Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes Towards Recycling in Slovak Republic

Lorincová, Silvia; Osvaldová, Mária

doi:10.3390/recycling10040159

Open AccessArticle

Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes Towards Recycling in Slovak Republic

by

Silvia Lorincová

^*

and

Mária Osvaldová

Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology, Technical University in Zvolen, T. G. Masaryka 24, 960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Recycling 2025, 10(4), 159; https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10040159

Submission received: 1 July 2025 / Revised: 30 July 2025 / Accepted: 5 August 2025 / Published: 7 August 2025

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

Climate changes have increased interest in the circular economy, an alternative model that seeks to minimize environmental impact and maximize resource reuse. A key element of this model is individuals’ behaviors and attitudes, which determine the overall efficiency of recycling processes. The study fills the gap by investigating how selected socio-demographic factors affect attitudes and intentions toward recycling and material reuse in the Slovak Republic, by using the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating (PCI) framework. Through a two-way ANOVA, we tested the hypotheses that higher education correlates with stronger recycling attitudes and that women are more willing than men to engage in circular practices. The results show that gender differences in consumer attitudes towards the circular economy do occur, but their magnitude is often conditioned by education level. Education proved to be the strongest predictor of ecological behavior: respondents with higher education reported stronger beliefs in the importance of recycling and a greater willingness to act sustainably. The interaction between gender and education revealed that university-educated women hold the most pronounced pro-environmental attitudes, underscoring the importance of gender-sensitive educational strategies. It is recommended that environmental education and outreach focus on less-educated groups, particularly women, who have high potential to influence their communities.

Keywords:

circular economy; recycling; sustainable management; environmental awareness; gender; education

1. Introduction

The world is currently facing increasingly urgent environmental challenges that directly affect people’s quality of life, ecosystem stability, and national economic development. The climate crisis, biodiversity loss, deforestation, and environmental pollution are no longer distant threats but realities whose impacts we experience both globally and locally. Climate change manifested in extreme weather events, rising temperatures, droughts, and floods is a direct result of excessive resource use and unsustainable economic practices. These intense environmental shifts highlight the need to explore circular economy principles as an alternative model of production and consumption, one that reduces environmental burdens and maximizes resource reuse [1,2,3,4]. This model is grounded in individuals’ behaviors and attitudes, which determine the effectiveness of recycling, reuse, and waste reduction [5,6,7,8]. The aim of this study is to investigate how gender and educational level—both independently and in interaction—influence attitudes and intentions regarding recycling and material reuse in the Slovak Republic, as the interaction effect between gender and education is underexplored in this context in the Slovak Republic.

2. Literature Review

As a result of ongoing environmental degradation, improving environmental quality has become one of the primary goals of modern society [9,10]. This urgent need also drives a growing interest in the principles of the circular economy—an alternative economic model that seeks to minimize environmental impact and maximize the reuse of resources [1,2,3,4]. However, the effective implementation of this model largely depends on individuals’ behaviors and attitudes, as these determine the efficiency of recycling, material reuse, and waste reduction. In this context, recycling plays a crucial role, as it is one of the most effective strategies for mitigating negative environmental impacts [11].

Recycling is the process by which waste materials are collected, sorted, processed, and transformed into new products, thereby reducing the need for virgin raw materials and minimizing the amount of waste sent to landfills [12,13]. Recycling contributes to environmental protection by reducing the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of new materials [14]. Various studies have examined this issue, for example, Wang et al. [15], Razzaq et al. [10], Laffourgue and Lorang [16], and Yamamoto and Kinnaman [17]. Wang et al. [15] study the multidepot vehicle routing problem, focusing on smart recycling prices and shared transport resources. Razzaq et al. [10] explore how climate technologies relate to recycling. Laffourgue and Lorang [16] deal with the characterization of the dynamic optimal scenarios of recycling and resource use. Yamamoto and Kinnaman [17] examine both incineration and recycling. Additional studies investigate recycling in various areas, including waste recycling [18], plastics [19,20], smartphones [21], spent batteries [22], electronic waste in the toy industry [23], and others.

For recycling to succeed, it requires not only efficient collection, sorting, and processing systems but, above all, consumer participation in waste separation, since, as previous studies show [24,25,26], consumers can play a major role in improving environmental practices. In addition to system efficiency, effective recycling depends on clear communication and consumers’ perception of materials. Ambiguous or missing information on packaging can lead to confusion and reduce proper waste sorting. Studies highlight that clear labeling and design significantly influence how consumers identify recyclable materials and engage in correct disposal practices [27,28,29,30]. Given that packaging constitutes a major proportion of household waste, addressing these communication issues is essential to improve waste sorting behavior and support circular economy goals. Moreover, different packaging types such as plastics, multilayer composites, and bio-based materials present varying levels of recyclability, which further complicates sorting and underscores the need for clear and standardized information to guide consumers [8,31,32,33]. This evidence underscores that improving packaging communication is not only central to effective recycling but also to advancing waste reduction strategies and achieving broader circular economy objectives. Testa et al. [34] seek to develop a more comprehensive understanding of consumer choices throughout the product life cycle. Ungerman and Dedková [35], Flygansvaer et al. [36], Li et al. [37], and Zhang et al. [38] also study recycling behavior. Ungerman and Dedková [35] focus on consumers and how they treat discarded or non-functional items. Flygansvaer et al. [36] investigate how adaptations in reverse logistics systems can improve end-consumer recycling behavior. Li et al. [37] establish the influence path from incentives to behavior focus and recycling behavior. Zhang et al. [38] test the assumption that nostalgia induces a sense of meaning, which in turn encourages customers to recycle more. Thukral et al. [24] identify around eleven factors that influence consumer behavior in waste storage, disposal, and recycling. Other research on consumer behavior [39,40,41,42] suggests that individuals’ motivation to recycle depends on various factors such as cultural values, environmental values, social and moral norms, and the availability of recycling services. Socio-demographic characteristics, such as gender and education—identified as key determinants of pro-environmental behavior—are also important [43,44,45].

The issue of recycling from a gender perspective has been examined by a study Abdel-Raheem [46]. The study by Taljaard et al. [47] focused on male consumers. The findings of Oztekin et al. [48] confirm that women hold stronger environmental values and attitudes, although these do not always lead to greater involvement in public environmental activities. For men, participation in recycling was more influenced by prior experience. Similarly, García [49] shows that women are somewhat more proactive and determined to recycle than men. Wok and Munira [50] also report that women recycle more than men, with differences observed across various ethnic groups. In contrast, Prieto-Sandoval et al. [51] found no significant gender differences, which contrasts with the differentiated behaviors identified in other studies [48,50,52]. Research has repeatedly shown that women exhibit consistently stronger pro-environmental attitudes and a greater willingness to engage in green behaviors than men, often attributed to socialization factors emphasizing care and responsibility [53,54,55,56]. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that these gender differences in attitudes are particularly pronounced in the context of recycling and responsible consumption [45]. Higher education promotes a broader understanding of the consequences of human activities and increases perceived ability to address environmental issues [57,58,59]. Prieto-Sandoval et al. [51] confirmed that university education can significantly influence students’ sustainable behavior. Despite this consensus, regional and cultural contexts remain crucial, as communities differ in their sensitivity to these determinants [60]. Moreover, the interaction effect between gender and education has been little explored [61]. It is therefore valuable to analyze how these factors jointly affect various aspects of pro-environmental attitudes.

Although the general relationship between education, gender, and recycling attitudes has been explored in international studies, it remains underexamined in the context of the Slovak Republic. Our research fill an important geographic and cultural gap in the Slovak Republic by combining a detailed, attitude-and-behavior link for household recycling. Accordingly, this study aims to examine how gender and educational level—both independently and in interaction—influence attitudes and intentions toward recycling and material reuse. Drawing on the PCI (Perceived Characteristics of Innovating) framework [62,63] and earlier findings [45,64], it is hypothesized that higher education correlates with stronger recycling attitudes and that women are more willing than men to engage in circular practices. The study further examines whether these effects reinforce or counteract each other depending on the gender–education combination.

3. Results

The evaluation of respondents’ pro-environmental attitudes was conducted across five domains. The results are presented separately for each domain. In the initial phase, the data were processed and analyzed using descriptive statistics. For more detailed analysis, a two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test were applied. The findings are shown in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14 and Table 15, with an emphasis on opinions by gender and educational level and their interaction.

3.1. The Importance of Recycling

The first domain examined was the importance of recycling. The results are presented in Table 2. They are broken down by factors such as educational level, gender, and their combination. Basic descriptive statistics are provided, including the number of respondents (N), mean response values, standard deviation, standard error, and 95% confidence intervals. These data serve as the basis for subsequent analyses of attitude differences between groups and illustrate the level of agreement with the statement across demographic categories.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of perceived importance of recycling.

Indicator			N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	−95.00%	+95.00%
Total			595	4.058824	0.976958	0.040051	3.980164	4.137483
Education	UE		250	4.292000	0.825507	0.052210	4.189171	4.394829
	USE		268	3.977612	1.012775	0.061865	3.855806	4.099417
	LSE		53	3.471698	1.186523	0.162982	3.144652	3.798744
	PE		24	3.833333	0.816497	0.166667	3.488557	4.178110
Gender	Female		344	4.154070	0.967149	0.052145	4.051505	4.256634
Gender	Male		251	3.928287	0.977157	0.061678	3.806813	4.049761
Gender vs. Education	UE	Female	161	4.472050	0.725104	0.057146	4.359192	4.584908
	UE	Male	89	3.966292	0.897591	0.095144	3.777213	4.155372
	USE	Female	142	4.021127	0.963654	0.080868	3.861256	4.180997
	USE	Male	126	3.928571	1.067172	0.095071	3.740414	4.116729
	LSE	Female	28	3.035714	1.261455	0.238393	2.546573	3.524856
	LSE	Male	25	3.960000	0.888819	0.177764	3.593113	4.326887
	PE	Female	13	4.076923	0.862316	0.239164	3.555830	4.598016
	PE	Male	11	3.545455	0.687552	0.207305	3.083551	4.007358

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education.

