The Green Attitude of Four European Capitals of Culture’s Youth

Abstract

This study investigated the attitude of young people (individuals aged 14–25 years old) towards environmental protection using the NEP scale. The research aims to understand how demographic characteristics may influence young people’s attitudes toward green issues. The study focuses on answering the following two research questions: Q1. How can the environmental attitudes of young individuals be systematically characterized and summarized? Q2. To what extent do demographic factors influence the environmental attitudes of young individuals? A computer-assisted data collection (CAPI) method was carried out in four European Capital of Culture cities from different countries (Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania) from April to June 2022. On the basis of this primary questionnaire survey, descriptive statistics and relationship analyses (Cramer’s V and Kendall’s tau) were used to analyze the collected data (n = 712). The results revealed that in most cases, demographic characteristics had little or no impact at all on green attitudes. Thus, most youth attitudes showed the concept that humanity must adapt to the limits of nature. Furthermore, there were three green attitude statements where moderate differences could be detected by the countries. The findings can provide guidance for decision-makers in the field of environmental education and marketing, and they can also serve as a benchmark for other countries. Additionally, it opens up new opportunities for further research on the role of formal and informal education, as well as to measure the impact of social media on youth environmental behavior and their proactivity towards green issues.

1. Introduction

The attitude of youth has always been a significant factor shaping the economic, social, and political future. Young influencers have powerful impact on their peers, and their voices are shaping the way of youth thinking. Despite the widespread recognition of sustainability and green practices, there is a need to develop new innovative and creative solutions. The green, sustainable, and circular phenomena have become an increasingly popular area in academic research in the 21st century, although the roots of this can be traced back centuries. Each era has had its industrial revolutions with innovation that comes with benefits, as well as risks. The question whether as to nature is above everything and should be prioritized above all or if people should have the power to influence the environment has always been a subject of debate. This paper is one of the papers investigating this topic. Within an Erasmus+ project, GreenCool, in four European Capitals of Culture (ECoC), youth citizens’ green attitude was explored to examine the previously mentioned nature versus people power attitudes with an internationally standardized questionnaire.

The four cities studied were Kaunas (Lithuanian ECoC city in 2022), Veszprém (Hungarian EcoC city in 2023), Timisoara (Romanian EcoC city in 2023), and Tartu (Estonian EcoC city in 2024). The study contributes to the body of knowledge regarding the measurement and assessment of environmental attitudes, beliefs, and values in several ways.

Besides the above-mentioned fact that these cities are in the GreenCool project, there were three other reasons to include them in the study. First, all of them are post-socialist countries where the attitude towards changes and presently to sustainability as well as the values are expected to be similar. By studying different cities and countries, the project broadens the geographic scope, which helps to identify both commonalities and differences. Secondly, each of these European Capitals of Culture has a massive and determining youth community, as all are university cities. The present authors find it important methodologically to be able to compare similar populations. Thirdly there is a continuity, as the four cities were in different preparatory stages to be ECoC cities when the data were collected in 2022. Kaunas was already in the ECoC year, Veszprém and Timisoara were in one year before, and Tartu was in two years before the actual ECoC year. As human attitudes change slowly, it might be interesting to see the difference among youth in these four countries. The paper mainly focuses on the following goals out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations [1]: Quality Education (SDG 4); Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6); Sustainable Cities (SDG 11); and Communities, Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17). The SDGs are a collection of 17 global goals established by the United Nations in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals [1]. The European Union (EU) reinforces youth dialogue on greener thinking and lifestyle, which aims to build a fair, green, and digital future Europe. As the next generation of consumers, employees, and owners/managers of companies, it is crucial to provide appropriate education and shape attitudes towards green issues. All ECoC cities strongly emphasized that the frames of community building, tradition, innovation, and sustainability are prioritized European values that need to supported and made visible through their programs. These cities also aim to be among the 100 climate-neutral cities by 2030. However, although these efforts are welcome, do youth agree, and are they ready to take action about this? The decision-makers are there to set the target, but without involving the next generation from the very start with whom they can realize the plan, it would be a huge risk to take.

The aim of the paper was to measure the opinion of young people (individuals aged of 14–25 years old) about environmental protection in four European Capitals of Culture from different countries (Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania). The research aimed to answer two research questions: Q1: How can the environmental attitudes of young individuals be systematically characterized and summarized? Q2: To what extent do demographic factors influence the environmental attitudes of young individuals?

The rest of the study is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the SDGs, the revised New Ecological Paradigm embedded in ECoC cities and their applicability, and previous studies’ results. The literature section also highlights the criticism of revised NEP and its limitations. Section 3 describes the applied data, research model, and the proposed methods used in the study. Results are presented in Section 4, and Section 5 summarizes the research and compares it to other results presented in the literature review. Finally, Section 6 discusses the implications of the results for practitioners and highlights the limitations and future possible directions of the study.

2. Literature Review

Regarding and involving the environmental, sustainable, and green issues within the bidding and implementing process of the European Capitals of Culture cities, they have only been significant in the last ten years. There are only a few studies that deal with SDGs and the New Paradigm Scale related to the European Capitals of Culture.

