q.15). Young people do not seem to receive sufficient support from their environment or the education system.
Respondents mostly approach sustainability issues from different angles (e.g., GD priorities. In the last question from this segment (Q.16), most agreed to look at the CE from different angles and adopt responsible behaviour in everyday life. More than 52% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Interestingly, almost 31% of respondents remained neutral.
4.2.4. The Ability of Young People to Reason, Think, Evaluate, Connect, and Create New Solutions for CE
The results of the statistical analysis are shown in
Table A7. The survey results on young people’s ability to reason, think, evaluate, connect, and create new solutions for a CE are shown in
Figure 7.
In response to question Q.17 on whether respondents can argue, think, and evaluate the entrepreneurial spirit of the GD and CE in business opportunities, the majority answered that they were not able to do so. Respondents from Austria were mostly reserved about their ability to assess the entrepreneurship of the GD and CE. However, compared to respondents from other countries, quite a few (30%) were convinced that they could contribute. Most respondents from Slovenia, Poland, and Greece agree that they cannot argue, think, and evaluate the entrepreneurship of the GD and CE on business occasions. The results show that respondents cannot reason, think, and assess green business and the CE on business occasions. The situation is similar for respondents from Lithuania, but 24% of respondents agree that they can argue, think, and evaluate the GD and CE as business opportunities.
Most respondents to question Q.18 answered that they could not connect the principles of the GD and CE with business models and entrepreneurship. Respondents from Austria were mainly neutral about their ability to link the principles of the GD and CE with business models and entrepreneurship. However, compared to respondents from other countries, quite a few (25%) were convinced that they have these skills. Most Slovenian respondents did not know how to connect them (30% did not strongly agree, 29% did not agree, and 30% remained neutral with their answers). If we combine the answers “do not agree at all” and “do not agree” as “no” and “agree” and “fully agree” as “yes”, we get the data that 64% of the respondents from Poland say they do not know how to connect with business models and entrepreneurship. A total of 17% answered “yes”, and 19% abstained. Respondents from Greece and Lithuania overwhelmingly say they cannot connect the principles of the GD and CE with business models and entrepreneurship.
Most respondents answered question Q.19 that they cannot design, develop, and create new business models and entrepreneurial solutions related to the GD and CE. Most respondents from all countries cannot create new solutions related to the GD and CE. A slightly higher percentage of those who believe they could develop a practical business solution was found among respondents from Austria (29%) and Lithuania (25%).
4.3. Priority Themes of GD
Respondents were also asked to indicate the priority topic of the GD they know and understand the most about (
Q.20). The most frequent answer was “climate action (mitigation)”, followed by “clean energy” and “sustainable mobility” (
Figure 8). Climate change is an acute issue for young people all over the world. They experience the effects of climate change at every turn, so, unsurprisingly, their priority concerns are linked to action to mitigate climate change. Not surprisingly, the priority issues are also concerns about introducing clean energy and its use for transport.
Respondents were asked to indicate a priority topic of the GD on which they felt they needed additional knowledge for further work (Q.21). The most frequent answer was “Sustainable industry”, followed by “Biodiversity”, and “Elimination of pollution”. An overview of the priority topics with the required additional knowledge can be found in
Figure 9.
We also reviewed how the priorities of young people from different countries differ. Although young people from Austria and Poland have the most knowledge about “climate action”, Slovenia has the most knowledge about “sustainable mobility”. Young people from Greece had the most knowledge gained in “From farm-to-fork”, whereas Lithuania’s knowledge is focused on “clean energy”. We were also interested in what additional knowledge is most desirable in this area. The answers are summarised in
Table 3. The table shows that young people are interested in the different focus areas of the GD. However, they lack knowledge about these topics and general educational opportunities to increase their potential for business opportunities.
We also asked an open question: is there a topic not mentioned above that would interest you (Q.22)? For the majority of respondents, the most important topics were addressed. The respondents from Austria have additional interesting topics such as animal welfare, greenhouse gases, and sustainable tourism. Slovenian respondents made the following suggestions: sustainable mobility and climate protection; change in biodiversity throughout history. One of the suggestions was related to raw materials: from raw materials to products/consumers. A respondent from Greece suggested that he would like to know more about the greenhouse effect.