The results presented in Table 1 indicate a clear pro-environmental attitude in the sample (N = 595). The distribution of responses on the Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was strongly skewed toward agreement: 73% of respondents chose categories 4 or 5, while explicit disagreement (1 or 2) was reported by only 5.4%. The mean for the total sample was M = 4.06 (SD = 0.98; 95% CI = 3.98–4.14), corresponding to a position between somewhat agree and strongly agree. In the next step, a two-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine the significance of education and gender in evaluating the importance of recycling. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. ANOVA statistics of perceived importance of recycling.

Effect	df	Sum of Squares	Mean Square	F	p-Level
Gender	1	0.153	0.153	0.178	0.673032
Education	3	25.080	8.360	9.739	0.000003
Gender vs. Education	3	23.434	7.811	9.100	0.000007
Error	587	503.891	0.858
Total	594	566.941

Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

Table 2 shows that the total sum of squares for the data was 566.94 (df = 594), of which the residual (error) variability was 503.89 (df = 587; MS = 0.858). The main effect of education was highly significant—there were statistically different mean ratings of recycling importance across the four education levels, F(3, 587) = 9.74, p < 0.001, with education accounting for SS = 25.08 (MS = 8.36). In contrast, gender alone did not affect the perceived importance of recycling—the main effect of gender was small and non-significant, F(1, 587) = 0.18, p = 0.673 (SS = 0.153; MS = 0.153). A significant interaction between gender and education was also found, F(3, 587) = 9.10, p < 0.001 (SS = 23.43; MS = 7.81), indicating that the gender differences in the perceived importance of recycling vary by education level, thereby supporting H1. This interaction suggests that, while in some education groups women show a higher appreciation of recycling’s importance than men, in other groups this difference is minimal (Table 3).

Table 3. Tukey test statistics of perceived importance of recycling.

	Gender	Education	{1} (4.4720)	{2} (4.0211)	{3} (3.0357)	{4} (4.0769)	{5} (3.9663)	{6} (3.9286)	{7} (3.9600)	{8} (3.5455)
1	Female	UE		0.000639	0.000032	0.818877	0.000950	0.000052	0.166561	0.029051
2		USE	0.000639		0.000038	0.999999	0.999862	0.992276	0.999988	0.725634
3		LSE	0.000032	0.000038		0.018474	0.000122	0.000133	0.006995	0.782246
4		PE	0.818877	0.999999	0.018474		0.999922	0.999373	0.999957	0.857563
5	Male	UE	0.000950	0.999862	0.000122	0.999922		0.999991	1.000000	0.847758
6		USE	0.000052	0.992276	0.000133	0.999373	0.999991		1.000000	0.893429
7		LSE	0.166561	0.999988	0.006995	0.999957	1.000000	1.000000		0.921098
8		PE	0.029051	0.725634	0.782246	0.857563	0.847758	0.893429	0.921098

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education; Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

Table 3 presents the results of the post hoc analysis (Tukey HSD test), which examined differences between groups by gender and education level, identifying statistically significant contrasts in attitudes toward the importance of recycling. The post hoc test revealed the largest difference between women with a university education (M = 4.47) and women with only a lower secondary education (M = 3.04). This 1.44-point gap was highly significant (p < 0.001). Men fell between these extremes (M ≈ 3.58–4.02), with smaller differences overall, confirming that education explains variations in attitudes more convincingly than gender alone. Higher education particularly among women substantially strengthens belief in the importance of recycling, whereas the group without secondary education places markedly less emphasis on it. A difference of more than one full point on a 1–5 scale corresponds to a shift from “somewhat agree” to “strongly agree,” indicating a practically meaningful change. These findings suggest that environmental education (e.g., community seminars, targeted workplace training, or media campaigns) may be the most effective way to reinforce the importance of recycling, especially among those with lower formal education.

3.2. Intention to Purchase Recyclable Products

In the following section, the research focused on examining the intention to purchase recyclable products. The initial results are presented in Table 4, and the detailed analysis findings are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of intention to purchase recyclable products.

Indicator			N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	−95.00%	+95.00%
Total			595	3.830252	1.037881	0.042549	3.746687	3.913817
Education	UE		250	4.144000	0.856855	0.054192	4.037266	4.250734
	USE		268	3.634328	1.095042	0.066890	3.502629	3.766028
	LSE		53	3.490566	1.085262	0.149072	3.191431	3.789701
	PE		24	3.500000	1.179536	0.240772	3.001926	3.998074
Gender	Female		344	3.985465	1.008603	0.054380	3.878504	4.092426
Gender	Male		251	3.617530	1.041696	0.065751	3.488033	3.747027
Gender vs. Education	UE	Female	161	4.298137	0.731819	0.057675	4.184233	4.412040
	UE	Male	89	3.865169	0.990764	0.105021	3.656462	4.073875
	USE	Female	142	3.781690	1.085796	0.091118	3.601556	3.961824
	USE	Male	126	3.468254	1.085810	0.096732	3.276810	3.659698
	LSE	Female	28	3.321429	1.156418	0.218542	2.873017	3.769840
	LSE	Male	25	3.680000	0.988264	0.197653	3.272064	4.087936
	PE	Female	13	3.769231	1.480644	0.410657	2.874486	4.663975
	PE	Male	11	3.181818	0.603023	0.181818	2.776702	3.586934

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education.

The results presented in Table 4 indicate that the mean intention to purchase recyclable products for the entire sample of 595 respondents was 3.83 (SD = 1.04). The 95% confidence interval ranged from 3.75 to 3.91. The response distribution was slightly skewed toward agreement: 19 respondents (3.2%) reported “strongly disagree” and 38 respondents (6.4%) “somewhat disagree.” Overall, 9.6% of respondents expressed disagreement, 151 respondents (25.4%) were neutral, and 387 respondents (65.0%) chose agreement categories (“somewhat agree” or “strongly agree”). Educational level affected mean scores: respondents with a university education had the highest mean (M = 4.14, SD = 0.86), those with an upper secondary education had M = 3.63 (SD = 1.09), respondents with a lower secondary education had M = 3.49 (SD = 1.09), and those with a primary education had M = 3.50 (SD = 1.18). By gender, women’s mean intention was 3.99 (SD = 1.01), while men’s mean was lower at 3.62 (SD = 1.04).

Table 5. ANOVA statistics of intention to purchase recyclable products.

Effect	df	Sum of Squares	Mean Square	F	p-Level
Gender	1	3.446	3.446	3.517	0.061229
Education	3	33.552	11.184	11.414	0.000000
Gender vs. Education	3	7.230	2.410	2.459	0.061856
Error	587	575.168	0.980
Total	594

Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

Two-way ANOVA (Table 5) showed that educational level is a significant factor for this intention: the effect of education was statistically significant, F(3, 587) = 11.41, p < 0.001. Respondents with higher education reported a substantially greater willingness to purchase recyclable products than those with lower education. In contrast, gender was a weak, non-significant factor, F(1, 587) = 3.52, p = 0.061, although the trend suggested a slightly higher intention among women. The interaction between gender and education also did not reach significance, F(3, 587) = 2.46, p = 0.062, indicating that the effect of education is similar for both men and women; thus, H2 is rejected. Overall, these results confirm that higher formal education markedly strengthens the intention to consider recyclability when shopping, while the influence of gender is minimal and consistent across education levels.

Table 6. Tukey test statistics of intention to purchase recyclable products.

	Gender	Education	{1} (4.2981)	{2} (3.7817)	{3} (3.3214)	{4} (3.7692)	{5} (3.8652)	{6} (3.4683)	{7} (3.6800)	{8} (3.1818)
1	Female	UE		0.000181	0.000068	0.583410	0.020885	0.000032	0.071570	0.007171
2		USE	0.000181		0.322574	1.000000	0.998571	0.160428	0.999766	0.525651
3		LSE	0.000068	0.322574		0.880358	0.180639	0.996741	0.892954	0.999929
4		PE	0.583410	1.000000	0.880358		0.999981	0.967712	0.999996	0.834459
5	Male	UE	0.020885	0.998571	0.180639	0.999981		0.073374	0.991673	0.376305
6		USE	0.000032	0.160428	0.996741	0.967712	0.073374		0.977716	0.984206
7		LSE	0.071570	0.999766	0.892954	0.999996	0.991673	0.977716		0.861746
8		PE	0.007171	0.525651	0.999929	0.834459	0.376305	0.984206	0.861746

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education; Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

Tukey’s post hoc analysis (Table 6) clarified which group differences drove the education effect observed in the two-way ANOVA. Women with a university education reported the highest intention to purchase recyclable products (M = 4.30). This group produced most of the significant contrasts: their scores were significantly higher than those of women with an upper secondary education (p < 0.001) and women with a lower secondary education (p < 0.001).

When comparing across genders at the same education level, the university-education effect again emerged: university-educated women showed stronger motivation to buy recyclable products than university-educated men (p = 0.021), men with an upper secondary education (p < 0.001), and men with a primary education (p = 0.007). This confirms that the well-above-average scores of university-educated women are the main source of the overall education effect. All other groups—including every male category—differed only minimally, clustering between 3.2 and 3.9 points. These results suggest that, if we want to increase willingness to consider recyclability when shopping, the greatest room for improvement lies with those holding secondary-level qualifications, while university-educated women can naturally help to spread this positive attitude further.