Çağlar and Gürler’s study examines the EU countries according to their SDGs performance and identifies five clusters [2]. However, this study could not be completed as there were missing data, especially from Central and Eastern Europe. Jančovič, in a way, repeated and completed the results of Çağlar and Gürler [3]. His article exhibits the European countries’ process and attitude towards sustainable development using data from the EU SDG indicators. The cluster analysis with Eurostat data between 2015 and 2020 showed five differently performing clusters. Clusters 1 (Benelux countries, France, Germany, and Denmark) and 5 (Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Slovenia) were the best-performing SDG indicator countries. In contrast, the worst performance for SDG indicators was revealed to be for cluster 2 (Romania and Bulgaria), followed by cluster 3 (Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland, and the Visegrad countries: Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic). The results also show that the counties with more advanced EU economies (mainly Western and Northern European countries) are likely to achieve better results in most of SDG indicators as compared to less developed (Central and Eastern as well as Southern) European countries. Nevertheless, the results indicate some regional specifics among Visegrad Group countries, Benelux countries, Baltic states, two eastern Balkan countries (Bulgaria and Romania), and Southern European countries where progress towards the SDGs is concerned. Within these countries, there are several (e.g., Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Kaunas) that have recently won the title of the European Capital of Culture. The research by Kumar and Vuilliomenet applied the Cultural and Creative Cities Monitor (CCCM) conceptual framework in relation to urban policies, especially in relation to the EU Green Deal [4]. After examining 190 European cities (98 of these were shortlisted to be ECoC winners, and the rests are UNESCO Creative Cities and those who have festivals), the results indicted a positive relationship between cultural liveliness and green infrastructure and enabling the environment of a city. On the basis of the results, the researchers proposed twelve nature-based solutions to trigger the liability and resiliency of any city. These proposals are in line with the guidelines that will determine the success of the candidate ECoC cities.

Each ECoC bidder city must concern the environment and sustainable development. Moreover, these cities are expected to involve the community when the legacy of the built and natural environment is concerned. Thuriot’s paper deals with those cities who bided for the 2028 European Capital of Culture [5]. After analyzing the previous and the present bidders, it was found that apart from emphasizing strong European values, candidates should also consider the long-term effects of the program on their cultural, environmental, and social development. The French city of Clermont-Ferrand with the title of “Altitudes 2028” has the ambition to put quality of life, natural herniates, and the link between rural and urban area transformation in order to have a green attitude change of the locals within its “learning city” network. This would be a learning curve, as Marseille had the criticism of not involving locals enough. Nevertheless, the city and the region emphasized nature in relation with sustainable development, with consideration of economic, social, urban, and territorial development. According to Marinescu’s systematic literature review on ECoC, 29 articles were identified, published between 2005 and 2020 [6]. Among these cities—in relation to the present article—are Timișoara (supposed to be an ECoC city 2021 but was postponed until 2023 due to COVID-19), Pécs (Hungarian ECoC city in 2010, now Veszprém in 2023), and Vilnius (Lithuanian ECoC city in 2009, now Kaunas in 2022). There are two key findings in relation to green attitude change and environmental development. First, the ECoC title-initiated co-creation between society and the authorities towards the heritage, sustainable development, and the wish to maintain the process of change in environmental and other key initiations. Second, there are three cities where the content analysis results reveal the environmental legacy of ECoC: in 2013, Marseille for urban regeneration; 2016, Warsaw for local involvement of citizens in creating new cultural spaces in nature; and Timisoara, for a cross-border collaboration. In addition, one needs to understand the green branding of a city, which lies in the attitude change and action of the specific experts in cooperation of the municipality and the local people [7]. The youth citizens are the ones who can continue and shape the society. Therefore, to investigate green attitudes, the relevant concepts and measurements are needed to examine the present state.

The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale is widely used in environmental education and economics in order to measure the endorsement of a “pro-ecological” world view [8,9,10]. The NEP scale is a measure of environmental worldview or even considered as a paradigm (framework of thought) that is able to outline the differences in attitudes and behaviors towards environmental concerns on the basis of the underlying values of individuals. Its aim is to measure whether the population is in transition to a more environmentally conscious world behavior from a human-dominant paradigm.

The roots of NEP date back to the 1960s and 1970s. Several decades before the New Ecological Paradigm was developed, Rachel Carson published a book called “Silent Spring” (1962), which is credited as providing the first launch of the modern environmental movement [11]. She described the long-term dangers of pesticide use and its impact on the environment, wildlife, and human health. She raised her voice on the environmental consequences of human activity and its interconnection with all fields, thus bringing environmental concern to the forefront, to public attention, as well as starting to talk about shared responsibility.

Later, along with the rise of the environmental movements, two dominant paradigms were confronted: the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) and the original New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) [12]. DSP places humanity and society above nature (anti-antropocentrism, laissez-faire politics). It often prioritizes economic growth and technological progress over environmental concerns and tends to view nature as a resource that can be exploited for human benefit, believing that science and technology can solve all problems. In contrast, NEP puts nature above humanity (anti-antropocenrism), highlighting the vulnerability of nature, as it is a finite and fragile environment; drawing attention to the limits of development and risks of society; and emphasizing that resources must be protected, and thus there is a need for consultation in politics.