3.3. Belief That Recycling Is Crucial for Environmental Protection

This section examines respondents’ conviction that recycling plays a critical role in environmental protection. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 7, and the ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD results appear in Table 8 and Table 9.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of belief that recycling is crucial for environmental protection.

Indicator			N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	−95.00%	+95.00%
Total			595	4.462185	0.949835	0.038939	4.385709	4.538661
Education	UE		250	4.640000	0.748761	0.047356	4.546731	4.733269
	USE		268	4.406716	0.961171	0.058713	4.291117	4.522316
	LSE		53	3.867925	1.359266	0.186710	3.493264	4.242585
	PE		24	4.541667	1.062367	0.216855	4.093069	4.990265
Gender	Female		344	4.578488	0.853531	0.046019	4.487973	4.669004
Gender	Male		251	4.302789	1.048786	0.066199	4.172410	4.433167
Gender vs. Education	UE	Female	161	4.776398	0.487021	0.038383	4.700596	4.852199
	UE	Male	89	4.393258	1.029320	0.109108	4.176430	4.610087
	USE	Female	142	4.535211	0.847708	0.071138	4.394576	4.675846
	USE	Male	126	4.261905	1.059650	0.094401	4.075073	4.448736
	LSE	Female	28	3.642857	1.544747	0.291930	3.043867	4.241848
	LSE	Male	25	4.120000	1.092398	0.218480	3.669080	4.570920
	PE	Female	13	4.615385	1.120897	0.310881	3.938033	5.292736
	PE	Male	11	4.454545	1.035725	0.312283	3.758736	5.150355

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education.

Table 7 summarizes the basic descriptive statistics for agreement with the belief that recycling is important for environmental protection. In the total sample (N = 595), the mean on the five-point scale was 4.46. Of respondents, 68.1% strongly agreed, 18.5% somewhat agreed, 7.4% were neutral, 3.7% somewhat disagreed, and 2.4% strongly disagreed. Analysis by education level showed an upward trend: those with a university education (n = 250) had the highest mean (M = 4.64, SD = 0.75), followed by upper secondary (n = 24; M = 4.54, SD = 1.06), lower secondary (n = 268; M = 4.41, SD = 0.96), and the lowest scores were among those with a primary education (n = 53; M = 3.87, SD = 1.36). By gender, women (n = 344) scored higher (M = 4.58, SD = 0.85) than men (n = 251; M = 4.30, SD = 1.05). This difference was most pronounced among university-educated respondents: women (M = 4.78, SD = 0.49) versus men (M = 4.39, SD = 1.03). Across all education levels, women consistently showed higher agreement than men. These findings suggest a strong belief in the importance of recycling in this population, with attitudes becoming more pronounced at higher education levels and slightly stronger among women than men.

Table 8. ANOVA statistics of belief that recycling is crucial for environmental protection.

Effect	df	Sum of Squares	Mean Square	F	p-Level
Gender	1	0.419	0.419	0.500	0.479585
Education	3	21.920	7.307	8.722	0.000011
Gender vs. Education	3	8.077	2.692	3.214	0.022587
Error	587	491.740	0.838
Total	594	535.899

Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

In a two-way ANOVA (Table 8) examining the effects of gender and education level on agreement with the belief that recycling is important for environmental protection, the main effect of gender was not statistically significant, F(1, 587) = 0.50, p = 0.480, indicating that men and women did not differ overall in their level of agreement. In contrast, the main effect of education was highly significant, F(3, 587) = 8.72, p < 0.001, confirming that attitudes toward recycling varied significantly across education levels. The interaction between gender and education was also significant, F(3, 587) = 3.21, p = 0.023, suggesting that gender differences in agreement depend on the level of education achieved, and thus H3 is accepted. This interaction aligns with the descriptive findings showing that, for example, university-educated women exhibit even stronger agreement than university-educated men, whereas the gender gap is smaller in the other education groups.

Table 9. Tukey test statistics of belief that recycling is crucial for environmental protection.

	Gender	Education	{1} (4.4720)	{2} (4.0211)	{3} (3.0357)	{4} (4.0769)	{5} (3.9663)	{6} (3.9286)	{7} (3.9600)	{8} (3.5455)
1	Female	UE		0.299543	0.000032	0.998761	0.032927	0.000090	0.019248	0.950766
2		USE	0.299543		0.000093	0.999989	0.946285	0.222070	0.420294	0.999993
3		LSE	0.000032	0.000093		0.033253	0.003859	0.026563	0.554637	0.198572
4		PE	0.998761	0.999989	0.033253		0.992211	0.889320	0.760834	0.999880
5	Male	UE	0.032927	0.946285	0.003859	0.992211		0.968943	0.891979	0.999999
6		USE	0.000090	0.222070	0.026563	0.889320	0.968943		0.996793	0.997753
7		LSE	0.019248	0.420294	0.554637	0.760834	0.891979	0.996793		0.973080
8		PE	0.950766	0.999993	0.198572	0.999880	0.999999	0.997753	0.973080

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education; Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis (Table 9) showed that most of the statistically significant differences involved the group with a lower secondary education, which differed systematically from the others in its attitude toward the importance of recycling. Women with a lower secondary education had significantly lower mean scores than women with a university education (p < 0.001), upper secondary education (p < 0.001), and primary education (p = 0.033). Both men and women with a lower secondary education also scored significantly lower than men with a university education (p = 0.004) and men with an upper secondary education (p = 0.027). Conversely, university-educated women showed higher agreement than university-educated men (p = 0.033), men with an upper secondary education (p < 0.001), and men with a lower secondary education (p = 0.019). Other paired comparisons—such as between university and upper secondary education within the same gender or between primary education across genders—were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). These findings highlight that the lowest education level is linked to a weaker belief in the importance of recycling and that gender differences are most pronounced among the highly educated, where women hold stronger attitudes than men. Although the absolute differences are small, they suggest that higher education further strengthens the already near-universal consensus on the value of recycling. This confirms that education not only shapes more detailed attitudes but also reinforces core environmental values.

3.4. Opinion That Reusing Materials Can Reduce Negative Impacts on Nature

This section presents agreement with the statement “Reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature,” with descriptive statistics in Table 10, two-way ANOVA results in Table 11, and Tukey’s HSD comparisons in Table 12.

Table 10. Descriptive statistics of opinion that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature.

Indicator			N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	−95.00%	+95.00%
Total			595	4.359664	1.014235	0.041580	4.278003	4.441325
Education	UE		250	4.532000	0.874089	0.055282	4.423120	4.640880
	USE		268	4.313433	1.016109	0.062069	4.191226	4.435639
	LSE		53	3.735849	1.273260	0.174896	3.384895	4.086803
	PE		24	4.458333	1.178767	0.240615	3.960583	4.956083
Gender	Female		344	4.473837	0.944162	0.050906	4.373710	4.573964
Gender	Male		251	4.203187	1.085610	0.068523	4.068231	4.338143
Gender vs. Education	UE	Female	161	4.670807	0.678015	0.053435	4.565278	4.776337
	UE	Male	89	4.280899	1.107708	0.117417	4.047558	4.514240
	USE	Female	142	4.443662	0.934179	0.078395	4.288681	4.598643
	USE	Male	126	4.166667	1.086278	0.096773	3.975140	4.358193
	LSE	Female	28	3.535714	1.452511	0.274499	2.972489	4.098939
	LSE	Male	25	3.960000	1.019804	0.203961	3.539046	4.380954
	PE	Female	13	4.384615	1.325296	0.367571	3.583747	5.185484
	PE	Male	11	4.545455	1.035725	0.312283	3.849645	5.241264

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education.

As shown in Table 10, the full sample of 595 respondents rated their agreement with the statement that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature at a mean of M = 4.36 on a five-point scale. Most respondents (62.5%) chose the highest level of agreement, 21.2% somewhat agreed, 9.1% were neutral, 4.2% somewhat disagreed, and 3.0% strongly disagreed. By education, university-educated respondents scored highest (M = 4.53), followed by those with a primary education (M = 4.46), upper secondary education (M = 4.31), and lowest were respondents with a lower secondary education (M = 3.74). Women (M = 4.47) showed slightly higher agreement than men (M = 4.20). The gender gap was largest among the highly educated: university-educated women (M = 4.67; SD = 0.68) had stronger beliefs in the benefits of reuse than university-educated men (M = 4.28; SD = 1.11). In the other education groups (upper secondary, primary, lower secondary), gender differences were smaller but consistently favored women. These findings support previous results: higher education and female gender are associated with stronger beliefs in the environmental benefits of material reuse.

Table 11. ANOVA statistics of opinion that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature.

Effect	df	Sum of Squares	Mean Square	F	p-Level
Gender	1	0.024	0.024	0.025	0.874070
Education	3	23.379	7.793	8.085	0.000028
Gender vs. Education	3	8.165	2.722	2.824	0.038131
Error	587	565.808	0.964
Total	594	611.032

Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

A two-way ANOVA (Table 11) examining the effects of gender and education level on agreement with the statement “I believe that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature” showed that the main effect of gender was not statistically significant, F(1, 587) = 0.03, p = 0.874, indicating that men and women did not differ overall in this attitude. The main effect of education was highly significant, F(3, 587) = 8.09, p < 0.001, confirming that attitudes vary across educational groups. The interaction between gender and education was also significant, F(3, 587) = 2.82, p = 0.038, meaning that gender differences in perceptions of the benefits of reuse depend on education level, thereby confirming H4. These results support the descriptive findings: although gender alone does not explain the variability in attitude, higher education plays a major role, and the gender–attitude relationship is especially pronounced among the most highly educated.