These two paradigms had different roots and scientific backgrounds [13]. Pirages and Ehrlich (1974) were the first authors to use the term “Dominant Social Paradigm” (DSP). It was also used in Everett Rogers’s book (1994) called “A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach”. Originally, DSP was a concept used in the field of communication studies to explain the dominant beliefs, values, and practices that shape how individuals understand the world and interact with nature, as well as how they respond to environmental issues. According to the approaches, DSP is not a fixed or unchanging concept—it changes over time due to new ideas and technological innovations.

NEP is a theoretical framework developed by scientists and researchers from the field of sociology and environmental psychology, which is widely used in other interdisciplinary fields (environmental sciences, education, and marketing) [14]. The NEP scale is a survey instrument that was first developed by Riley Dunlap and Van Liere (1978), whose aim was to outline the changes of environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behavior in the U.S. population [15]. The original NEP had 12 attitude statements on a Likert scale of 4. It received much criticism due to its lack of internal consistency among individual responses, as well as poor correlation between the scale and behavior [8]. The revised NEP was extended to 15 statements, out of 8 odd numbered items representing the endorsement of the new NEP paradigm and 7 even numbered items reflecting the DSP [9]. The Likert scale was also updated to a five-point scale, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The revised NEP is more consistent and reliable. The answers tend to reflect the person’s attitude in a consistent manner—if they agreed with all odd numbered statements, this would reflect the NEP, or if they agreed with even numbered items, this would reflect the revised DSP.

The statements of the revised NEP scale are categorized into five dimensions: limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism, balance of nature, anti-exceptionalism, and Ecocrisis.

Table 1. The revised NEP scale [9].

Dimensions	Statements		Scale
Limits to growth	1	We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.	NEP
	6	The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.	DSP
	11	The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.	NEP
Human domination (antianthropocentism)	2	Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.	DSP
	7	Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.	NEP
	12	Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.	DSP
Balance of nature	3	When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences.	NEP
	8	The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.	DSP
	13	The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.	NEP
Antiexemptionalism	4	Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the Earth unlivable.	DSP
	9	Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.	NEP
	14	Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.	DSP
Ecocrisis	5	Humans are severely abusing the environment.	NEP
	10	The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.	DSP
	15	If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.	NEP

describes the revised NEP statements according to the highlighted paradigm.

In Table 1, the numbers before the statements indicate the order in which the statements followed each other in the original revised NEP questionnaire.

Although it is the most widely used method to test environmental attitudes and values, the revised version of NEP scale also receives much criticism from researchers in different fields such as environmental psychology. One of the main criticism relates to the validity of the scale is inadequate not well validated to measure environmental beliefs and attitudes [16,17]. Anderson (2012) also raised the question: “Does it measure the phenomena what is supposed to measure?” [8]. Furthermore, environmental behavior includes all types of behavior related to the environment, ecosystem, etc. [14]. The attitudes and behaviors must be continuously assessed, examined, and understood, e.g., the main factors that determine the relevant behaviors and the motivational factors underlie them [18,19,20].

Another criticism is that certain elements are missing from the revised NEP scale and that it should be updated as societies and the world around us are changing. Many scientists agree that human behavior constantly changes as a result of technical innovations, and this must be understood and applied in everyday life (for example, for energy-efficient appliances) [18].

Thirdly, it is difficult to measure complex, multidimensional environmental attitudes with a single scale. The issue of dimensions has been questioned by several authors [21,22]. Multidimensionality refers to the idea that an individual’s environmental beliefs and attitudes are likely to be influenced by several factors, such as their values, experiences, and knowledge [8,23]. Moreover, studies investigating the relationship between conception to nature and individuals’ well-being state that childhood experiences and the frequency of nature contact shapes and influences attitudes toward environmental issues [24]. The scientific area that deals with and measures the interaction of personal and planetary well-being is ecopsychology [25]. However, ecopsychology is a new research area, and as Saari indicated, there is hardly any “adequate theory in which to house the person-in-environment perspective” [26] (p. 205). The present research aims to contribute to this gap by applying NEP as one of the internationally recognized scales.

Fourth, the reliability of the scale is criticized for its ability to measure the same thing across countries or different times [8]. It could be stated that the scale might not be appropriate in other cultures outside the USA or Western societies as it is culturally biased. Some researchers have found differences in other cultures [23,27,28], and contextual factors may also influence environmental behavior [29].

Despite the criticism, the revised NEP scale is widely used as there are no other validated instruments to measure pro-environmental behavior. However, it is important to create additional opportunities to test the NEP for its reliability and validity as a metric of sustainable values [8]. Despite the existing criticism of the revised NEP, it has been used in several countries in different contexts [13,23,27,28,30]. A multidimensional study on environmental attitudes in 14 countries also found an average reliability that varied among the measured countries, with an alpha coefficient of 0.47–0.81 and the reliability of 0.70 [23].