Table 12. Tukey test statistics of opinion that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature.

	Gender	Education	{1} (4.4720)	{2} (4.0211)	{3} (3.0357)	{4} (4.0769)	{5} (3.9663)	{6} (3.9286)	{7} (3.9600)	{8} (3.5455)
1	Female	UE		0.475170	0.000033	0.972965	0.053666	0.000439	0.017310	0.999912
2		USE	0.475170		0.000230	0.999999	0.924362	0.290505	0.309506	0.999979
3		LSE	0.000033	0.000230		0.164510	0.010883	0.043751	0.768103	0.074513
4		PE	0.972965	0.999999	0.164510		0.999966	0.994930	0.911780	0.999925
5	Male	UE	0.053666	0.924362	0.010883	0.999966		0.990793	0.836709	0.990605
6		USE	0.000439	0.290505	0.043751	0.994930	0.990793		0.979672	0.924074
7		LSE	0.017310	0.309506	0.768103	0.911780	0.836709	0.979672		0.720771
8		PE	0.999912	0.999979	0.074513	0.999925	0.990605	0.924074	0.720771

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education. Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

Tukey’s HSD post hoc (Table 12) analysis showed that the most pronounced differences involved the lower secondary education group. Women with a lower secondary education had significantly lower agreement than university-educated women (p < 0.001) and women with an upper secondary education (p < 0.001). Men with a lower secondary education also scored lower than university-educated men (p = 0.017), and university-educated men differed from men with an upper secondary education (p < 0.001). Among gender comparisons, university-educated women stood out, showing stronger belief in the benefits of material reuse than men with an upper secondary education (p < 0.001) and men with a lower secondary education (p = 0.017). Other paired comparisons such as between university and upper secondary education within the same gender or between primary education groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). These results confirm that education level is the key factor driving differences in beliefs about the environmental benefits of material reuse; especially, the lowest education level is associated with significantly lower agreement while some gender differences emerge mainly when comparing highly educated groups.

The results across all examined areas—including the perceived importance of recycling, the intention to purchase recyclable products, belief in the environmental benefits of recycling and reuse, and willingness to improve personal recycling behavior—showed a consistent trend. Education emerged as the strongest predictor of environmental attitudes in all cases, with respondents holding a university degree consistently achieving higher scores. Gender alone had a weaker influence; however, when combined with education, it was found that women with higher education demonstrated the most prominent pro-environmental attitudes and intentions. Differences among men across educational levels were less pronounced. These recurring patterns suggest that targeted environmental education and interventions should primarily focus on groups with lower levels of education, with women in these groups representing a potentially strong driver of positive change within communities.

3.5. Intention to Improve Personal Recycling Behaviors

This section examines respondents’ intention to improve personal recycling behaviors by education level and gender. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 13, two-way ANOVA results in Table 14, and Tukey’s HSD post hoc comparisons in Table 15.

Table 13. Descriptive statistics of intention to improve personal recycling behaviors.

Indicator			N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	−95.00%	+95.00%
Total			595	4.018487	0.961197	0.039405	3.941097	4.095878
Education	UE		250	4.264000	0.860970	0.054453	4.156754	4.371246
	USE		268	3.873134	0.990000	0.060474	3.754068	3.992201
	LSE		53	3.641509	1.075860	0.147781	3.344966	3.938053
	PE		24	3.916667	0.775532	0.158305	3.589188	4.244145
Gender	Female		344	4.171512	0.878776	0.047380	4.078319	4.264704
Gender	Male		251	3.808765	1.029215	0.064963	3.680820	3.936710
Gender vs. Education	UE	Female	161	4.366460	0.730492	0.057571	4.252763	4.480156
	UE	Male	89	4.078652	1.035997	0.109815	3.860417	4.296887
	USE	Female	142	4.077465	0.899755	0.075506	3.928195	4.226735
	USE	Male	126	3.642857	1.038956	0.092558	3.459674	3.826040
	LSE	Female	28	3.535714	1.201300	0.227024	3.069899	4.001530
	LSE	Male	25	3.760000	0.925563	0.185113	3.377946	4.142054
	PE	Female	13	4.153846	0.800641	0.222058	3.670024	4.637669
	PE	Male	11	3.636364	0.674200	0.203279	3.183430	4.089297

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education.

As shown in Table 13, the full sample of respondents showed a willingness to improve their recycling behavior with a mean of M = 4.02 (SD = 0.96; 95% CI [3.94, 4.10]) on a five-point scale. In total, 38.0% of respondents strongly agreed and 33.6% somewhat agreed, while 22.0% were neutral and only 6.3% somewhat or strongly disagreed. By education level, university-educated respondents (n = 250) reported the highest motivation (M = 4.26; SD = 0.86; 95% CI [4.16, 4.37]), followed by those with a primary education (n = 24; M = 3.92; SD = 0.78), upper secondary education (n = 268; M = 3.87; SD = 0.99), and lower secondary education (n = 53; M = 3.64; SD = 1.08). By gender, women (n = 344) showed higher willingness (M = 4.17; SD = 0.88; 95% CI [4.08, 4.26]) than men (n = 251; M = 3.81; SD = 1.03; 95% CI [3.68, 3.94]). This gender gap persisted across all education levels and was most pronounced among the university-educated: women (n = 161) M = 4.37 (SD = 0.73) versus men (n = 89) M = 4.08 (SD = 1.04). A similar, though smaller, difference appeared in the upper secondary group: women (n = 142) M = 4.08 versus men (n = 126) M = 3.64. These findings indicate a generally high willingness to enhance personal recycling practices, with the strongest motivation observed among women and those with higher education.

Table 14. ANOVA statistics of intention to improve personal recycling behaviors.

Effect	df	Sum of Squares	Mean Square	F	p-Level
Gender	1	3.738	3.738	4.382	0.036747
Education	3	23.295	7.765	9.104	0.000007
Gender vs. Education	3	5.081	1.694	1.986	0.114953
Error	587	500.667	0.853
Total	594	548.797

Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

A two-way ANOVA (Table 14) examined the effects of gender and education level on respondents’ willingness to improve their recycling behavior. The main effect of gender was statistically significant, F(1, 587) = 4.38, p = 0.037, indicating that women and men differ overall in their willingness to enhance recycling habits. The main effect of education level was also highly significant, F(3, 587) = 9.10, p < 0.001, confirming differences among the education groups. The interaction between gender and education was not significant, F(3, 587) = 1.99, p = 0.115, suggesting that the gender gap is consistent across all education levels, and H5 is consequently rejected. These findings align with the descriptive results: women generally report a higher willingness to improve their recycling behavior than men, and this willingness increases with higher education.

Table 15. Tukey test statistics of intention to improve personal recycling behaviors.

	Gender	Education	{1} (4.4720)	{2} (4.0211)	{3} (3.0357)	{4} (4.0769)	{5} (3.9663)	{6} (3.9286)	{7} (3.9600)	{8} (3.5455)
1	Female	UE		0.117028	0.000319	0.993246	0.261656	0.000032	0.046608	0.179989
2		USE	0.117028		0.086085	0.999993	1.000000	0.003042	0.759635	0.793538
3		LSE	0.000319	0.086085		0.485685	0.118491	0.999330	0.987657	0.999988
4		PE	0.993246	0.999993	0.485685		0.999994	0.551312	0.917697	0.871993
5	Male	UE	0.261656	1.000000	0.118491	0.999994		0.015121	0.794522	0.808640
6		USE	0.000032	0.003042	0.999330	0.551312	0.015121		0.999115	1.000000
7		LSE	0.046608	0.759635	0.987657	0.917697	0.794522	0.999115		0.999956
8		PE	0.179989	0.793538	0.999988	0.871993	0.808640	1.000000	0.999956

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education. Statistically significant differences are shown in red.

In Table 15, Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis revealed several significant pairwise differences in willingness to improve recycling behavior. Lower education levels were linked to significantly lower willingness, especially among women: women with a lower secondary education scored significantly lower than women with a university education (p < 0.001). Among men, those with a university education showed greater willingness than those with an upper secondary education (p = 0.015). Women with an upper secondary education were more willing than men with the same level (p = 0.003). Combined comparisons also confirmed that university-educated women were more motivated than men with an upper secondary education (p < 0.001) and men with a lower secondary education (p = 0.047). Other comparisons within the same education level were not significant. These results underscore that education level is the primary factor influencing willingness to improve recycling behavior, with a secondary contribution from female gender among equally educated groups.

4. Discussion

4.1. Theoretical Context and Importance of Recycling

Environmental degradation drives society to seek sustainable solutions. One such solution is recycling, which reduces the need for virgin raw materials and limits the amount of waste sent to landfills. However, the success of recycling depends largely on individuals’ behaviors and attitudes, which are influenced by multiple factors. The research of Oztekin et al. [48] confirms that women hold stronger environmental attitudes than men, although this does not always translate into higher levels of practical engagement. Conversely, men’s engagement is often dependent on their prior experience [48]. Education also plays a significant role in shaping environmental awareness by developing the ability to perceive the consequences of one’s actions. A higher level of education furthermore promotes a willingness to contribute to solving environmental problems [57,58,59]. Since the interaction between gender and education is underexplored in the Slovak Republic specifically, whether the effect of education on environmental attitudes depends on gender and vice versa, this research extends current knowledge by providing a detailed analysis of the combined impact of these factors on various aspects of pro-environmental attitudes. To achieve this, the study applied the PCI (Perceived Characteristics of Innovating) framework to a sample of nearly 600 respondents across five domains.