Additionally, the OECD study published in 2008 titled “Environmental Outlook—How much will it cost to address today’s key environmental problems?” highlights the importance of using the NEP scale to see the differences in countries. The study emphasizes that without changes in paradigm, the world will be led to a catastrophe, and that each of us must put more emphasis on environmental education [31,32].

Most of the studies that measured environmental concern with the NEP scale revealed that individuals with higher levels of environmental concerns tend to engage in more pro-environmental behaviors, although the strengths of relationships have been found to be relatively weak [33,34,35,36]. Significant relationships can be revealed between socio-demographic variables and environmental attitude. Several existing research on environmental attitudes are conducted mainly in Western/Southern/Northern European countries (Spain, Greece, etc.), developing countries (e.g., Turkey), and countries outside of Europe (e.g., China, USA), limiting the generalizability of the findings.

A study conducted among Turkish high school students found a correlation between environmental attitudes and factors such as school type, gender, parents’ education levels, parents’ political views, professions, and household income [28]. Students from public high schools, female students, lower-middle-class students, students with well-educated parents in white-collar professions, and students with liberal parents tend to have more pro-environmental attitudes than other groups. In contrast, students from vocational schools, which are typically single sex, have the lowest scores on environmental surveys [28] (p. 481). A study carried out among Hungarian university students found that there was no significance between women and men with regards to NEP score [37], even though it was tested previously [38].

The application of the NEP scale in the Greek context aiming to measure and analyze environmental awareness in the Greek area also found that a high NEP score is associated with high ecocentric orientation, and the results were correlated with the income of respondents and the area of residence, as in the African context [23,27]. People living in rural areas had a higher NEP score than in cities in the Greek context, probably as they live closer to the natural environment and appreciate it more. “As the distance between the place of residence and the nature increases, the inner ecological beliefs become weaker” [23] (p. 10). Later, Gareiou and Zervas (2021) conducted a study on the environmental attitudes of people in Greece [39]. The result showed that Greek people have a growing concern about the environment, both for its current state and for the future. The study found that people in the Athens regions were particularly more sensitive and concerned about the negative effects of human intervention. The study also found that young people, people without children, and those with higher education are more likely to be concerned about the impact of human activity on nature. It could be stated that the factors that influence pro-environmental behavior are diverse and cannot be captured by one single framework. Depending on the research, these factors include demographics; external factors such as institutions, economy, social and cultural factors; and internal factors such as motivation, knowledge, attitudes, values, and emotions [40]. The project advances the theoretical understanding of environmental attitudes and the measurement of the New Environmental Paradigm in different cities and countries by exploring cultural variations, refining, and validating the NEP scale for use in diverse contexts. Research on environmental attitudes using the NEP scale specifically in Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, and Romania is relatively limited or non-existent. There were other former studies addressing environmental attitudes, behaviors, and worldviews in Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, and Romania; however, they used different measures or frameworks (such as household waste recycling, car use or environmental risks, climate change perceptions), and the NEP scale was not explicitly used, except in Hungary (out of the four measured countries). In Hungary, the NEP scale was also employed for senior citizens [41] and another paper-drafted consumers’ ecological worldviews, and as a result identified four consumer groups: sceptics, indifferents, sensitives, and egocentric pushers [42]. Despite the numerous studies conducted, a conclusive explanation has not been discovered yet.

In the following section, the possible connection between SDGs and the NEP scale is outlined on the basis of previous findings [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) both address environmental issues, values, and attitudes, but they serve different purposes and are not directly linked. The NEP scale measures environmental beliefs and attitudes, while the SDGs provide a framework for addressing global challenges, including environmental concerns. The SDGs aim to address various social, economic, and environmental challenges, for instance, poverty, inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation. Each SDG has specific targets and indicators to help monitor progress and guide policymaking.

While the NEP scale does not directly focus on the SDGs, it can be useful in understanding people’s environmental beliefs and attitudes, which can influence their support for the SDGs and related policies. Although the NEP scale does not have a direct one-to-one correspondence with the individual Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there are potential connections between the environmental beliefs and attitudes informed by the NEP scale and each SDG. Some NEP items may be relevant to multiple SDGs, while some SDGs may not have a direct connection to a specific NEP item.

Table 2. Possible connections between SDGs and NEP statements, based on the literature [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].

SDGs	NEP Scale Dimension	NEP Scale Statement (Number)
1 No Poverty	Limits to growth	1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support. (NEP)
2 Zero Hunger	Human domination	2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. (DSP)
3 Good Health and Well-Being	Antiexemptionalism	14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. (DSP)
4 Quality Education	Balance of nature	13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. (NEP)
5 Gender Equality	Limits to growth	1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support. (NEP)
6 Clean Water and Sanitation	Limits to growth	6. The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. (DSP)
7 Affordable and Clean Energy	Limits to growth	11. The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. (NEP)
8 Decent Work and Economic Growth	Ecocrisis	15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. (NEP)
9 Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure	Ecocrisis	5. Humans are severely abusing the environment. (NEP)
10 Reduced Inequalities	Limits to growth	1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support. (NEP)
11 Sustainable Cities and Communities	Balance of nature	13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. (NEP)
12 Responsible Consumption and Production	Balance of nature	13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. (NEP)
13 Climate Action	Human domination	12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. (DSP)
14 Life Below Water	Human domination	7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
15 Life on Land	Human domination	7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
16 Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	Balance of Nature	8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. (DSP)
17 Partnerships for the Goals	Ecocrisis	10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. (DSP)

illustrates these possible connections on the basis of extensive literature analyses [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].

3. Materials and Methods

Our empirical research is the first cross-cultural study that has examined the ecological worldview of youth using the NEP scale in post-socialist countries. The empirical research is testing and refining existing theoretical frameworks (such as the SDG and NEP scale) in different cultural and geographical contexts, and therefore it contributes to more context-sensitive but also generalizable theoretical frameworks. The research can also uncover underexplored factors and investigate the interdependence between those factors, such as socio-economic, political, and psychological (behavioral) influences on environmental attitudes and behaviors, opening up a new scope for research. The first subsection describes the data used, and the second one the methods of the analyses.

3.1. Data and Research Model

The data to be analyzed came from a primary questionnaire survey completed from the end of April 2022 to mid-June (26 April 2022 to 17 June 2022). In this period, the world had just overcome the shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected not only the hard social and economic indicators of countries but also the soft ones, which can only be measured by questionnaires and interviews [52,53]. The latter includes the NEP survey, the subject of the study, which measures people’s attitudes about whether nature rules over people or vice versa.

Young people (14–25 years old from secondary schools and universities) of four European Capitals of Culture from different countries (Tartu, Estonia; Veszprém, Hungary; Kaunas, Lithuania; Timisoara, Romania) were asked to complete the questionnaire through several public and higher education face-to-face events where the respondents could ask the coordinator personally (for example, if a question was not clear to them). A computer-assisted data collection (CAPI) method was carried out via the online QuestionPro system. It was possible to answer the questionnaire in the native language of the country, as well as in English. The questionnaire was able to be completed in approximately 10 min, ranging from 8 questions about individuals’ demographic characteristics to their green attitude. The latter covered the 15 questions of the revised NEP survey. Each question was closed. Appendix A contains the complete questionnaire.

Table 3. Research model.

Potential Explanatory (Independent) Indicators (X): Demography (8 Questions)
Questions		Answer Options
X1	Age	1: 14–17 years old, 2: 18–21 years old, 3: 22–25 years old, 4: older than 25
X2	Place of residence	1: village/small settlement, 2: town, 3: capital city
X3	How do you consider your family’s living standard?	1: poor, 2: average, 3: wealthy, 4: rich
X4	In what country do you live?	1: Estonia, 2: Hungary, 3: Lithuania, 4: Romania, 5: other
X5	Gender	1: female, 2: male
X6	Are you currently working?	1: no, 2: yes, in part-time, 3: yes, in full-time
X7	Are you currently studying?	1: no, 2: yes: in high school, 3: yes: at university/college
X8	Do you speak English?	0: no, 1: yes
Response (dependent) indicators (Y): Green attitude measured by the revised NEP statements (15 questions) How far do you agree with this statement?
Questions		Answer options
Y01_NEP	We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.	1: strongly disagree 2: mildly disagree 3: unsure 4: mildly agree 5: strongly agree
Y02_DSP	Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
Y03_NEP	When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences.
Y04_DSP	Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the Earth unlivable.
Y05_NEP	Humans are severely abusing the environment.
Y06_DSP	The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.
Y07_NEP	Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
Y08_DSP	The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.
Y09_NEP	Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
Y10_DSP	The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.
Y11_NEP	The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
Y12_DSP	Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
Y13_NEP	The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
Y14_DSP	Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.
Y15_NEP	If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.

Nominal measurement level, ordinal measurement level.

categorizes the questions of the questionnaire by whether it is considered as a potential explanatory (independent) variable (8 demographic questions denoted by X) or as a dependent variable (15 NEP questions abbreviated as Y).

The main aim of the research was to explore the relationship among them (between the answers to questions X and Y). Table 3 contains the answer options with their codes (only one answer option could be marked for each question).

Table 3 also indicates the level of the measurement scale by the italic or non-italic nature of the letter. The answers to questions can be measured on a nominal or ordinal scale. Italic letters indicate the questions to which answers can only be measured on the most undeveloped (nominal) scale. Non-italic letters indicate questions to which answers can be measured on a more advanced (ordinal) scale.