4.2. Key Empirical Findings: Education, Gender and Recycling

A synthesis of the results across all five domains shows that recycling is viewed as important by most respondents, who largely agreed with its significance. This finding suggests that environmental awareness is already widespread in the Slovak population, likely reflecting the growing visibility of sustainability in public discourse and national waste policies. However, the observed variations between education levels point to uneven access to environmental literacy, as confirmed by previous European research linking formal education with sustainability knowledge [59,65]. Attitudes were strongly pro-environmental, suggesting a high level of environmental awareness in the population. Comparing groups revealed that education level significantly influences the perceived importance of recycling—higher education corresponds with stronger agreement. In contrast, gender alone was not a significant factor, as differences between men and women did not reach statistical significance. An interesting finding, however, was the interaction between gender and education, implying that the effect of education on attitudes differs for men and women. For example, women with university degrees perceived the importance of recycling significantly more strongly than women with only secondary education. Men fell between these two poles, with less pronounced differences among their education groups. These results suggest that education is a strong determinant of pro-recycling attitudes especially among women, while gender by itself has no significant effect without considering education level.

The results of the study on the intention to purchase recyclable products show that most respondents support this intention, with responses generally leaning toward agreement. Although some participants were neutral or disagreed, the majority favored buying recyclable items. Education again emerged as a significant factor: respondents with higher education demonstrated a greater willingness to consider recyclability in their purchasing decisions. Gender showed a slight trend—women scored somewhat higher than men—but this difference was not statistically significant and did not vary across education levels. Post hoc analysis revealed that university-educated women exhibited the highest intention to purchase recyclable products; their scores significantly exceeded those of all other groups and accounted for most of the education-related differences. Among the remaining groups, especially men regardless of education, the differences were minimal. These findings confirm that formal education, particularly among women, plays a key role in motivating the purchase of more environmentally friendly products.

The pronounced role of education in shaping purchase intentions implies that knowledge and cognitive skills acquired through formal schooling enable individuals to better evaluate product information, including recyclability labels. This aligns with Wang et al. [15], who argued that consumer decision-making around circular products is strongly mediated by informational clarity. In Slovakia, this suggests that enhancing public understanding of eco-labels and product certifications may be an effective lever to shift purchasing behavior, especially among those with only secondary education.

Respondents in the survey generally hold a strong belief that recycling is important for environmental protection. This conviction is widespread across the entire population but is most pronounced among those with higher education levels. The higher an individual’s education, the stronger their attitude toward the importance of recycling. Gender alone does not play a statistically significant role, although women generally express slightly greater agreement than men. This difference is most marked among university-educated respondents, where women show a stronger stance than men with the same education level. In contrast, those with the lowest education level exhibit the weakest belief in the importance of recycling and differ systematically from all other groups. Overall, these findings demonstrate that education significantly influences attitudes toward recycling, with higher education reinforcing an already existing consensus on its importance. Thus, education plays a key role in shaping and strengthening core environmental values.

Interestingly, despite high overall agreement, individuals with lower education showed weaker convictions, which may reflect limited exposure to structured environmental education. This is consistent with findings from Hungary and the Czech Republic, where environmental values were more pronounced among higher-educated cohorts exposed to targeted awareness programs [64,66]. These patterns emphasize that formal education serves not only as a knowledge source but also as a channel for cultivating pro-environmental norms.

Respondents generally strongly agreed that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature. This attitude was widespread across the entire sample, with stronger agreement observed among those with higher education. University-educated individuals showed the highest environmental conviction, whereas those with a lower secondary education expressed significantly weaker agreement. Women reported slightly higher agreement than men, especially among the university-educated, where the gender gap was most pronounced. In other education groups, gender differences were smaller but still favored women. Statistical analysis indicated that gender alone did not significantly influence attitudes toward material reuse, whereas education played a substantial role. The interaction between gender and education was significant primarily among the university-educated, with women in this group exhibiting stronger environmental attitudes than men. These findings suggest that education is the key determinant of pro-reuse attitudes and that higher education particularly reinforces beliefs in the value of material reuse, especially among women.

Respondents generally expressed a high willingness to improve their willingness to improve their recycling practices. Those with a university education showed the greatest motivation for positive change, while individuals with only a lower secondary education exhibited the lowest willingness. Women reported higher willingness than men across all education levels, with the largest gender gap among the university-educated. Statistical analysis confirmed that both gender and education level significantly influence intentions to adopt better recycling habits. Although women are generally more willing at every education level, the interaction between gender and education was not statistically significant, indicating a consistent female advantage. Post hoc analyses revealed the largest differences between women with low versus high education and between university-educated men and those with an upper secondary education. Notably, pronounced gender gaps also appeared among those without secondary graduation. Overall, these results demonstrate that education level is the decisive factor in one’s intention to improve recycling practices, with female gender providing a further, though secondary, boost. These findings are based on self-reported intentions rather than observed behavior, which should be considered when interpreting the results.

The stronger willingness among women, particularly those with a university education, resonates with eco-feminist theories emphasizing socialization-based care orientations [56]. However, the lack of large gender gaps at lower education levels suggests that gender differences emerge primarily when education amplifies pre-existing values. For policy, this underscores the value of gender-sensitive educational interventions; using female community leaders or educators to model sustainable practices could leverage this effect.

Based on the study’s findings, gender differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors do occur, but their importance is often conditioned by education level. Overall, women show slightly higher agreement with environmental statements and a greater willingness to act sustainably than men. This trend is most pronounced among the university-educated, where women more frequently express stronger convictions about the importance of recycling, material reuse, and a willingness to improve their environmental behavior. However, gender differences in most domains are statistically non-significant or modest, and in some cases—particularly at lower education levels—the gaps between men and women disappear. The one exception is the intention to improve recycling habits, where gender had a statistically significant effect: women reported higher motivation across all education groups. Taken together, these results illustrate that education not only predicts pro-environmental attitudes but also interacts with gender in ways that could inform targeted interventions. For Slovakia, prioritizing accessible recycling education for less-educated groups, while simultaneously leveraging the stronger pro-environmental orientation of educated women as social influencers, could be a practical strategy to strengthen recycling engagement across the population.

4.3. Underlying Mechanisms: Why Gender Matters

Previous research indicates that gender differences in pro-environmental behavior may be mediated by multiple factors [67,68]. Hoffmann et al. [69] found that temporal orientation (e.g., future versus past) and gender influence decision-making about supporting ecological projects. Desrochers et al. [70] found that personality traits such as conscientiousness and agreeableness contribute to higher environmental engagement among women, who in their study appeared more consistent. Similarly, our results demonstrate that women, particularly those with higher education, reported significantly stronger recycling attitudes and intentions. This aligns with the notion that gendered socialization processes, when combined with education-driven knowledge acquisition, amplify pro-environmental engagement. Echavarren [56] shows that gender-egalitarian attitudes are strongly correlated with environmental concern, thereby supporting an eco-feminist perspective. In our Slovak sample, this perspective helps to explain why the interaction of gender and education produced the strongest differences: education appears to act as a catalyst that transforms underlying value orientations into active recycling behaviors, especially among women. Similarly, Carrier [71] showed in a longitudinal study that girls held more positive attitudes toward environmental science than boys, with important implications for teaching methods and for encouraging their interest in environmental fields. The findings of Hand [72] confirm that biological differences between genders can influence environmental behavior. A study in Hungary [66] also suggests that school environmental policies and students’ socioeconomic backgrounds have a major impact on their environmental attitudes and behaviors, although gender plays a smaller yet still statistically significant role. Gender differences can even be observed in private, public, and transport-related environmental behaviors [73].

This is evident in our data, where gender differences were minimal among respondents with lower education but widened significantly in the higher-education groups. This suggests that environmental literacy not only raises awareness but also interacts with gendered value systems, producing differentiated behavioral outcomes.

In the Slovak cultural context, traditional gender roles often assign women the primary responsibility for managing the household and caring for family well-being. When combined with formal education, this may further strengthen their higher engagement in recycling practices [74]. Previous research shows that recycling is more frequently perceived as part of “women’s work” stemming from the traditional division of household duties [75,76] and that women generally participate more often in environmental practices such as waste sorting [49,76].

In contrast, our data suggest that even men with higher education may view recycling more in terms of practical or economic benefits rather than as a matter of personal or shared responsibility. This points to different motivational pathways. These gender differences are linked to everyday cultural patterns and the concept of “gender order”—that is, historically shaped relationships between men and women within the household [77].

Since these conclusions are based on self-reported intentions, further qualitative research—such as focus groups or in-depth interviews—would help to uncover the underlying values and beliefs influencing these gender patterns. Additionally, bibliometric analyses highlight the need for more studies focused on gender stereotypes and the cultural dimensions of environmental behavior [78].

Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of integrating both individual (e.g., gendered value orientations) and contextual (e.g., education-driven literacy) factors when designing recycling education strategies tailored for Slovakia.

4.4. Underlying Mechanisms: Why Education Matters

Formal education level played a significant and consistent role across all areas examined in our study. Respondents with higher education showed stronger agreement with statements about the importance of recycling, greater belief in the environmental benefits of material reuse, higher intention to purchase recyclable products, and greater willingness to improve their recycling behavior. Education emerged as the strongest predictor of both environmental attitudes and behaviors. Individuals with only a lower secondary education consistently exhibited weaker environmental attitudes and lower motivation to act sustainably. In contrast, university-educated respondents—regardless of gender—demonstrated the highest levels of environmental awareness and willingness to change their behavior, underscoring the crucial role of education in shaping ecological values.

The findings of our study confirm the conclusions of previous research regarding the positive relationship between formal education level and pro-environmental attitudes. Du et al. [79] indicate that increased schooling leads to more liberal attitudes toward gender roles, which is also associated with higher environmental awareness. Chankrajang and Muttarak [65], based on research in Thailand, demonstrated that higher formal education significantly increases the likelihood of environmentally responsible behavior. Mendes et al. [80] reached similar conclusions, finding that students with greater environmental knowledge exhibit higher levels of environmentally friendly behavior, with education playing a key role. According to Ibáñez et al. [64], university is precisely the setting in which environmental attitudes can be shaped. This is confirmed by Diez Ojeda et al. [81], who found that a civic science educational program significantly improved future teachers’ environmental attitudes, with no differences between genders. Similarly, Wang et al. [59] found that in China, education supported environmental attitudes and behavior primarily through the mediating effect of environmental knowledge. These findings are further supported by Shu [82], who reported that education significantly enhances gender-egalitarian attitudes—particularly among women—which, in turn, influences their environmental perspectives. In the Philippines, it has been found that education increases the likelihood of engaging in environmentally friendly behavior by 3.3%, primarily due to greater awareness of climate change [83].

4.5. Interaction Effects Between Gender and Education

The findings on the interaction between gender and education in our study revealed several notable points. In areas such as the perceived importance of recycling and the intention to purchase recyclable products, university-educated women formed one of the highest-scoring groups. Their attitudes and intentions significantly exceeded those of all other groups and accounted for most of the statistically significant differences. Men generally fell between these extremes, and differences among men’s education levels were less pronounced.

The gender–education interaction was significant for perceptions of recycling as a tool for environmental protection and for attitudes toward material reuse, where higher-educated women consistently showed the strongest pro-environmental views. However, the interaction was not significant for the intention to improve recycling behavior, suggesting that women’s motivation in this area is strong across all education levels. Overall, although gender alone plays a smaller role, when combined with a high level of education it can substantially strengthen ecological attitudes and behaviors. These results underscore the need for targeted environmental education that incorporates gender-sensitive approaches.

The interaction between gender and education has been the subject of long-term study, as demonstrated by Meagher and Shu [84], who examined gender- and education-based differences in attitudes toward gender roles in the United States from 1977 to 2018. Statistically significant differences in environmental attitudes by school type and gender were also confirmed in research conducted in Turkey [85]. In terms of sample characteristics, the research included 595 respondents with a balanced gender distribution (57.8% women and 42.2% men) and various levels of education. The largest groups were respondents with a university education (42.0%) and those with an upper secondary education (45.0%), while respondents with a lower secondary (8.9%) and primary education (4.0%) were less represented. This composition ensured sufficient subgroup sizes for comparing the interaction between gender and education. The largest subgroups were women with a university education (27.1%) and men with an upper secondary education (21.2%).

The interaction between gender and education was also confirmed in a study conducted in Ethiopia [86]. This research confirmed that environmental knowledge gained in schools significantly influences attitudes and behavior, with gender affecting both the extent of that knowledge and the attitudes themselves. Schönfelder and Bogner [87] found, in a study of secondary students, that positive environmental values were linked to greater motivation to learn natural sciences—an effect especially strong among girls. Decker and Morrison [88] reached similar conclusions, finding that outdoor educators regard gender as an important factor that can shape children’s behavior in ecological learning. Moreover, environmental education among university students significantly strengthens environmental attitudes, with women exhibiting stronger cognitive and emotional responses to ecological issues [64]. Clover [89] likewise argues that women play a key role in sustainability through alternative forms of knowledge. These findings, across diverse cultural contexts, underscore the importance of education as a key driver of environmentally responsible behavior and highlight the need to pay particular attention to gender.

4.6. Reasons for the Influence of Gender, Education, and Their Interaction on Environmental Attitudes

Our findings confirm that women with higher education show the strongest pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. This reflects the combined effect of two key factors: gender-based value orientation and the cognitive support provided by education. Women tend to demonstrate higher levels of environmental awareness and engagement than men. This is often explained by socialization patterns that emphasize care, empathy, and responsibility [70,90,91]. Education increases environmental awareness, critical thinking, and self-efficacy—the belief that individual behavior can influence the state of the environment [64,92,93]. The interaction between gender and education shows that education strengthens the already existing ecological sensitivity in women. In contrast, the effect of education on men is weaker and often influenced by pragmatic or economic motivations [90,94]. Moreover, some studies show that gender differences are most visible at lower education levels, highlighting the importance of early environmental education [90,95,96]. These findings support the need for targeted and gender-sensitive environmental education, which considers the different starting points of each group—especially less-educated men and women, where there is the greatest potential for behavior change [97,98,99,100].

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Research Question and Hypotheses

The overarching research question was as follows:

Do gender and educational level influence respondents’ attitudes toward circular practices?

Based on this question, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H1: There is a significant interaction between gender and education on the perceived importance of recycling.
H2: There is a significant interaction between gender and education on the intention to purchase recyclable products.
H3: There is a significant interaction between gender and education in beliefs about recycling’s role in environmental protection.
H4: There is a significant interaction between gender and the belief that reusing materials can reduce negative environmental impacts.
H5: There is a significant interaction between gender and education on intentions to improve personal recycling behaviors.

5.2. Study Design and Instrumentation

The present study was conducted in 2024 using an online questionnaire created with Google Docs. Adopting the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating (PCI) framework [62,63], the original instrument was modified to assess and predict consumers’ intentions to engage in circular practices. Five items measured participants’ attitudes toward recycling and material reuse:

The importance of recycling.
Intention to purchase products that are recyclable.
Belief that recycling is crucial for environmental protection.
Opinion that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature.
Intention to improve personal recycling behaviors.

To ensure that our research not only assessed participants’ attitudes toward recycling but also broader pro-environmental behaviors, five items were included, each rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Somewhat disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Somewhat agree; 5 = Strongly agree). Respondents expressed their opinion on the extent to which they agree with the following statements:

Recycling is important to me.
When making purchases, I pay attention to whether the product is recyclable.
I believe that recycling is crucial for environmental protection.
I believe that reusing materials can reduce negative impacts on nature.
I am convinced that changing my daily routines is crucial for the long-term sustainability of our planet.

5.3. Sampling and Sample Size Determination

To ensure adequate precision and reliability given an unknown population proportion, Cochran’s formula for sample size estimation was applied [101]:

n_{0} = \frac{Z^{2} p q}{e^{2}}

(1)

where

Z is the critical value corresponding to the chosen reliability of the estimate;
p is the estimated proportion of the population which has the attribute in question;
q is 1 − p;
e is the desired level of precision (i.e., the margin of error).

At a 95% confidence level (critical value Z = 1.96) and a desired margin of error of ±5%, the minimum effective sample size was calculated as n = 385.

5.4. Data Collection and Demographics

The questionnaire was publicly available online. It was distributed through various digital channels (university platforms, social media, and community groups) to reach a broad audience. Participation was voluntary. Respondents could freely complete the questionnaire within the given time period. A total of 595 individuals completed the survey. The composition of the research sample is presented in Table 16.

5.5. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

Survey responses were exported from Google Docs and processed using Statistica 12.

For each composite measure and for each combination of gender and education level, the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated. These metrics provided an overview of the central tendencies and the variability of respondents’ answers.

To examine the joint effects of gender (male vs. female) and education level (primary, lower secondary, upper secondary, and university) on participants’ circular practice attitudes and intentions, a separate two-way ANOVA was conducted.

ANOVA is quite robust to different variances if the n values are equal and large enough.

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of gender and education level on respondents’ scores. The dependent variable was the quantitative score from the five-point Likert scale, making ANOVA appropriate. Quota sampling ensured random selection with proportional representation of gender and education, and each participant was assigned independently.

The two-way ANOVA produced F-statistics for the main effects of gender and education and for their interaction, which were compared against critical F-values at α = 0.05. To identify which specific group pairs differed significantly, Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests (α = 0.05) were performed. This procedure adjusts p-values for multiple comparisons and provides confidence intervals for differences between each gender–education combination.

6. Conclusions

The study examined how gender and education both independently and in interaction shape recycling attitudes and intentions in the Slovak Republic. Results confirmed that higher education strongly correlates with pro-recycling attitudes and intentions, while women tend to engage more in circular practices than men. Overall, respondents overwhelmingly valued recycling and material reuse as key to environmental protection.

Education emerged as the primary driver: respondents with university degrees held the strongest environmental convictions and purchase intentions, whereas those with a lower secondary education showed the weakest. Gender alone had a smaller effect, though university-educated women exhibited the highest motivation for sustainable behavior. Interaction effects were evident but reached statistical significance only in certain cases.

These findings suggest that environmental education and awareness campaigns should especially target groups with lower education levels, tailoring content to their needs and language skills. Women in this cohort offer both significant improvement potential and the ability to influence their communities, while for men—whose education effect was less pronounced—strategies might include leveraging social norms or economic incentives. More broadly, strengthening formal and informal environmental literacy across the population remains essential.