3.2. Data Analysis Method

For the quantitative method, relationship analyses were applied, aiming to answer the following research question: do the demography (answers to questions X) significantly influence the green attitude (answers to questions Y), and if so, how strong is that relationship? The measurement level of the questions determines the coefficient that can be used to quantify the relationship between them. The hierarchy of measurement scales comprises four levels, namely, nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. The degree of the scale is determined by the mathematical operations that can be performed on the data (nothing, ranking, difference, and ratio). Variables with data that cannot be subjected to mathematical operations can only be measured on a nominal scale. When data can be ranked but not subjected to difference or ratio operations, an ordinal scale is assigned. For data that can be ranked and subtracted, but not divided, an interval scale is used, while ratio scales can be assigned to variables on which all mathematical operations are applicable. The relationship between variables can take different forms depending on the scale of measurement. Relationships between nominal variables are characterized by association, while mixed relationships are observed between variables measured on different scales. Rank correlation refers to the relationship between ordinal variables, while correlation is between indicators that can be measured on ratio scales. To reveal the relationships between variables, different indicators can be applied. In the present study, the Likert scale, which is a typical ordinal scale, was used to measure the analyzed indicators, and each question was answered on a scale from 1 to 5. The advantage of odd-numbered answer options is that it provides respondents with the option of a neutral answer, while allowing sufficiently differentiated responses from those with a clear preference.

The research model (Table 3) contains both nominal and ordinal variables: all response variables (green attitude) can be measured on an ordinal scale, but among independent variables, there are not only ordinal but also nominal ones. The relationships are examined by the Cramer’s V coefficient (V) and Kendall’s tau (τ) rank correlation at a 5% significance level via SPSS software. Cramer’s V measures the association between variables interpreted at the nominal level and can vary from 0 to 1. Kendall’s tau measures the rank correlation between ordinal variables and varies from −1 to 1. A p-value of tau or V less than 0.05 indicates a significant relationship between the two investigated indicators. In the case of significant relationships, the absolute values of V and τ show the strength of the relationship. The following classification was applied within the interval 0–1 to determine the strength of the correlation: 0 indicates the absence of a relationship (independence); 1 indicates complete definiteness (deterministic relationship); below 0.2, there is a weak relationship; at 0.7 and above, the relationship is strong; and between the values of 0.2 and 0.7, the relationship is moderate [54]. The sign of τ indicates the positive or negative nature of the relationship. Negative (positive) τ means that the higher the rank of one variable, the lower (higher) the rank of the other variable is expected to be.

4. Results

Section 4.1 presents the descriptive statistics, then Section 4.2 summarizes the results of the connection tests.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

The aim was to survey 250 people per country, which resulted in a total sample of 1000 people. In order to get to know the characteristics of the sample, first, the independent indicators were summarized (X), namely, the demography of the respondents. Regarding the country of the respondents, 55.5% of the sample lived in Romania, 19.8% in Hungary, 13.5% in Lithuania, 9.7% in Estonia, and 1.3% in other countries; 0.3% did not answer. The majority of the respondents were women (69.6%) and 14–25 years old (76.8%). The detailed distribution of respondents by age was as follows: 33.8% in the 14–17 age group, 43% in the 18–21 age group, 17% in the 22–25 age group, and 6.2% in the over-25 age group. Most of them were city dwellers: 66.6% live in towns, 3% in capital cities, and 30.4% in villages or small settlements. More than half of the sample (53.2%) were students at university or college, 39.0% attended high school, and 7.7% did not study. More than three-quarters (75.5%) of the sample did not work, 12.5% worked full-time, and 12% worked part-time. Considering the family’s living standard, 51.0% perceived their family’s standard as average, 44.1% as wealthy, 2.8% as rich, and 2.1% as poor. Almost everyone (97.1%) spoke English. Although those who answered “no” to the question “Do you speak English?” were kept among valid answers, the question itself (X8) was not examined further, since almost everyone answered that they speak English, and thus it did not make sense to examine the difference in answers according to whether the respondent spoke English or not.

The following respondents were not taken into consideration:

• Those who were older than 25 years (within X1), as the 14–25 age group was the subject of the research.
• Those who did not live in the four countries examined, or who did not specify their country (within X4).

After these filters, the original 1000 sample became 712 people.

The dependent indicators (Y) that were the main subject of the research were examined in more detail. The relative frequency (%) of the answers to the NEP or DSP questions related to green attitude are illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses to odd-numbered statements (new NEP paradigm), with which the more people agree, the more they are concerned about nature.

According to Figure 1, most (64%) of the respondents completely agreed with the following statement: “When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences” (Y03).

There were significantly more respondents who agreed with the NEP statements than those who did not agree. Looking at the extreme answers (coded 1 and 5 on the 1–5 Likert scale, colored with a dark blue or dark green background, respectively), it can be concluded that significantly more (20–64% of) people completely agreed with the statements (marked with dark green background) than did not agree at all (1–11% in dark blue backgrounded bars). Adding the answers of those who did not agree with the statements at any level (blue backgrounded answers coded 1 and 2) and the answers of those who agreed with them at any level (green backgrounded answers coded 4 and 5), a similar conclusion can be made: respondents significantly agreed more (52–87%) with all statements than disagreed (4–23%).

Figure 2 shows the distribution of responses to even-numbered (DSP) statements with which more people agreed that humanity prevails over nature.

According to Figure 2, most (49%) of the respondents completely agreed with the following statement: “Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature” (Y12).

Ignoring this question, we found that there were significantly more respondents who disagreed with the DSP statements than those who did agree. Looking at the extreme answers (coded 1 and 5 on the 1–5 Likert scale, colored with a dark blue or dark green background, respectively), it can be concluded that significantly more (8–33% of) people completely disagreed with the statements (dark blue backgrounded bars) than fully agreed (5–8% in dark blue backgrounded bars). Adding the answers of those who did not agree with the statements at any level (blue backgrounded answers coded 1 and 2) and the answers of those who agreed with them at any level (green backgrounded answers coded 4 and 5), a similar conclusion can be made: respondents disagreed significantly more (27–60%) with all statements than agreed (17–34%).

On the basis of Figure 1 and Figure 2, the first research questions (Q1: How can the environmental attitudes of young individuals be systematically characterized and summarized?) can be answered as follows. According to the young people’s opinion of the four investigated European Capitals of Culture, humanity must adapt to the limits of nature. These young people can be considered a “critical” social group in acting against climate change and crisis.

4.2. Relationship Analyses

After the descriptive statistics, the results of the relationship tests were summarized.

Table 4. The results of the relationship tests.

Green Attitude (Y)			Demography (X)
			X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	All
			Age	Place	Welfare	Country	Gender	Work	Study
			Kendall’s Tau (τ)			Cramer’s V
NEP	Y01		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.221	n.s.	0.124	n.s.
	Y03		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.173	n.s.	n.s.
	Y05		0.097	n.s.	n.s.	0.164	n.s.	n.s.	0.105
	Y07		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.121	n.s.	n.s.
	Y09		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.176	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
	Y11		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.105	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
	Y13		0.088	n.s.	n.s.	0.112	n.s.	n.s.	0.116
	Y15		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.147	n.s.	n.s.
	Sig. results	No	2	0	0	5	3	1	2	13
		Min	0.088	-	-	0.105	0.121	0.124	0.105	0.088
		Max	0.097	-	-	0.221	0.173	0.124	0.116	0.221
DSP	Y02		−0.106	n.s.	n.s.	0.140	n.s.	0.113	n.s.
	Y04		−0.114	n.s.	0.090	0.139	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.
	Y06		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.148	n.s.	n.s.	0.118
	Y08		−0.111	n.s.	0.073	0.126	n.s.	0.108	0.128
	Y10		−0.094	n.s.	n.s.	0.122	0.155	n.s.	0.117
	Y12		n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	0.295	n.s.	n.s.	0.133
	Y14		−0.114	n.s.	n.s.	0.256	0.190	n.s.	0.138
	Sig. results	No	5	0	2	7	2	2	5	23
		Min	0.094	-	0.073	0.122	0.155	0.108	0.117	0.073
		Max	0.114	-	0.090	0.295	0.190	0.113	0.138	0.295
All	Sig. results	No	7	0	2	12	5	3	7	36
		Min	0.088	-	0.073	0.105	0.121	0.108	0.105	0.073
		Max	0.114	-	0.090	0.295	0.190	0.124	0.138	0.295

Abbreviations: n.s.: non-significant results. Sig.: significant. No: number. Min, Max: minimum and maximum of the absolute values of V and τ. Color key: the strength of the significant results is weaker stronger.

contains the results of the relationship tests between the indicators considered dependent (15 Y questions categorized into NEP and DSP) and independent (7 X questions).

Table 4 categorizes the green attitude (Y) questions into NEP and DSP.

On the basis of Table 4, the second research questions (Q2: To what extent do demographic factors influence the environmental attitudes of young individuals?) can be answered. The seven demographic characteristics (X) examined did not strongly influence the answers to the 15 green attitude questions (Y). Only one-third (36) of the possible 105 relationships were significant, and the vast majority of these results showed only a weak relationship, with only three relationships able to be classified as moderate. All of the latter can be linked to the respondent’s country (X4), which had a moderate influence on the answers to the following question:

• Y01_NEP: We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support (V = 0.221).
• Y12_DSP: Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature (V = 0.295).
• Y14_DSP: Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it (V = 0.256).

These three relationships are detailed in the crosstabs of

Table 5. Crosstabs of the strongest (moderate) relationships (%).

X4. Country	Y. How Far Do You Agree with This Statement?
	1: Strongly Disagree	2: Mildly Disagree	3: Unsure	4: Mildly Agree	5: Strongly Agree	Σ
	Y01_NEP: We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.
1: Estonia	1	9	10	41	39	100
2: Hungary	3	4	20	43	30	100
3: Lithuania	3	9	32	31	24	100
4: Romania	17	16	27	28	12	100
	Y12_DSP: Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
1: Estonia	3	7	22	49	19	100
2: Hungary	6	14	23	36	21	100
3: Lithuania	0	4	27	40	29	100
4: Romania	0	3	9	18	70	100
	Y14_DSP: Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.
1: Estonia	32	38	12	13	6	100
2: Hungary	43	29	18	8	3	100
3: Lithuania	1	11	30	33	24	100
4: Romania	37	28	19	11	4	100

Color Key: per row, the relative frequency is lower higher.

.

Regarding the statement “We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support” (Y01_NEP), the majority of Estonian and Hungarian respondents (rather of fully) agreed with it, while the majority of Lithuanian and Romanian respondents were uncertain or rather agreed. Concerning the statement “Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature” (Y12_DSP), the majority of answers in Romania (fully agree) differed from the other countries (rather agree). Focusing on the statement of “Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it” (Y14_DSP), the majority of answers in Lithuania (rather agree or uncertain) differed from the other countries (fully or rather disagree).

On the basis of the number of significant results, the answers to the 15 NEP/DSP questions were mostly influenced by the country (X4, 12 significant results). After that, the most decisive factor (7-7 significant results) was whether the respondent was studying or not (X7), as well as the age category (X1). The older the respondent (14–17, 18–21, 22–25 years old), the more they agreed with two NEP statements:

• Y05. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
• Y13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

The older the respondent, the less they agreed with five DSP statements:

• Y02. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
• Y04. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the Earth unlivable.
• Y08. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.
• Y10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.
• Y14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.

Among the examined explanatory indicators, the two that least influenced the answers to the NEP/DSP questions were the size of the place of residence (X2) and how someone perceived the living standard of their family (X3). The type of settlement of the respondent (village/small settlement, town, capital city) did not influence the answer given to any NEP/DSP statement. The family’s standard of living (poor, average, wealthy, rich) was significantly related to two DSP statements. The better the respondents perceived their family’s living standard, the more they agreed with the following two statements:

• Y04. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the Earth unlivable.
• Y08. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.

5. Discussion

On the basis of the research results, the following statements can be concluded.

Q1: How can the environmental attitudes of young individuals be systematically characterized and summarized? The attitude of youth drawn from the results indicates that nature is a higher power than humans, and therefore people have to adapt the limits of nature. This statement echoes back Carson’s (1962) idea of shared responsibility and the OECD emphasis on how people’s attitude should change and be aware that natural resources are endless [11,32]. Nevertheless, there is a twofold implication of the statement with which a great number of youth agreed with: “Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature”. On the one hand, it can mean hope, that people with higher intelligence have the knowledge to guide natural elements. On the other hand, there is an ambitious attitude indicating that humans underestimate nature and want to dominate it. This study did not intend to investigate the meaning behind the statement. However, this suggests that deeper analysis should be carried out to draw precise conclusions.

Q2: To what extent do demographic factors influence the environmental attitudes of young individuals? Opposite to Taskin’s study but resembling the previous Hungarian research, the present study’s results did not indicate significant differences by gender, age, or welfare [28,37]. On the other hand, the results showed medium strength differences by the four European Capitals of Culture. The research of Gareiou and Zervas (2021) states that people who live in and nearby Athens (the first ECoC) are more sensitive and concerned about the negative effects of human interventions [39]. In this study, students from Timisoara (Romania), the largest city out of the four ECoC (with nearly half a million citizens), agreed most with the statement “humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature”. Moreover, an interesting fact is that those in Tartu (population of about 91,000, Estonia) and Veszprém (population of about 61,000, Hungary), as opposed to the two larger cities (Timisoara and Kaunas in Lithuania with populations of about 300,000), agreed more that the Earth approaching its limit to support more people.

6. Conclusions

This study brings scientific innovation in the form of a comprehensive analysis of young people’s attitudes towards environmental protection using the NEP scale across four European Capital of Culture cities from different countries. The findings of the study provide guidance for decision-makers, policymakers, and educators in the field of environmental education and marketing on how to develop targeted strategies to promote environmental awareness and action among youth. The research opens up new opportunities for further studies on the role of formal and informal education in shaping youth attitudes towards the environment, as well as the impact of social media on environmental behavior and proactivity towards green issues. The research contributes to ecopsychology science in its focus on the relationship that humans have with nature. As for the knowledge regarding the measurement and assessment of environmental attitudes, beliefs, and values, our study adds a new perspective of how youth from ex-socialist countries that are now European Capitals of Culture regard similarly or differently their role in environmental protection.

Despite these contributions, the current study has limitations that offer opportunities for further research. First, only young people of four ECoC were examined. Thus, the results should not be directly applied to, for example, young people’s opinion of other settlements, or on an older population. Therefore, in the future, the opinions of older people and residents of other settlements would also be subject to investigation. Second, given the quantitative nature of the present research, further qualitative research (such as focus group interviews) may be needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of young people’s green attitudes. As one of the examples of the paper, the differences between countries were highlighted, but deeper analyses are needed in the future to reveal the reasons behind them. Third, this article focused only on the examination of green attitudes. In the future, it would be worth comparing this with green actions. The research on green actions generates additional questions, for example, regarding environmental issues, or on to what extent different age groups believe in media, parents, friends, politicians, and green influencers, as well as on how political factors, such as governmental policies and political ideologies (such as post-socialist countries), can impact environmental attitudes. This can open up new perspectives in order to conduct longitudinal research so that the project can explore the changes over time in response to shifts in socio-economic, political, and cultural contexts.

Sustainable education is important as it can encourage pro-environmental behavior and raise awareness about important environmental issues. Despite limitations, discussing these topics can help bring attention to the need for sustainable practices and solutions. This research can stimulate future research on environmental education and green attitude changes. These results can be the base of future ECoC biding cities’ proposals as sustainability and the environment have always been key points in the bidbooks.