As a practical recommendation, we suggest strengthening recycling education in Slovakia through targeted environmental literacy programs integrated into both formal education and community initiatives. Implementing hands-on recycling workshops in schools, information campaigns on social media, and collaboration with local governments to provide clear waste-sorting guidelines could significantly improve recycling habits. Additionally, workplace training and motivational mechanisms (e.g., deposit-return systems for packaging) could further encourage pro-environmental behavior among the population. Beyond traditional educational campaigns, we recommend introducing interactive and gamified approaches to support recycling habits. For example, mobile applications connected to municipal waste collection systems could reward households with points for correct sorting, which could be redeemed for public services or discounts at local businesses. Pilot projects could also include “recycling kiosks” in urban areas, where citizens would receive immediate feedback on their sorting accuracy and its environmental impact. Furthermore, partnerships with local influencers or community leaders could help integrate recycling messages into popular culture and make environmental behavior more visible and socially appealing.

Limitations include the Slovak sample, which may restrict generalizability, and the focus on only gender and education; other factors like income, age, or regional differences warrant future study. The observed gender education interaction, though suggestive, was sometimes underpowered due to subgroup sizes, so findings should be interpreted with these constraints in mind.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L. and M.O.; methodology, S.L. and M.O.; software, M.O.; validation, M.O.; formal analysis, S.L. and M.O.; investigation, S.L. and M.O.; resources, S.L. and M.O.; data curation, S.L. and M.O.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L. and M.O.; writing—review and editing, S.L. and M.O.; visualization, S.L. and M.O.; supervision, S.L. and M.O.; project administration, S.L. and M.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Progressive Research of Performance Properties of Wood-based Materials and Products (LignoPro), ITMS: 313011T720 (100%) supported by the Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure (OPII) funded by the ERDF.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

This publication is the result of the project implementation: Progressive Research of Performance Properties of Wood-based Materials and Products (LignoPro); ITMS: 313011T720 (100%) supported by the Operational Programme Integrated Infrastructure (OPII) funded by the ERDF.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Goyal, S.; Esposito, M.; Kapoor, A. Circular economy business models in developing economies: Lessons from India on reduce, recycle, and reuse paradigms. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2018, 60, 729–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sanguino, R.; Barroso, A.; Fernández-Rodríguez, S.; Sanchez-Hernandez, M. Current trends in economy, sustainable development, and energy: A circular economy view. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kamyshnikov, I.N.; Smirnova, T.S.; Tikhonov, A.I. Sustainable development: Waste Recycling and Circular Economy. In Sustainable Development: Society, Ecology, Economy; Semenov, A.V., Sokolov, I.A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. J. Bus. Res. 1994, 30, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Barr, S.; Gilg, A.; Ford, N. Differences between household waste reduction, reuse and recycling behaviour: A study of reported behaviours, intentions and explanatory variables. Environ. Sci. Sociol. 2001, 6, 289–304. [Google Scholar]
Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Escario, J.J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Casaló, L.V. The influence of environmental attitudes and perceived effectiveness on recycling, reducing, and reusing packaging materials in Spain. Waste Manag. 2020, 113, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Piluso, N. Is corporate social responsibility effective in improving environmental quality? Literature review. Environ. Econ. 2024, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Razzaq, A.; Sharif, A.; Afshan, S.; Li, C.J. Do climate technologies and recycling asymmetrically mitigate consumption-based carbon emissions in the United States? New insights from Quantile ARDL. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 186, 122138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ferraresi, M.; Mazzanti, M.; Mazzarano, M.; Rizzo, L.; Secomandi, R. Waste recycling and yardstick competition among Italian provinces after the EU Waste Framework Directive. Reg. Stud. 2023, 57, 1535–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Saini, N.; Yadav, S.; Rose, N.M. A comparative study of physical properties of yarns and fabrics produced from fresh and recycled fibres. Curr. Sci. 2020, 118, 791–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
İkikat Tümer, E.; Akbay, S.; Palabıyık, E. The economic contribution of recycling in Kahramanmaras. Ksu Tarim Ve Doga Derg. Ksu J. Agric. Nat. 2018, 21, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ma, Y.M.; Teng, Y.; Deng, Z.Z.; Yang, Z.L. Does firms’ carbon disclosure increase consumers’ recycling willingness and firms’ recycling performance? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 2451–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, Y.; Luo, S.Y.; Fan, J.X.; Zhen, L. The multidepot vehicle routing problem with intelligent recycling prices and transportation resource sharing. Transp. Res. Part E-Logist. Transp. Rev. 2024, 185, 103503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Laffourgue, G.; Lorang, E. Recycling under environmental, climate and resource constraints. Resour. Energy Econ. 2022, 67, 101278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, M.; Kinnaman, T.C. Is incineration repressing recycling? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2022, 111, 102593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dhir, A.; Koshta, N.; Goyal, R.K.; Sakashita, M.; Almotairi, M. Behavioral reasoning theory (BRT) perspectives on E-waste recycling and management. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ertz, M.; Addar, W.; Ouerghemmi, C.; Takaffoli, M. Overview of factors influencing consumer engagement with plastic recycling. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2023, 12, e493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De Fano, D.; Schena, R.; Russo, A. Empowering plastic recycling: Empirical investigation on the influence of social media on consumer behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 182, 106269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cheng, M.J.; Hung, S.W.; Tsai, H.H.; Chou, Y.C. Fostering environmentally responsible consumer behavior: A hierarchical approach toward smartphone recycling. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 69, 2326–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Islam, M.T.; Huda, N.; Baumber, A.; Hossain, R.; Sahajwalla, V. Waste battery disposal and recycling behavior: A study on the Australian perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 58980–59001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gheorghe, I.R.; Purcarea, V.L.; Gheorghe, C.M. Antecedents of consumer intentions towards e-waste recycling. A perspective on the toy industry from Romania. Amfiteatru Econ. 2023, 25, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Thukral, S.; Shree, D.; Singhal, S. Consumer behaviour towards storage, disposal and recycling of e-waste: Systematic review and future research prospects. Benchmarking-Int. J. 2023, 30, 1021–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Xiao, L.; Fu, B.; Lin, T.; Meng, L.; Zhang, O.; Gao, L. Promoting and maintaining public participation in waste separation policies—A comparative study in Shanghai, China. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2023, 12, 100112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gupta, K.; Singh, N. Consumer attitude towards sustainable living in India. Soc. Responsib. J. 2021, 17, 301–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wojciechowska, P.; Wiszumirska, K. Sustainable communication in the B2C Market—The impact of packaging. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Norton, V.; Waters, C.; Oloyede, O.O.; Lignou, S. Exploring consumers’ understanding and perception of sustainable food packaging in the UK. Foods 2022, 11, 3424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Amir Kavei, F.; Savoldi, L. Recycling behaviour of Italian citizens in connection with the clarity of on-pack labels. A bottom-up survey. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
van Birgelen, M.; Semeijn, J.; Keicher, M. Packaging and proenvironmental consumption behavior: Investigating purchase and disposal decisions for beverages. Environ. Behav. 2008, 41, 125–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Avrami, E.; Filatov, E.A.; Durmanov, A.S.; Shkalenko, A.V.; Kosov, M.E.; Ponkratov, V.V.; Pozdnyaev, A.; Nikolaeva, I.V. A new concept of consumer behavior in the circular economy. Emerg. Sci. J. 2024, 8, 1536–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mielinger, E.; Weinrich, R. Insights into plastic food packaging waste sorting behaviour: A focus group study among consumers in Germany. Waste Manag. 2024, 178, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cerqueira-Streit, J.A.; Guarnieri, P.; de Oliveira, L.H.; Demajorovic, J. From trash to profit: How packaging waste management has driven the circular economy—An integrative literature review. Logistics 2023, 7, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Testa, F.; Marullo, C.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; di Iorio, V. Exploring circular consumption: Circular attitudes and their influence on consumer behavior across the product lifecycle. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 6961–6983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ungerman, O.; Dedková, J. Consumer behavior in the model of the circular economy in the field of handling discarded items. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0300707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Flygansvaer, B.; Samuelsen, A.G.; Stoyle, R.V. The power of nudging: How adaptations in reverse logistics systems can improve end-consumer recycling behavior. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2021, 51, 958–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, Y.; Yang, D.D.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Y. Motivating recycling behavior-Which incentives work, and why? Psychol. Mark. 2021, 38, 1525–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zhang, X.D.; Gong, X.S.; Jiang, J. Dump or recycle? Nostalgia and consumer recycling behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 594–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ferrara, I.; Missios, P. Does waste management policy crowd out social and moral motives for recycling? J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2024, 112, 102233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
González-Moreno, A.; Triguero, A.; Díaz-García, C.; Saez-Martínez, F.J. Circular economy and entrepreneurship in Europe: An analysis of the impact of cultural factors, regulatory framework and rate of entrepreneurship. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2024, 35, 103656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Barr, S. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 435–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kaiser, F.G.; Gutscher, H. The proposition of a general version of the theory of planned behavior: Predicting ecological behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 33, 586–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Elliott, R. The taste for green: The possibilities and dynamics of status differentiation through “green” consumption. Poetics 2013, 41, 294–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sainz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abdel-Raheem, A. Visual recycling and intertextuality: A neurocognitive perspective. J. Cult. Cogn. Sci. 2019, 3, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Taljaard, H.; Sonnenberg, N.C.; Jacobs, B.M. Factors motivating male consumers’ eco-friendly apparel acquisition in the South African emerging market. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Oztekin, C.; Teksöz, G.; Pamuk, S.; Sahin, E.; Kilic, D.S. Gender perspective on the factors predicting recycling behavior: Implications from the theory of planned behavior. Waste Manag. 2017, 62, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
García, I. Ease of recycling in Glendale, Salt Lake City, Utah: Dissecting recycling efforts by household size, age, income and gender. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wok, S.; Munira, W.F. Cultural differences on recycling behavior based on gender and ethnicity in Malaysia. J. Womens Health Saf. Res. 2017, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Torres-Guevara, L.E.; Garcia-Diaz, C. Green marketing innovation: Opportunities from an environmental education analysis in young consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kristanto, G.A.; Kemala, D.; Nandhita, P.A. Challenges confronting waste pickers in Indonesia: An on-field analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 1381–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zelezny, L.C.; Chua, P.; Aldrich, C. New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Xiao, C.; McCright, A. Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Milfont, T.; Sibley, C. Empathic and social dominance orientations help explain gender differences in environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian mediation analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 90, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Echavarren, J.M. The gender gap in environmental concern: Support for an ecofeminist perspective and the role of gender egalitarian attitudes. Sex Roles 2023, 89, 610–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lee, T.M.; Markowitz, E.M.; Howe, P.D.; Ko, C.Y.; Leiserowitz, A.A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 1014–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nelson, S.; Ira, G.C.; Merenlender, A. Adult climate change education advances learning, self-efficacy, and agency for community-scale stewardship. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, Y.; Lin, H.; Li, X.; Lin, Y. Green returns to education: Does education affect pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors in China? PLoS ONE 2022, 17, 263383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varoglu, L.; Temel, S.; Yılmaz, A. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards the environmental issues: Case of Northern Cyprus. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018, 14, 997–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Martín-Ezpeleta, A.; Martínez-Urbano, P.; Echegoyen-Sanz, Y. Let’s read green! A comparison between approaches in different disciplines to enhance preservice teachers’ environmental attitudes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 886–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Esteban Ibáñez, M.; Musitu Ferrer, D.; Amador Muñoz, L.V.; Claros, F.M.; Olmedo Ruiz, F.J. University as Change Manager of Attitudes towards Environment (The Importance of Environmental Education). Sustainability 2020, 12, 4568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chankrajang, T.; Muttarak, R. Green returns to education: Does schooling contribute to pro-environmental behaviours? Evidence from Thailand. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 131, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mónus, F. Environmental education policy of schools and socioeconomic background affect environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior of secondary school students. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 2023106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ng, S.L.; Hsieh, Y.C. Understanding demographic and behavioral determinants of engagement in plastic tableware reduction: Behavior, support, and price sensitivity. Recycling 2025, 10, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Labib, O.; Manaf, L.; Sharaai, A.H.; Zaid, S.S.M. Moderating effects on residents’ willingness in waste sorting to improve waste handling in Dammam City, Saudi Arabia. Recycling 2021, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hoffmann, C.; Hoppe, J.; Ziemann, N. Who has the future in mind? Gender, time perspectives, and pro-environmental behaviour. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 104026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Desrochers, J.E.; Alber, G.; Milfont, T.L.; Kelly, B. Does personality mediate the relationship between sex and environmentalism? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019, 147, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Carrier, S.J. Gender differences in attitudes toward environmental science. Sch. Sci. Math. 2007, 107, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hand, C.A. Biology and being green: The effect of prenatal testosterone on environmentalism. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 115, 122–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Briscoe, N.J.; Givens, J.E. At home, in public, and in between: Gender differences in environmental behaviors in the Intermountain West. Environ. Sociol. 2019, 5, 374–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pospíšilová, M. Cultural Repertoires of the division of labour market and family responsibilities between slovak entrepreneurial couples and their gendered nature. In The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Contexts; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crow, G.; Pope, C. Editorial foreword. Sociology 2006, 40, 413–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hunter, L. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Int. Soc. Surv. Programme 2004, 85, 677–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mårtensson, M.; Pettersson, R. Everyday Life Contexts and the Environment. In Individual and Structural Determinants of Environmental Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abdallah, A.B.; Ray, S.; Mim, S.J.; Mahmud, T.S.; Richter, A.; Ng, K.T.W. Assessment of demographics and motivations of post-consumer textile waste management using a bibliometric approach. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2024, 26, 2534–2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Du, H.; Xiao, Y.; Zhao, L. Education and gender role attitudes. J. Popul. Econ. 2020, 34, 475–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mendes, J.; Teixeira, M. From environmental knowledge to pro-environmental behavior: The role of education. J. Technol. Transf. 2025, 50, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diez Ojeda, M.; Queiruga-Dios, M.; Queiruga-Dios, M. Changing Spanish preservice teachers’ environmental attitudes with a citizen science program integrated in Environmental Education subject. Eur. J. Educ. 2024, 59, e12746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Shu, X. Education and gender egalitarianism: The case of China. Sociol. Educ. 2004, 77, 311–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hoffmann, R.; Muttarak, R. Greening through schooling: Understanding the link between education and pro-environmental behavior in the Philippines. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 014009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Meagher, K.; Shu, X. Trends in U.S. Gender Attitudes, 1977 to 2018: Gender and Educational Disparities. Socius: Sociol. Res. A Dyn. World 2019, 5, 2378023119851692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tuncer, G.; Ertepinar, H.; Tekkaya, C.; Sungur, S. Environmental attitudes of young people in Turkey: Effects of school type and gender. Environ. Educ. Res. 2005, 11, 215–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nigussie, B. Young people and the environment: Knowledge, attitude and practice towards climate change and its impact in selected preparatory schools of Sidama Zone, Ethiopia. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2019, 24, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
Schönfelder, M.L.; Bogner, F.X. Between science education and environmental education: How science motivation relates to environmental values. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Decker, A.; Morrison, S. Decoding gender in nature-based education: Perceptions of environmental educators. Environ. Educ. Res. 2021, 27, 848–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Clover, D. Gender transformative learning and environmental action. Gend. Educ. 1995, 7, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gökmen, A. The effect of gender on environmental attitude: A meta-analysis study. J. Pedagog. Res. 2021, 5, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sakellari, M.; Skanavis, C. Environmental behavior and gender: An emerging area of concern for environmental education research. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2013, 12, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yue, X.; Wanglee, W.; Yin, Y.; Ye, Y.; Cai, T. Environmental attitudes of Chinese students in higher education institutions. J. Educ. E-Learn. Res. 2023, 10, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schmitz, G.L.; Rocha, J.B. Environmental education program as a tool to improve Children’s environmental attitudes and knowledge. Education 2018, 8, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Panth, M.; Verma, P.; Gupta, M. The role of attitude in environmental awareness of under graduate students. Int. J. Res. Humanit. Soc. Stud. 2015, 2, 55–62. [Google Scholar]
Arslan, S. The influence of environment education on critical thinking and environmental attitude. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 55, 902–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baierl, T.M.; Johnson, B.; Bogner, F.X. Informal earth education: Significant shifts for environmental attitude and knowledge. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 819899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gezer, K.; Köse, S.; Gencer, A.; Bilen, K.; Erol, G. Investigation of undergraduate students’ environmental attitudes. Int. Electron. J. Environ. Educ. 2011, 1, 85–96. [Google Scholar]
Skanavis, C.; Sakellari, M. Gender and sustainable tourism: Women’s participation in the environmental decision-making process. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2018, 1, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Malá, D.; Sedliaciková, M.; Drábek, J.; Jelacic, D.; Minárová, M. Consumer perception of environmentally sustainable products of Slovak wood processing enterprises. Drv. Ind. 2019, 70, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Uhunamure, S.E.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Shale, K.; Mudau, V.; Mokgoebo, M. Appraisal of households’ knowledge and perception towards e-waste management in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Recycling 2021, 6, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
McElroy, E.E. Applied Business Statistics: An Elementary Approach; Holden Day: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]

Table 16. The composition of the research.

Indicator		UE	USE	LSE	PE
Female	Absolute frequency	161	142	28	13
Female	Relative frequency	27.06%	23.87%	4.71%	2.18%
Male	Absolute frequency	89	126	25	11
Male	Relative frequency	14.96%	21.18%	4.20%	1.85%
Total	Absolute frequency	250	268	53	24
Total	Relative frequency	42.02%	45.04%	8.91%	4.03%

UE = university education; USE = upper secondary education; LSE = lower secondary education; PE = primary education.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lorincová, S.; Osvaldová, M. Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes Towards Recycling in Slovak Republic. Recycling 2025, 10, 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10040159

AMA Style

Lorincová S, Osvaldová M. Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes Towards Recycling in Slovak Republic. Recycling. 2025; 10(4):159. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10040159

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lorincová, Silvia, and Mária Osvaldová. 2025. "Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes Towards Recycling in Slovak Republic" Recycling 10, no. 4: 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10040159

APA Style

Lorincová, S., & Osvaldová, M. (2025). Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes Towards Recycling in Slovak Republic. Recycling, 10(4), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10040159

Article Menu

Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes Towards Recycling in Slovak Republic

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Results

3.1. The Importance of Recycling

3.2. Intention to Purchase Recyclable Products

3.3. Belief That Recycling Is Crucial for Environmental Protection

3.4. Opinion That Reusing Materials Can Reduce Negative Impacts on Nature

3.5. Intention to Improve Personal Recycling Behaviors

4. Discussion

4.1. Theoretical Context and Importance of Recycling

4.2. Key Empirical Findings: Education, Gender and Recycling

4.3. Underlying Mechanisms: Why Gender Matters

4.4. Underlying Mechanisms: Why Education Matters

4.5. Interaction Effects Between Gender and Education

4.6. Reasons for the Influence of Gender, Education, and Their Interaction on Environmental Attitudes

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Research Question and Hypotheses

5.2. Study Design and Instrumentation

5.3. Sampling and Sample Size Determination

5.4. Data Collection and Demographics

5.5. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

6. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI