Mapping Geoethical Awareness and Unveiling Environmental Engagement Profiles of Residents in Hellenic UNESCO Global Geoparks: A Quantitative Survey

Abstract

Geoethics emphasizes responsible human interaction with the Earth, promoting ethical practices in the geosciences to ensure sustainability for current and future generations. UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGps) are designated areas that support sustainable development by integrating geoconservation, geoeducation, and community engagement, thereby raising awareness of geological heritage. This quantitative study employed an online questionnaire (n = 798) to assess geoethical awareness among residents of all nine Hellenic UGGps, with the aim of profiling environmental engagement and perceptions. The results indicate a generally high level of geoethical awareness, with Sitia UGGp exhibiting the highest average mean score (M⁻ = 8.98, SD⁻ = 1.34), reflecting strong community support and effective outreach efforts. In contrast, Lavreotiki UGGp (M⁻ = 8.48, SD⁻ = 1.15) and Psiloritis UGGp (M⁻ = 8.33, SD⁻ = 1.36) scored lower in areas such as community engagement and geotourism, suggesting opportunities for targeted improvement. Regional differences suggest that management, visibility, and local context significantly influence public perceptions. Cluster analysis identified four respondent profiles: (a) highly engaged environmental stewards (28.7%), (b) supportive but selective advocates (40.5%), (c) moderately indifferent participants (26.9%), and (d) disengaged or critical respondents (3.9%). Demographic factors such as age, residence, prior visits to Hellenic UGGps, and education significantly differentiated these groups. Mapping geoethical awareness provides a valuable tool for assessing societal benefits and enhancing the governance of UGGps. Overall, the findings underscore the need to shift from an anthropocentric to a more geocentric worldview that prioritizes the well-being of both humanity and Earth’s systems.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background on Geoethics and UNESCO Global Geoparks

Geoethics has emerged as a crucial interdisciplinary field addressing the ethical, social, and cultural implications of human interaction with the Earth system [1,2,3,4,5,6]. It extends beyond philosophical reflection [7], advocating responsible practices within geosciences [8,9] and raising societal awareness regarding georesources and geoenvironmental challenges [2,10,11,12]. This developing field underscores the significance of human values in Earth governance, conservation, and multi-species cohabitation, promoting sustainable development and harmony with nature [13] in a changing world [1,14,15,16,17].

At its core, geoethics seeks to establish shared values [10,18] that guide strategic and operational processes toward socio-ecological responsibility [1,10,19]. These values emphasize environmental preservation, respect for regional potential, and the well-being of communities [1,10]. Geoethics translates the principles of responsibility, freedom, and dignity into ideals of justice, awareness, and respect, shaping both individual and collective actions [4,5,20]. It calls for the application of geoscientific knowledge for societal benefit, safeguarding humanity’s common heritage for future generations [20]. More broadly, geoethics incorporates diverse perspectives—universal and local, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary—alongside educational and political dimensions [21].

Geoethical awareness represents the integration of ethical considerations into decision-making at all societal levels, advancing a “responsible anthropocentrism” [22] and promoting “sustainable geocentric human practices” [23,24]. Key concepts such as geoconservation, sustainability, adaptation, risk prevention, and geoenvironmental education are essential for ecological awareness [4,10]. These translate abstract ethical principles—including integrity, inclusivity, and Earth-centered approaches—into practical frameworks that reconcile human activity with biophysical limits [6,25]. The foundational values of dignity, justice, and responsibility—rooted in respect for all life forms [20,22,26]—provide actionable guidance for institutions and policymakers. By advocating ethical paradigms that safeguard planetary health, community resilience, and geological–cultural heritage [10,17,19], geoethical awareness establishes a normative basis for addressing escalating planetary pressures in the Anthropocene Epoch [10,16,22,27,28,29].

Geoethics offers a new perspective on the Earth—not merely as a resource to be exploited, but as a complex system of interconnected relationships in which humans are active participants [18,30,31,32,33,34]. It encourages a shift from an anthropocentric worldview to one prioritizing sustainable and geocentric practices [35], emphasizing coexistence with the environment and the interconnectedness of all life [36]. This perspective requires a commitment to geoethics as both a public and global ethic, guiding actions and shaping a collective responsibility toward a sustainable and equitable future [4,5].

This commitment to geoethics aligns closely with initiatives such as UGGps, defined as “single, unified geographical areas where sites and landscapes of international geological significance are managed with a holistic concept of protection, education, and sustainable development” [37].

The concept of UGGps has evolved significantly since its inception in the late 1980s. Initially focused on regional geotourism and sustainable development, it has become a globally recognized designation within UNESCO’s International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme (IGGP) [38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. This evolution, driven by international collaboration among geoscientists and an increasing recognition of the intrinsic link between geological heritage and societal well-being, led to the establishment of the European Geoparks Network (EGN) in 2000 and the Global Geoparks Network (GGN) in 2004 [45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. These networks paved the way for the formal designation of UGGps in 2015 under the auspices of UNESCO, marking a global commitment to geoconservation, education, and sustainable development through a holistic approach that integrates geological heritage conservation with community engagement and socio-economic development [52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61].

Currently, the UGGps initiative encompasses 229 territories across 50 nations [62,63], serving as a powerful mechanism for addressing pressing global challenges outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals and strengthening resilience [64,65,66,67,68].

Despite the global recognition and success of the UGGp concept [69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80], challenges remain in expanding their effectiveness across disciplines. Ongoing research is crucial for informing management strategies, promoting best practices, exploring the role of geotourism in geological heritage conservation, examining the socio-economic impact of a UGGp designation on local communities, advancing educational opportunities, and maximizing UGGps’ contributions to geoconservation and sustainable development worldwide [43,57,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97].

In summary, UGGps significantly enhance our understanding of Earth systems and promote a sustainable and harmonious relationship between humanity and the planet, bridging interconnected fields within the realm of geoethics [11,75,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106].

1.2. Hellenic UGGps in an Nutshell

In Greece, nine areas are designated as UGGps (Figure 1), highlighting the nation’s rich and complex geological setting, resulting from its position at the junction of the European and African tectonic plates [107,108].

1.2.1. Lesvos Island UGGp

Established in 2000, Lesvos Island UGGp covers 1636 km² in the northeastern Aegean Sea. It is renowned for its well-preserved early Miocene fossilized forest, which dates back approximately 20 million years. The forest’s preservation is associated with volcanic activity that contributed to the burial and fossilization of trees, branches, and ecosystems [109], and it is included among the IUGS geoheritage sites [110]. The UGGp hosts fossils of Greece’s oldest land mammal (Prodeinotherium bavaricum) [111], as well as volcanic sites, thermal springs, faults, caves, and coastal landforms. These features, which are associated with intense geological activity, date from 21.5 to 16.2 million years ago, and their ages are generally consistent with one another. Part of the Pelagonian zone, Lesvos Island UGGp is rich in geological, paleontological, and cultural heritage [112,113,114], and is recognized as a National Protected Monument [115].

1.2.2. Psiloritis UGGp

Founded in 2001, Psiloritis UGGp on Crete covers 1272 km², with Mount Psiloritis rising to 2456 m. The area features a diverse range of volcanic, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks dating from the Permian to the Pleistocene, reflecting geological processes over several million years, including the northward movement of the African continent into Europe [116]. While some features, such as ophiolites, caves, deep gorges, folds, and faults, are remnants of the ancient Tethys Ocean [117], the region also documents more recent geomorphological processes. Psiloritis UGGp is also notable for its unique biodiversity, hosting distinctive flora and fauna [118], and it offers insights into the geological history and mountain formation processes of the area [52,119].

1.2.3. Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp

Part of the GGN since 2009, Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp spans 647 km² in northern Peloponnese. The geological features of the area include formations dating back approximately 485 million years, such as folds, faults, and fossil sites. The region encompasses three geotectonic zones—Tripolis, Pindos, and the Phyllites–Quartzites Suite—and is characterized by prominent peaks, with five rising above 2000 m. Geomorphologically, the area features karst caves and diverse landforms resulting from tectonic and erosional processes [90]. Its biodiversity and ecosystems are also significant, with the region supporting rich endemic species and offering insights into Earth’s biological history, and ecological dynamics [120,121,122]. Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp is additionally designated as a National Park [123].

1.2.4. Vikos–Aoos UGGp

Established in 2010 in northwest Greece, Vikos–Aoos UGGp covers 1200 km² of rugged mountainous terrain, including Mount Smolikas (2637 m) and Mount Tymfi (2497 m), deep gorges, and the alpine Drakolimni Lake [124]. The geological history reflects the collision of the African and Eurasian plates around 20 million years ago, resulting in deep-sea sedimentary rocks, ophiolites, and faulted structures, which reveal complex tectonic processes. Glacial and tectonic activities have shaped the landscape, forming prominent gorges and karst features [125]. The area is rich in biodiversity, notably hosting rare plant species [126], and features steep cliffs, forests, and distinctive geological formations that provide valuable insights into its geological and ecological evolution [127]. Vikos–Aoos UGGp is designated as a National Park [123], and the Zagori Cultural Landscape is inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List [128].

1.2.5. Sitia UGGp

Established in 2015 on eastern Crete, Sitia UGGp covers 713 km² of mountainous terrain, with extensive caves and karstic limestone formations [117]. It is renowned for its rich fossil sites, including Pleistocene mammals such as deer, hippos, and elephants, as well as Deinotherium proavum [129,130]. The UGGp contains Neogene marine fossils, ancient Pleistocene shorelines, and Crete’s oldest rocks, serving as a geological laboratory [131]. It also features unique habitats, including the Vai Palm Forest (Phoenix theophrasti) [132], which is recognized as being among Greece’s Aesthetic Forests [133]. Additionally, the area provides insights into geological, paleontological, and ecosystem evolution [134].

1.2.6. Grevena–Kozani UGGp

Designated in 2021, in West Macedonia, Grevena–Kozani UGGp spans 2486 km² and is a key site for understanding plate tectonic theory [135,136]. The UGGp features Greece’s oldest rocks, ophiolites, and sections, illustrating the formation of the Tethyan Ocean and Europe’s continental development [137,138,139]. The region is shaped by glaciation and erosion, includes four major canyons, and supports unique ecosystems with endemic species. It preserves fossils, such as mammoth tusks, and traditional mountain villages that maintain historic agricultural practices [140].

1.2.7. Kefalonia–Ithaca UGGp

Established in 2022, Kefalonia–Ithaca UGGp covers Kefalonia (913 km²) and Ithaca (117 km²) in the Ionian Sea. The islands formed through a series of tectonic compressional episodes [141]. The UGGp’s extensive karstic system includes caves, lake caverns, sinkholes, coastlines, and underground tunnels [142], particularly in the Afales Basin, and is notable for its paleontological heritage [143,144]. Both islands are situated along the Hellenic arc, a tectonically active zone due to the subduction of the African Plate beneath the Eurasian Plate, making it one of Europe’s most seismically active regions [145].

1.2.8. Lavreotiki UGGp

Lavreotiki UGGp, founded in 2023, near Athens, spans 177 km², and is renowned for its extraordinary mineralogical diversity and archeological significance. The area of Lavrion forms part of the Attic–Cycladic belt, composed of a stacked sequence of nappes mainly established in the Early Eocene [146]. It is known for its silver, lead, and copper mining districts [147,148]. The Lavrion mines feature five interconnected deposit types, and surface weathering, oxidation, and sea-level fluctuations over the last million years have resulted in the presence of nearly 12% of known mineral species [149]. The region has a rich geocultural heritage, and promotes geoconservation through educational programs focused on biodiversity and coastal ecosystems, highlighting its geological and cultural importance [150].

1.2.9. Meteora–Pyli UGGp

Established in 2024 on the western edge of Thessaly, Meteora–Pyli UGGp covers 2409 km². The area is famous for its towering pinnacles, reaching heights of 200 m and widths up to 300 m, which are part of the Pentalophos Formation, dating from the Upper Oligocene to the Lower Miocene [151,152], encompassing nearly a billion years of geological history [153]. Meteora is one of the most remarkable molassic sediment sites and is included among the IUGS geoheritage sites [154]. Known as the “columns of the sky,” Meteora has been recognized for its outstanding universal value by UNESCO as both a natural and cultural World Heritage Monument since 1988 [155].

1.3. Objectives of This Study

This cross-sectional study investigates the relationship between UGGps and geoethical awareness—a connection that remains largely unexplored in the current literature on geoparks and geoethics. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to systematically examine this linkage and its potential impact on UGGp operations. By exploring this relationship, the study also identifies distinct environmental engagement profiles among respondents, reflecting varying degrees of stewardship and advocacy concerning geoethical themes. The anticipated findings aim to strengthen the pillars of geoconservation, geoheritage, geoeducation, and community engagement within UGGp management, offering valuable insights for academics, researchers, policymakers, educators, community leaders, and other stakeholders.

This research addresses the following questions:

• Research question 1: What is the level of geoethical awareness among residents of the Hellenic UGGps?
• Research question 2: How do the thematic axes of geoethical awareness vary across the Hellenic UGGps?
• Research question 3: What are the profiles of environmental engagement among residents of the Hellenic UGGps?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Process

This cross-sectional study aimed to map geoethical awareness among residents of the nine Hellenic UGGps and to unveil environmental engagement profiles among residents of the nine Hellenic UGGps (Figure 1). A quantitative approach was adopted, utilizing a self-administered online questionnaire distributed via Google Forms [156,157,158,159,160,161]. Data collection took place from 27 January to 9 March 2025.

2.2. Sampling

A non-probability sampling method, combining convenience and voluntary response sampling [158,160,161], was used to recruit residents from the Hellenic UGGp regions. Given the small population sizes, low participation rates, and the recent establishment of some UGGps, sampling was extended to the entire regional unit for areas such as Psiloritis UGGp, Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp, Vikos–Aoos UGGp, Grevena–Kozani UGGp, Lavreotiki UGGp, and Meteora–Pyli UGGp. For Lesvos Island UGGp, Sitia UGGp, and Kefalonia–Ithaca UGGp, sampling was confined within each UGGp’s boundaries. In total, responses were collected from n = 798 participants across all nine Hellenic UGGps.

2.3. Data Gathering

Recruitment strategies involved multiple approaches. Partnerships were established with coordinators of the Hellenic UGGp management bodies, leveraging their social and partner networks. Additional outreach targeted local municipalities, schools, environmental groups, and related associations. An invitation banner was circulated on various social media platforms to further encourage participation.

2.4. Questionnaire Instrument

Geoethical awareness was assessed using the validated Geoethical Awareness Scale (GAS) [162] (Supplementary Materials), developed based on the work by Koupatsiaris and Drinia [95]. The questionnaire consisted of two sections:

Section A (32 items): The GAS, employing a 5-point Likert scale [163,164] (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree), measured adherence to geoethical principles across 16 thematic axes: geoheritage (items 1–2), geoconservation (items 3–4), geotourism (items 5–6), geodiversity (items 7–8), biodiversity (items 9–10), georesources (items 11–12), water management (items 13–14), climate crisis issues (items 15–16), risk prevention (items 17–18), adaptation to changes (items 19–20), sustainability (items 21–22), resilience (items 23–24), community engagement (items 25–26), environmental advocacy (items 27–28), ecological feelings (items 29–30), and geoenvironmental education—geoeducation (items 31–32).

Section B: Sociodemographic information (10 items), including gender, age, education level, professional sector, place of origin and residence, frequency of UGGp visits, and membership in environmental organizations.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29) [165,166], with the significance threshold set at p < 0.05. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values) were calculated for the 32 items, grouped into 16 thematic axes. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha [167,168,169]. Regional differences in item and scale scores were examined via one-way ANOVAs [165,166,170], with the UGGp as the independent variable and the thematic axis scores as dependent variables. Significant differences were further evaluated using effect sizes (η²) [166,171,172].

Latent profiles of environmental engagement were identified through two-step cluster analysis [165,166,173], employing the log-likelihood distance measure [166,174,175] and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) [166,176,177]. This yielded a four-cluster solution, classified as follows: (a) highly engaged environmental stewards, (b) supportive but selective advocates, (c) moderately indifferent participants, and (d) disengaged or critical respondents. Demographic and experiential variables (e.g., gender, age, place of origin, UGGp visits, and environmental organization membership) were cross-tabulated with cluster membership, and group differences were assessed using Pearson’s chi-square tests (χ²) [166].

2.6. Ethics

Strict adherence to ethical standards was maintained throughout the research process [156,158,160]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were made aware of the study’s aims and their rights. Anonymity and data confidentiality were ensured, and participants could withdraw at any time. All data were used exclusively for research purposes and stored securely.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Data of the Participants by Hellenic UGGp

The survey gathered demographic information from n = 798 participants distributed across the nine Hellenic UGGps (Supplementary Materials). The sample was proportionally distributed, with n = 89 participants from Lesvos Island UGGp (11.2%), n = 95 from Psiloritis UGGp (11.9%), n = 84 from Vikos–Aoos UGGp (10.5%), n = 100 from Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp (12.5%), n = 100 from Sitia UGGp (12.5%), n = 85 from Grevena–Kozani UGGp (10.6%), n = 81 from Kefalonia–Ithaca UGGp (10.2%), n = 83 from Lavreotiki UGGp (10.4%), and n = 81 from Meteora–Pyli UGGp (10.2%).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants by Hellenic UGGp.

Sociodemographic Information		Hellenic UGGps
		Lesvos Island		Psiloritis		Chelmos– Vouraikos		Vikos– Aoos		Sitia		Grevena– Kozani		Kefalonia– Ithaca		Lavreotiki		Meteora– Pyli
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender	Female	59	66.3	69	72.6	68	68.0	57	67.9	60	60.0	58	68.2	53	65.5	52	62.7	42	51.9
	Male	29	32.6	25	26.3	32	32.0	26	30.9	37	37.0	26	30.6	27	33.3	28	33.7	39	48.1
	Other	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.2	0	0.0
	Prefer not to answer	1	1.1	1	1.1	0	0.0	1	1.2	3	3.0	1	1.2	1	1.2	2	2.4	0	0.0
Age (years)	18 to 24	4	4.5	4	4.2	2	2.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	1	1.2	1	1.2	1	1.2	1	1.2
	25 to 34	3	3.4	8	8.4	9	9.0	6	7.2	6	6.0	6	7.2	3	3.7	5	6.0	2	2.5
	35 to 44	31	34.8	40	42.1	23	23.0	23	27.4	41	41.0	25	29.4	24	29.6	38	45.8	22	27.2
	45 to 54	37	41.6	31	32.6	36	36.0	37	44.0	30	30.0	30	35.2	30	37.0	19	22.9	36	44.4
	55 to 64	14	15.7	11	11.6	25	25.0	16	19.0	16	16.0	20	23.4	21	25.9	15	18.1	16	19.8
	65 or more	0	0.0	1	1.1	5	5.0	2	2.4	5	5.0	3	3.6	2	2.5	5	6.0	4	4.9
Highest level of education	Primary school	0	0.0	2	2.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.2
	Secondary school	0	0.0	3	3.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	5	5.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.2	0	0.0
	Level 3	1	1.1	1	1.0	1	1.0	1	1.2	2	2.0	2	2.4	2	2.5	0	0.0	2	2.5
	High school	9	10.1	11	11.7	10	10.0	3	3.6	12	12.0	9	10.6	5	6.2	6	7.2	14	17.3
	Level 5	3	3.4	4	4.2	5	5.0	6	7.2	10	10.0	3	3.6	3	3.7	2	2.4	3	3.7
	Bachelor’s degree	46	51.7	39	41.1	42	42.0	40	47.6	43	43.0	46	54.1	44	54.3	32	38.6	32	39.5
	Master’s degree	29	32.6	34	35.9	37	37.0	32	38.0	26	26.0	23	26.9	26	32.1	39	47.0	27	33.3
	Doctoral degree	1	1.1	1	1.0	8	8.0	2	2.4	0	0.0	2	2.4	1	1.2	3	3.6	2	2.5
Place of origin	Rural area	30	33.7	27	28.4	24	24.0	36	42.8	27	27.0	28	33.0	26	32.1	24	28.9	38	46.9
	Semi-urban area	28	31.5	32	33.7	35	35.0	25	29.8	29	29.0	32	37.6	32	39.5	28	33.7	24	29.6
	Urban area	31	34.8	36	37.9	41	41.0	23	27.4	44	44.0	25	29.4	23	28.4	31	37.4	19	23.5
Place of residence	Rural area	13	14.6	12	12.6	9	9.0	5	6.0	12	12.0	7	8.2	10	12.3	2	2.4	18	22.2
	Semi-urban area	16	18.0	27	28.5	22	22.0	24	28.5	38	38.0	32	37.6	42	51.9	21	25.3	21	25.9
	Urban area	60	67.4	56	58.9	69	69.0	55	65.5	50	50.0	46	54.2	29	35.8	60	72.3	42	51.9
Professional employment sectors	Agriculture and livestock	1	1.1	3	3.1	0	0.0	1	1.2	11	11.0	4	4.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	2.5
	Arts and entertainment	0	0.0	1	1.0	1	1.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	2	2.4	0	0.0	1	1.2	1	1.2
	Education	59	66.4	44	46.5	65	65.0	62	73.6	34	34.0	42	49.2	54	66.7	53	63.9	36	44.5
	Finance and accounting	1	1.1	3	3.1	1	1.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	0	0.0	1	1.2	1	1.2	0	0.0
	Freelance	3	3.4	11	11.7	3	3.0	7	8.4	15	15.0	11	12.8	3	3.7	7	8.4	8	9.9
	Health services	2	2.2	3	3.1	3	3.0	1	1.2	3	3.0	4	4.7	0	0.0	2	2.4	3	3.7
	Industry and construction	1	1.1	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
	Other	0	0.0	1	1.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	3	3.6	1	1.2	0	0.0	0	0.0
	Public administration	10	11.2	8	8.4	13	13.0	8	9.6	6	6.0	3	3.6	9	11.2	9	10.9	13	16.0
	Retail and wholesale trade	3	3.4	4	4.2	1	1.0	0	0.0	5	5.0	1	1.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.2
	Retired	0	0.0	1	1.0	3	3.0	3	3.6	7	7.0	4	4.7	0	0.0	4	4.8	3	3.7
	Science and research	1	1.1	0	0.0	2	2.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	2	2.4	0	0.0	3	3.6	2	2.5
	Security forces	1	1.1	1	1.0	3	3.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	4	4.7	2	2.5	0	0.0	1	1.2
	Student	3	3.4	2	2.0	3	3.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	1	1.2	1	1.2	1	1.2	0	0.0
	Information technology	0	0.0	5	5.4	1	1.0	1	1.2	1	1.0	3	3.6	1	1.2	1	1.2	1	1.2
	Tourism and hospitality	3	3.4	5	5.4	0	0.0	1	1.2	3	3.0	0	0.0	7	8.6	0	0.0	9	11.2
	Unemployed	1	1.1	3	3.1	1	1.0	0	0.0	2	2.0	1	1.2	2	2.5	1	1.2	1	1.2
UGGp visits	No	15	16.9	25	26.3	25	25.0	25	29.8	10	10.0	34	40	28	34.6	50	60.3	33	40.7
	Yes	72	80.9	65	68.3	71	71.0	56	66.6	90	90.0	46	54.1	48	59.2	31	37.3	43	53.1
	I do not know	2	2.2	5	5.4	4	4.0	3	3.6	0	0.0	5	5.9	5	6.2	2	2.4	5	6.2
Number of UGGp visits	None	15	16.9	17	17.9	31	31.0	27	31.8	11	11.0	39	45.8	25	30.8	47	56.6	22	27.2
	1 time	13	14.6	10	10.5	13	13.0	8	9.6	12	12.0	10	11.8	12	14.8	15	18.1	10	12.3
	2 to 3 times	35	39.3	28	29.5	21	21.0	23	27.4	29	29.0	14	16.5	13	16.0	9	10.9	19	23.5
	4 to 6 times	13	14.6	22	23.2	13	13.0	10	12.0	17	17.0	9	10.6	9	11.2	4	4.8	10	12.3
	7 times or more	10	11.2	10	10.5	16	16.0	11	13.2	31	31.0	9	10.6	13	16.0	4	4.8	12	14.8
	I do not know	3	3.4	8	8.4	6	6.0	5	6.0	0	0.0	4	4.7	9	11.2	4	4.8	8	9.9
(a)	No	58	65.1	57	60.0	39	39.0	54	64.2	56	56.0	55	64.7	42	51.9	60	72.3	58	71.6
	Yes	22	24.7	30	31.6	54	54.0	23	27.4	41	41.0	28	32.9	32	39.5	17	20.5	19	23.5
	I do not know	9	10.1	8	8.4	7	7.0	7	8.4	3	3.0	2	2.4	7	8.6	6	7.2	4	4.9
(b)	No	80	89.9	90	94.6	83	83.0	77	91.6	78	78.0	72	84.7	73	90.1	68	81.9	68	84.0
	Yes	9	10.1	5	5.4	17	17.0	7	8.4	22	22.0	13	15.3	8	9.9	15	18.1	13	16.0

Note: (a) Visits in other Hellenic UGGp; (b) Environmental organization membership. All percentages rounded in one decimal place.

presents the demographic characteristics of participants by Hellenic UGGp.

3.2. Regional Variations in Participants’ Geoethical Awareness Across Hellenic UGGps

The analysis assessed whether participants’ responses to the 16 thematic axes of geoethical awareness differed significantly across the nine Hellenic UGGps (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for thematic axes of geoethical awareness scale by Hellenic UGGp.

Thematic Axis of GAS	Hellenic UGGps																		ANOVA Results
	Lesvos Island		Psiloritis		Chelmos– Vouraikos		Vikos– Aoos		Sitia		Grevena– Kozani		Kefalonia– Ithaca		Lavreotiki		Meteora– Pyli
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F (8, 789)	p	η2
Geoheritage	8.56	1.22	8.26	1.45	8.81	1.23	8.65	1.01	9.19	1.28	8.42	1.48	8.54	1.20	8.46	1.19	8.78	1.07	4.488	<0.001	0.044
Geoconservation	8.62	1.13	8.34	1.28	8.78	1.14	8.70	1.18	9.15	1.22	8.68	1.34	8.70	1.15	8.57	1.07	8.74	1.06	3.206	0.001	0.031
Geotourism	8.54	1.05	8.19	1.42	8.62	1.19	8.52	1.01	8.89	1.56	8.45	1.27	8.51	1.21	8.19	1.28	8.68	1.33	2.814	0.004	0.028
Geodiversity	8.67	1.02	8.43	1.37	8.89	0.93	8.81	1.05	9.20	1.28	8.71	1.22	8.83	1.02	8.64	1.05	8.65	1.17	3.378	<0.001	0.033
Biodiversity	8.28	1.20	8.11	1.60	8.55	1.31	8.44	1.25	8.64	1.42	8.44	1.50	8.37	1.29	8.29	1.29	8.46	1.20	1.307	0.236	0.013
Georesources	8.31	1.08	8.26	1.40	8.20	1.41	8.37	1.19	8.87	1.35	8.18	1.40	8.27	1.29	8.52	1.16	8.25	1.23	2.723	0.006	0.027
Water Management	8.42	1.04	8.36	1.24	8.48	1.08	8.64	1.00	8.91	1.42	8.33	1.43	8.47	1.12	8.52	1.07	8.48	1.37	2.01	0.043	0.020
Climate Crisis	8.58	1.02	8.39	1.32	8.51	1.30	8.35	1.17	8.95	1.34	8.48	1.33	8.44	1.10	8.43	1.14	8.47	1.16	2.054	0.038	0.020
Risk Prevention	8.60	1.00	8.22	1.48	8.54	1.14	8.69	1.15	9.02	1.36	8.60	1.42	8.68	1.18	8.59	1.05	8.75	1.15	2.814	0.004	0.028
Adaptation to Changes	8.52	1.16	8.42	1.19	8.63	1.23	8.62	1.17	9.04	1.22	8.56	1.48	8.67	1.20	8.69	1.01	8.65	1.13	1.946	0.051	0.019
Sustainability	8.85	1.03	8.35	1.40	8.73	1.29	8.87	0.98	9.09	1.32	8.61	1.66	8.79	1.18	8.63	1.19	8.78	1.24	2.496	0.011	0.025
Resilience	8.30	1.21	8.22	1.39	8.56	1.22	8.52	1.05	9.01	1.31	8.38	1.44	8.36	1.39	8.27	1.23	8.35	1.36	3.349	<0.001	0.033
Community Engagement	8.30	1.23	8.32	1.38	8.43	1.10	8.56	1.00	8.57	1.57	8.36	1.45	8.27	1.27	8.25	1.08	8.52	1.26	0.844	0.564	0.008
Environmental Advocacy	8.73	1.20	8.43	1.33	8.66	1.09	8.77	0.91	8.87	1.33	8.65	1.32	8.65	1.01	8.35	1.14	8.72	1.15	1.715	0.091	0.017
Ecological Feelings	8.75	1.11	8.45	1.27	8.71	1.22	8.77	0.95	9.10	1.24	8.81	1.39	8.81	1.13	8.66	1.18	8.85	1.11	2.009	0.043	0.020
Geoeducation	8.82	1.12	8.54	1.22	8.91	1.11	8.98	1.05	9.19	1.24	8.71	1.43	8.85	1.13	8.66	1.31	8.86	1.15	2.366	0.016	0.023
M− and SD−	8.55	1.11	8.33	1.36	8.63	1.19	8.64	1.07	8.98	1.34	8.52	1.14	8.58	1.18	8.48	1.15	8.62	1.20

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; η² = partial eta squared. The ANOVA tested differences in total thematic scores across the nine Hellenic UGGps. Significant p-values indicate thematic differences across regions. Values of η² around 0.01 indicate small, around 0.06 indicate medium, and above 0.14 indicate large effect sizes [171,172].

). For each axis, total scores were calculated by summing related items, and differences among the Hellenic UGGps were examined using one-way ANOVA. Internal consistency for each axis, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, ranged from 0.530 to 0.786, indicating generally acceptable reliability [167,168,169] (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and internal consistency/reliability for the 16 thematic axes of the geoethical awareness scale.

Thematic Axis of GAS	M	SD	Cronbach’s α
Geoheritage	8.64	1.27	0.716
Geoconservation	8.70	1.19	0.673
Geotourism	8.52	1.29	0.583
Geodiversity	8.77	1.15	0.611
Biodiversity	8.40	1.35	0.604
Georesources	8.36	1.30	0.607
Water management	8.52	1.21	0.530
Climate crisis	8.52	1.23	0.697
Risk prevention	8.63	1.24	0.726
Adaptation to changes	8.65	1.21	0.701
Sustainability	8.75	1.28	0.724
Resilience	8.45	1.31	0.786
Community engagement	8.40	1.28	0.637
Environmental advocacy	8.65	1.18	0.704
Ecological feelings	8.77	1.19	0.742
Geoeducation	8.84	1.21	0.783

).

Significant regional differences were observed in most thematic areas. Geoheritage showed a statistically significant variation among Hellenic UGGps, F (8, 789) = 4.488, p < 0.001, η² = 0.044, representing a small-to-medium effect size. Similar patterns were evident for resilience, F (8, 789) = 3.349, p < 0.001, η² = 0.033, geoconservation, F (8, 789) = 3.206, p = 0.001, η² = 0.031, and geotourism, F (8, 789) = 2.814, p = 0.004, η² = 0.028. Significant variability across Hellenic UGGps also emerged in geodiversity (p < 0.001), georesources (p = 0.006), water management (p = 0.043), climate crisis (p = 0.038), and risk prevention (p = 0.004), with effect sizes generally in the lower range (η² ≈ 0.020–0.033). In contrast, biodiversity (p = 0.236), community engagement (p = 0.564), and environmental advocacy (p = 0.091) did not display significant differences across Hellenic UGGps, suggesting a more uniform perception of these themes among participants. Adaptation to changes, F (8, 789) = 1.946, p = 0.051, η² = 0.019, and ecological feelings, F (8, 789) = 2.009, p = 0.043, η² = 0.020, showed only marginal or modest significance, with small effect sizes.

Overall, these results indicate that while participant perceptions are broadly consistent across Hellenic UGGps for certain thematic areas, several dimensions—particularly geoheritage, geoconservation, and environmental management—exhibit meaningful regional variation. This underscores the importance of local context in shaping community perceptions and priorities regarding Hellenic UGGp functions.

More specifically, the following regional patterns were observed across the Hellenic UGGps (Table 2):

Lesvos Island UGGp demonstrated a well-balanced profile, with moderately high scores in sustainability (M = 8.85, SD = 1.03), geoenvironmental education (M = 8.82, SD = 1.12), ecological feelings (M = 8.75, SD = 1.11), environmental advocacy (M = 8.58, SD = 1.20), and geodiversity (M = 8.67, SD = 1.02). Slightly lower scores were recorded for resilience (M = 8.30, SD = 1.21), community engagement (M = 8.30, SD = 1.23), and biodiversity (M = 8.28, SD = 1.20). Overall, Lesvos UGGp achieved a mean score of M⁻ = 8.55 (SD⁻ = 1.11). These results indicate a favorable orientation toward geoeducation and sustainability, although there remains scope for enhancing community participation and biodiversity-related engagement.

Psiloritis UGGp consistently received among the lowest scores across several thematic axes, including risk prevention (M = 8.26, SD = 1.48), resilience (M = 8.34, SD = 1.39), geotourism (M = 8.19, SD = 1.42), and biodiversity (M = 8.22, SD = 1.48). Its highest scores, though still modest compared to other Hellenic UGGps, were observed in geoenvironmental education (M = 8.54, SD = 1.22), ecological feelings (M = 8.45, SD = 1.27), environmental advocacy (M = 8.43, SD = 1.33), geodiversity (M = 8.43, SD = 1.37), and adaptation to changes (M = 8.42, SD = 1.19). The overall mean score for Psiloritis UGGp was M⁻ = 8.33 (SD⁻ = 1.36). This pattern suggests comparatively limited engagement or awareness across several domains, potentially reflecting regional challenges related to programming, communication, or public participation.

Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp achieved consistently high scores across most thematic axes, particularly in geoenvironmental education (M = 8.91, SD = 1.11), geodiversity (M = 8.89, SD = 0.93), geoheritage (M = 8.81, SD = 1.23), sustainability (M = 8.73, SD = 1.29), and geoconservation (M = 8.78, SD = 1.14). These results indicate strong local awareness and appreciation for both natural and educational values. Slightly lower, yet still positive, scores were observed in water management (M = 8.48, SD = 1.08), community engagement (M = 8.43, SD = 1.10), and georesources (M = 8.20, SD = 1.41), suggesting potential areas for further development. Overall, Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp recorded a mean score of M⁻ = 8.63 (SD⁻ = 1.19).

Vikos–Aoos UGGp demonstrated a strong and consistent performance, achieving particularly high scores in geoenvironmental education (M = 8.98, SD = 1.05), sustainability (M = 8.87, SD = 0.98), geodiversity (M = 8.81, SD = 1.05), and environmental advocacy (M = 8.77, SD = 8.77). Slightly lower, but still positive, results were observed for biodiversity (M = 8.44, SD = 1.25), georesources (M = 8.37, SD = 1.19) and climate crisis awareness (M = 8.35, SD = 1.17), suggesting potential areas for further attention. Overall, Vikos–Aoos UGGp achieved a mean score of M⁻ = 8.98 (SD⁻ = 1.19). These findings reflect generally favorable public attitudes towards conservation and engagement themes within the region.

Sitia UGGp was the top-performing Hellenic UGGp overall, leading in nearly all thematic areas. It achieved the highest scores in geodiversity (M = 9.20, SD = 1.28), geoenvironmental education (M = 9.19, SD = 1.24), geoheritage (M = 9.19, SD = 1.28), geoconservation (M = 9.15, SD = 1.22), ecological awareness (M = 9.10, SD = 1.24), and sustainability (M = 9.09, SD = 1.32). While biodiversity (M = 8.64, SD = 1.42) and community engagement (M = 8.57, SD = 1.57) were the lowest among its scores, they still remained comparatively high relative to other Hellenic UGGps. Overall, Sitia UGGp recorded a mean score of M⁻ = 8.98 (SD⁻ = 1.34). This exceptional performance reflects strong community support for UGGp values, effective local programming, and a well-established integration of the Sitia UGGp framework into regional environmental and educational initiatives.

Grevena–Kozani UGGp reported moderate scores across all thematic axes, with no particular axis standing out as especially high or low. The highest scores were observed in ecological awareness (M = 8.81, SD = 1.39), geoenvironmental education (M = 8.71, SD = 1.43), geoconservation (M = 8.68, SD = 1.34), and environmental advocacy (M = 8.65, SD = 1.32). Scores for community engagement (M = 8.36, SD = 1.45), water management (M = 8.33, SD = 1.43), and georesources (M = 8.18, SD = 1.40) were comparatively lower. Overall, Grevena–Kozani UGGp achieved a mean score of M⁻ = 8.52 (SD⁻ = 1.14). This pattern suggests a generally balanced, though less distinctive, perception of the UGGp’s functions among participants.

Kefalonia–Ithaca UGGp displayed a generally moderate profile, with slightly highly scores in geoenvironmental education (M = 8.85, SD = 8.85), geodiversity (M = 8.83, SD = 1.02), ecological awareness (M = 8.81, SD = 1.13), sustainability (M = 8.79, SD = 1.18), and geoconservation (M = 8.70, SD = 1.15). In contrast, lower scores were observed for biodiversity (M = 8.37, SD = 1.29, resilience (M = 8.36, SD = 1.39), georesources (M = 8.27, SD = 1.29), and community engagement (M = 8.27, SD = 1.27), highlighting areas that could benefit from enhanced public participation or outreach in geoconservation efforts. Overall, Kefalonia–Ithaca UGGp achieved a mean score of M⁻ = 8.58 (SD⁻ = 1.18).

Lavreotiki UGGp showed consistently lower mean scores across several thematic axes. The lowest scores were observed in biodiversity (M = 8.29, SD = 1.20), resilience (M = 8.27, SD = 1.23), community engagement (M = 8.25, SD = 1.08), and geotourism (M = 8.35, SD = 1.28), indicating relatively low engagement or awareness in these domains. Nevertheless, Lavreotiki UGGp maintained stronger perceptions in adaptation to changes (M = 8.69, SD = 1.01), geoenvironmental education (M = 8.66, SD = 1.31), ecological awareness (M = 8.66, SD = 1.18), geodiversity (M = 8.64, SD = 1.05), and sustainability (M = 8.63, SD = 1.19), pointing to specific strengths in educational and adaptive strategies. The overall mean score for Lavreotiki UGGp was M⁻ = 8.48 (SD⁻ = 1.15).

Meteora–Pyli UGGp demonstrated moderate and consistent scores across all thematic axes. The highest perceptions were recorded in geoenvironmental education (M = 8.86, SD = 1.15), ecological feelings (M = 8.85, SD = 1.11), geoheritage (M = 8.78, SD = 1.07), sustainability (M = 8.78, SD = 1.24), risk prevention (M = 8.75, SD = 1.15), and geoconservation (M = 8.74, SD = 1.06). Lower scores were noted for resilience (M = 8.35, SD = 1.36) and georesources (M = 8.25, SD = 1.23). Overall, Meteora–Pyli UGGp achieved a mean score of M⁻ = 8.62 (SD⁻ = 1.20). This pattern indicates a well-rounded public perception of Meteora–Pyli UGGp’s objectives, with particular strengths in education and sustainability.

In summary, Sitia UGGp stands out as the highest-rated Hellenic UGGp, consistently achieving top scores across a wide range of environmental, educational, and geoheritage themes. Conversely, Lavreotiki UGGp and Psiloritis UGGp received less favorable ratings, particularly in areas such as community engagement, environmental advocacy, and geotourism. Other Hellenic UGGps, including Vikos–Aoos UGGp, Chelmos–Vouraikos UGGp, Meteora–Pyli UGGp, and Lesvos Island UGGp, showed a strong performance in specific domains, reflecting regional differences that management approaches, visibility, outreach, or local environmental factors may influence. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of tailoring UGGp strategies to capitalize on regional strengths, while addressing areas that require further development.

3.3. Identification of Respondent Profiles via Cluster Analysis

A two-step cluster analysis was conducted using standardized scores from 16 thematic axes of GAS representing perceptions of UGGp-related values and priorities. The analysis identified four distinct respondent profiles (

Table 4. Thematic axis of geoethical awareness scale scores across clusters: (1) environmental stewards, (2) selective advocates, (3) indifferent participants, and (4) disengaged respondents.

Thematic Axis of GAS	Environmental Engagement Profiles
	Cluster 1		Cluster 2		Cluster 3		Cluster 4
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Geoheritage	9.76	0.61	8.63	1.00	7.87	0.87	5.90	1.58
Geoconservation	9.81	0.49	8.67	0.87	7.93	0.85	6.26	1.67
Geotourism	9.49	0.81	8.56	0.96	7.70	1.00	6.48	2.34
Geodiversity	9.83	0.43	8.72	0.85	8.03	0.83	6.45	1.71
Biodiversity	9.45	0.86	8.40	1.07	7.68	0.92	5.61	2.12
Georesources	9.46	0.91	8.28	1.00	7.62	1.02	6.32	1.80
Water management	9.50	0.84	8.55	0.89	7.73	0.86	6.39	1.89
Climate crisis	9.68	0.64	8.44	0.89	7.80	0.73	5.81	1.70
Risk prevention	9.80	0.44	8.55	0.92	7.88	0.84	6.00	1.84
Adaptation to changes	9.70	0.63	8.61	0.81	8.01	0.81	5.65	1.87
Sustainability	9.80	0.50	8.91	0.86	7.84	0.83	5.48	1.79
Resilience	9.74	0.50	8.44	0.81	7.53	0.88	5.45	1.71
Community engagement	9.24	1.06	8.54	0.97	7.62	0.86	6.16	2.02
Environmental advocacy	9.76	0.50	8.64	0.85	7.80	0.90	6.45	1.48
Ecological feelings	9.72	0.55	8.83	0.94	8.03	0.81	6.26	1.98
Geoeducation	9.84	0.41	8.95	0.89	7.99	0.92	6.16	1.61

Note: Cluster 1: highly engaged environmental stewards (n = 229, 28.7%); Cluster 2: supportive but selective advocates (n = 323, 40.5%); Cluster 3: moderately indifferent participants (n = 215, 26.9%); Cluster 4: disengaged or critical respondents (n = 31, 3.9%).

), each reflecting varying levels of engagement and agreement with the thematic constructs, with an overall silhouette score of 0.30, indicating reasonable cluster separation [178].

Cluster 1 (n = 229, 28.7%), labeled “highly engaged environmental stewards”, comprised participants with the highest mean scores across all thematic domains, ranging from M = 9.24, SD = 1.06 (community engagement) to M = 9.84, SD = 0.41 (geoenvironmental education). These individuals demonstrated strong, consistent agreement with all items, indicating a deep alignment with UGGp values. Low standard deviations further suggest a highly uniform support profile, likely representing the most environmentally literate and actively involved stakeholders, possibly including community leaders, educators, or UGGp staff.

Cluster 2 (n = 323, 40.5%), termed “supportive but selective advocates”, showed positive orientations toward the geoethical awareness themes, with moderate endorsement levels. Mean scores ranged from M = 8.28, SD = 1.00 (georesources) to M = 8.95, SD = 0.89 (geoenvironmental education), indicating general agreement on geoconservation, geoeducation, and sustainability. Higher standard deviations imply some within-group variability, suggesting this group include visitors, residents, or supporters who are favorable but not consistently engaged across all areas.

Cluster 3 (n = 215, 26.9%), referred to as “moderately indifferent participants”, exhibited moderate agreement, with mean scores between M = 7.53, SD = 0.88 (resilience) and M = 8.03, SD = 0.83, SD = 0.81 (geodiversity, ecological feelings). While generally non-critical, this group does not show a strong alignment with or deep emotional investment in UGGp-related values. Their scores suggest an ambivalent or passive stance, likely reflecting visitors with limited exposure to UGGp initiatives or community members with limited participation in geoconservation and geoeducation efforts.

Cluster 4 (n = 31, 3.9%), called “disengaged or critical respondents”, recorded the lowest mean scores across all thematic axes, ranging from M = 5.45, SD = 1.71 (resilience) to M = 6.48, SD = 2.34 (geotourism). Their perceptions indicate significant disengagement or skepticism, with high variability in domains such as biodiversity and geotourism. High standard deviations reflect a diverse group of individuals with limited awareness or critical perspectives.

Cluster 2 is the largest group, comprising n = 323 participants (40.5% of the total sample, n = 798). This dominant representation suggests that the “supportive but selective advocates” constitute the most common respondent profile, indicating widespread but moderate engagement with the UGGp geoethical axes. Cluster 1, “highly engaged environmental stewards”, is the second-largest group, including n = 229 participants (28.7% of the sample). This is a significant portion of the population, suggesting that nearly one-third of respondents are deeply aligned with UGGp values across all measured geoethical dimensions. Cluster 3, representing the “moderately indifferent participants”, includes n = 215 respondents (roughly 26.9%), indicating that a substantial segment of the population holds lukewarm or neutral attitudes toward geoethical themes. Cluster 4, the “disengaged or critical respondents”, is by far the smallest group, with only n = 31 individuals (3.9%). While statistically small, this group’s lower scores and potential for critical perspectives warrant attention, particularly if they represent stakeholders with influence or unique informational needs.

From an applied perspective, the distribution suggests a strong foundation of supportive attitudes (clusters 1 and 2, totaling 69.2%), but also highlights a meaningful minority (30.8%) whose engagement may be ambivalent or lacking. This asymmetry is typical in attitudinal data of this nature and provides a rationale for tailored outreach: reinforcing commitment among the largest clusters while targeting informational and motivational strategies toward the less engaged minority.

3.4. Demographic Patters and Engagement Levels in Respondent Clusters

An in-depth analysis of sociodemographic and engagement-related characteristics was conducted across the four respondent clusters to better understand how these variables relate to levels of environmental engagement and perceptions. As presented in

Table 5. Sociodemographic information and environmental engagement profile clusters.

Sociodemographic Information	Total		Cluster 1		Cluster 2		Cluster 3		Cluster 4		χ2	p
	n = 798, 100%		n = 229, 28.7%		n = 323, 40.5%		n = 215, 26.9%		n = 31, 3.9%
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Female	518	64.9	158	69.0	213	65.9	130	60.5	17	54.8	n.s.	n.s.
Male	269	33.7	70	30.6	109	33.8	81	37.7	9	29.0
Other	1	0.1	0	0.0	1	0.3	0	0.0	0	0.0
Prefer not to answer	10	1.3	1	0.4	0	0.0	4	1.8	5	16.2
Age (years)
18 to 24	16	2.0	0	0.0	5	1.5	8	3.7	3	9.7	43.36	<0.001
25 to 34	48	6.0	15	6.5	16	5.0	13	6.0	4	12.9
35 to 44	267	33.5	57	24.9	115	35.6	88	41.0	7	22.6
45 to 54	286	35.8	84	36.7	125	38.7	68	31.6	9	29.0
55 to 64	154	19.3	65	28.4	54	16.7	27	12.6	8	25.8
65 or more	27	3.4	8	3.5	8	2.5	11	5.1	0	0.0
Highest level of education											23.52	<0.001
Secondary/Vocational	141	17.7	38	16.6	51	15.8	38	17.7	14	45.2
Bachelor’s degree	364	45.6	93	40.6	152	47.1	104	48.4	15	48.4
Master’s/PhD degree	293	36.7	98	42.8	120	37.1	73	33.9	2	6.4
Place of origin											43.86	<0.001
Rural area	260	32.6	61	26.6	106	32.8	80	37.2	13	41.9
Semi-urban area	265	33.2	53	23.2	112	34.7	87	40.5	13	41.9
Urban area	273	34.2	115	50.2	105	32.5	48	22.3	5	16.2
Place of residence (past two years)
Rural area	88	11.0	32	14.0	29	9.0	20	9.3	7	22.6	14.22	0.027
Semi-urban area	243	30.5	59	25.8	99	30.6	75	34.9	10	32.2
Urban area	467	58.5	138	60.2	195	60.4	120	55.8	14	45.2
Visits to regions’ UGGp											30.90	<0.001
No	245	30.7	45	19.7	106	32.8	81	37.7	13	41.9
Yes	522	65.4	180	78.6	206	63.8	121	56.3	15	48.4
I do not know	31	3.9	4	1.7	11	3.4	13	6.0	3	9.7
Number of visits to region’s UGGp
None	234	29.3	43	18.8	105	32.5	74	34.4	12	38.7	54.91	<0.001
1 time	103	12.9	38	16.6	37	11.5	23	10.7	5	16.1
2 to 3 times	191	23.9	58	25.3	82	25.4	47	21.9	4	12.9
4 to 6 times	107	13.4	33	14.4	44	13.6	27	12.6	3	9.7
7 times or more	116	14.6	51	22.3	40	12.4	25	11.6	0	0.0
I do not know	47	5.9	6	2.6	15	4.6	19	8.8	7	22.6
Visits to other Hellenic UGGp											46.97	<0.001
No	479	60.0	112	48.9	206	63.8	141	65.6	20	64.4
Yes	266	33.3	110	48.0	101	31.2	49	22.8	6	19.4
I do not know	53	6.7	7	3.1	16	5.0	25	11.6	5	16.2
Environmental organization membership											11.00	0.012
No	689	86.3	188	82.1	276	85.4	195	90.7	30	96.8
Yes	109	13.7	41	17.9	47	14.6	20	9.3	1	3.2
UGGp of respondent
Lesvos Island	89	11.2	18	7.9	45	13.9	24	11.2	2	6.4	59.33	<0.001
Psiloritis	95	11.9	24	10.5	30	9.3	32	14.9	9	29.1
Vikos–Aoos	84	10.5	19	8.3	43	13.3	21	9.8	1	3.2
Chelmos–Vouraikos	100	12.5	29	12.7	45	13.9	24	11.2	2	6.4
Sitia	100	12.5	51	22.3	30	9.3	16	7.4	3	9.7
Grevena–Kozani	85	10.6	26	11.3	30	9.3	23	10.7	6	19.4
Kefalonia–Ithaca	81	10.2	24	10.5	29	9.0	25	11.6	3	9.7
Lavreotiki	83	10.4	15	6.5	35	10.8	31	14.4	2	6.4
Meteora–Pyli	81	10.2	23	10.0	36	11.2	19	8.8	3	9.7

Note: Percentages are calculated within each cluster column. Clusters were derived from a two-step cluster analysis and are labeled as follows: (a) Cluster 1: “highly engaged environmental stewards”; (b) Cluster 2: “supportive but selective advocates”; (c) Cluster 3: “moderately indifferent participants”; and (d) Cluster 4: “disengaged or critical respondents”. The chi-square (χ²) tests assess differences in the distribution of characteristics across clusters. n.s. = not significant.

, the distribution of participants across clusters did not significantly differ by gender, although females were slightly more represented in all groups (p > 0.05). This suggests gender was not a determining factor in engagement levels within this sample.

Significant differences emerged in age distribution among the clusters (χ²(15) = 43.36, p < 0.001). The “highly engaged environmental stewards” cluster contained a notably higher proportion of older respondents, especially those aged 55–64 (n = 65, 28.4%), indicating that older individuals tend to be more actively involved and supportive of UGGp initiatives. Conversely, the “disengaged or critical respondents” cluster was characterized by a higher prevalence of younger participants, particularly those aged 18–24 (n = 3, 9.7%), highlighting a potential generational gap in engagement or awareness.

Regarding educational attainment, three categories were established: secondary/vocational training, bachelor’s degree, and master’s/doctoral degrees. The analysis revealed significant differentiation among clusters (χ²(6) = 23.52, p < 0.001). The “highly engaged environmental stewards” group had the highest proportion of individuals with advanced degrees, with n = 98, 42.8% holding a Master’s or PhD, whereas only n = 2, 6.5% of the “disengaged or critical respondents” cluster had such qualifications. Conversely, the “disengaged or critical respondents” had the highest percentage of individuals with only secondary or vocational education (n = 14, 45.1%), suggesting that higher education levels are associated with greater engagement and support for UGGp initiatives.

Place of origin also significantly varied across the clusters (χ²(6) = 43.86, p < 0.001). Urban residents were disproportionately represented among the “highly engaged environmental stewards” (n = 115, 50.2%), emphasizing the role of urban upbringing or environment in fostering engagement. In contrast, rural origins were most common among the “disengaged or critical respondents” (n = 13, 41.9%), indicating that geographic background may influence perceptions and involvement. Recent residence further reinforced this pattern, with “disengaged or critical respondents” individuals being more likely to live in rural settings (χ²(6) = 14.22, p = 0.027).

Prior engagement with the region’s UGGp was a strong differentiator: respondents who had visited their local UGGp were significantly more prevalent in the “highly engaged environmental stewards” cluster (n = 180, 78.6%) and less so in the “disengaged or critical respondents” group (n = 15, 48.4%), χ²(6) = 30.90, p < 0.001. The frequency of visits in regional UGGp also varied markedly; n = 51, 22.3% of the “highly engaged environmental stewards” reported visiting the regional UGGp seven or more times, whereas this was not observed in the “disengaged or critical respondents” group, highlighting a clear relationship between visit frequency and engagement level (χ²(15) = 54.91, p < 0.001). Additionally, visitation to other Hellenic UGGps was more common among the “highly engaged environmental stewards” (n = 110, 48.0%), χ²(6) = 46.97, p < 0.001, suggesting that active visitors tend to seek out multiple UGGps.

Membership in environmental organizations further distinguished the clusters: the “highly engaged environmental stewards” were most likely to be organizational members (n = 41, 17.9%), whereas only n = 1, 3.2% of the “disengaged or critical respondents” reported such an affiliation (χ²(3) = 11.00, p = 0.012). This underscores the connection between active participation in environmental groups and higher engagement with UGGp initiatives.

Finally, regional differences in cluster membership were statistically significant (χ²(24) = 59.33, p < 0.001). Respondents from Sitia UGGp were nearly twice as likely to belong to the “highly engaged environmental stewards” cluster (n = 51, 22.3%) compared to other Hellenic UGGps, indicating effective regional outreach or strong local support. Conversely, respondents from Psiloritis UGGp (n = 9, 29.1%) and Grevena–Kozani UGGp (n = 6, 19.4%) were more prevalent within the “disengaged or critical respondents” cluster, aligning with the overall pattern and suggesting regional variations in awareness and engagement levels.

4. Discussion

4.1. A Road Map for Hellenic UGGps and Beyond

Nature is an intricate web in which living organisms and the abiotic components of ecosystems constantly interact in complex, dynamic relationships [179]. Among these interactions, the Earth’s most remarkable geosites—including UGGps—serve as archives of long-term geological evolution and exemplify the interplay between physical processes and living systems. Conserving these sites is essential not only for protecting geodiversity and biodiversity but also for preserving the cultural, geological, environmental, and landscape values that render them exceptional [28,180,181,182,183,184].

The term geoheritage traditionally focuses on rock, fossil, and landform records formed over deep time, yet it intrinsically intersects with cultural heritage, often incorporating human significance into geoconservation [185,186,187,188,189,190,191]. In parallel, geodiversity—analogous to biodiversity—describes the variety of Earth materials and processes [192,193,194], but both concepts remain underrecognized by wider society [195]. Geoconservation initiatives therefore employ strategic protection measures that respect local cultural and indigenous knowledge, safeguarding these resources for future generations [196,197,198,199].

In the Anthropocene, human activities leave distinct imprints on the geological record at global, national, and local scales, underscoring the need for effective communication of anthropogenic impacts and coordinated research efforts [200,201]. UGGps have emerged as a core mechanism to address these challenges by designating landscapes of international geological significance that also promote biodiversity conservation, cultural heritage, and community development—even within human-modified environments. Over the past decade, the number of UGGps has more than doubled worldwide, reflecting their expanding role in safeguarding geoheritage as a sustainable resource [202,203], while scholarly output on UGGps in Greece has likewise surged [75]. However, global bibliometric analyses continue to identify a dearth of research on geoethics [71,79,203,204], revealing a critical gap in our understanding.

Geoethics foster moral and spiritual development, offering a counterweight to tendencies of civilization self-destruction [205]. Recognizing Earth as a complex, interconnected system is thus vital for tackling Anthropocene-epoch challenges, including resource depletion, exploitation impacts, and natural hazards [1,7,206]. Geoheritage and geodiversity symbolically link physical, biological, and cultural realms [207], and UGGps translate these concepts into practice by engaging citizens [208] in sustainable geοresources use [32,209], climate-change adaptation [210], and risk reduction [211].

By posing critical questions about which human behaviors and practices best confront the socio-ecological crisis, geoethics underpins geoeducation [11,34,212] and advocates for geocentric decision-making—placing Earth’s systems at the heart of policy and practice, rather than narrow anthropocentric interests [24].

4.2. Uncovering Geoethical Engagement Across Hellenic UGGps

Building on these issues, our study is the first to systematically map residents’ geoethical awareness and environmental engagement across all nine Hellenic UGGps, using a validated GAS [162], yielding acceptable internal consistency across 16 thematic axes (Table 3). Overall geoethical awareness was high (Table 2 and Table 3), but one-way ANOVAs revealed significant regional differences in geoheritage, geodiversity, resilience, geoconservation, geotourism, risk prevention, georesources management, sustainability, geoenvironmental education, water management, climate crisis, and ecological awareness (Table 2), demonstrating that local context, demographic factors, and prior engagement shape public perceptions [10,43,95].

Sitia UGGp emerged as the highest-scoring UGGp (Table 2), possibly reflecting effective outreach, a visible interpretive infrastructure, and strong community support. In contrast, Psiloritis UGGp and Lavreotiki UGGp recorded lower scores (Table 2)—particularly in biodiversity, geotourism, risk prevention, resilience, and community engagement—indicating a need for intensified public educational campaigns and partnerships among stakeholders.

A two-step cluster analysis of standardized GAS scores produced four distinct respondent profiles (Table 4):

• Cluster 1: “highly engaged environmental stewards” exhibited uniformly high agreement across all axes, indicating deep alignment with UGGp values.
• Cluster 2: “supportive but selective advocates” showed moderate yet positive endorsement, reflecting widespread but uneven engagement.
• Cluster 3: “moderately indifferent participants” held ambivalent views.
• Cluster 4: “disengaged or critical respondents” demonstrated low and variable scores.

Clusters 1 and 2 together comprise 69.2% of respondents, revealing a solid base of geoethical support, while Clusters 3 and 4 (30.8%) identify populations requiring targeted reinforcement (Table 4).

Demographic analyses further inform tailored interventions (Table 5). Older adults and individuals with postgraduate degrees were disproportionately represented in Cluster 1, whereas younger participants and those with only secondary education predominated in Cluster 4. Urban origin and residence correlated with higher engagement, while rural backgrounds were linked to critical or disengaged stances. Moreover, frequent prior visits to UGGps and membership in environmental organizations strongly predicted high engagement, underscoring the pivotal role of experiential learning and active participation in cultivating geoethical values [95,162].

4.3. Research Insights and Future Directions

These insights suggest that UGGp authorities should develop age- and education-appropriate programming—such as youth geo-clubs, senior interpretive walks, and tiered workshops—to engage diverse demographics. Also, they can leverage repeat visitors as geo-ambassadors to mentor newcomers and strengthen community networks. Co-design outreach strategies with local stakeholders—schools, NGOs, and cultural groups—could address context-specific barriers and enhance visibility in lower-scoring UGGps.

Despite generally encouraging awareness levels, regional disparities in several UGGps persist. These may reflect variations in UGGp maturity, resource allocation, leadership, or initiative visibility. Addressing these gaps will require sustained investments in education and outreach, supplemented by qualitative and ethnographic studies, such as in-depth interviews, and participant observation to uncover local narratives and cultural factors shaping geoethical perceptions.

Future research should include longitudinal and intervention studies with pre- and post-testing to assess the durability of awareness gains; comparative analyses of GAS results across other UGGps to benchmark governance and engagement practices; and exploration of digital engagement tools (mobile apps, virtual/augmented reality, citizen science) to amplify participation. Linking engagement profiles to actual pro-environmental behaviors—such as sustainable tourism choices and policy support—and quantifying their ecological and socio-economic impacts will provide critical evidence of UGGps’ contributions to planetary well-being. Aligning these efforts with relevant Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 3: Good health and well-being; SDG 4: Quality education; SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities; SDG 13: Climate action; SDG 15: Life on land) will further demonstrate UGGps’ role in advancing global sustainability agendas.

By pursuing these avenues, scholars, practitioners, and stakeholders can refine geoethical frameworks, optimize UGGp governance, and foster a lasting shift from anthropocentrism to a geocentric ethic that safeguards both human communities and Earth’s systems for generations to come.

4.4. Limitations

While the research strategy aimed to meet the study objectives, several limitations are acknowledged. The online survey method restricted participation to individuals with internet access, potentially excluding certain groups, such as older adults, residents of remote areas, or those less active online, which may limit the sample’s representativeness. The use of convenience and voluntary sampling introduces self-selection bias, possibly inflating awareness levels. The cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single point in time, limiting the assessment of temporal changes. Cultural and linguistic factors may influence responses, and social desirability bias could lead to the overreporting of positive attitudes. Moreover, variables such as socioeconomic status or prior environmental education were not included, which may affect geoethical awareness.

Additionally, the complexity of the questionnaire and the use of specialized terminology may have posed challenges for some respondents, potentially leading to misunderstandings or superficial responses, especially among participants less familiar with geoethical concepts.

Regarding the sample, it was representative of all nine Hellenic UGGps, with participation ranging from 80 to 100 individuals per region. However, the sociodemographic characteristics were not stratified to match the population distribution of the Hellenic UGGps. This was not the study’s primary aim, as stratified sampling would require specific sampling from various sociodemographic categories, which was beyond the scope given the non-probability sampling approach. Most respondents were aged between 34 and 54 years, held a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and worked primarily in the education sector.

Future studies should consider broader sampling strategies and longitudinal approaches to address these limitations.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study offers a comprehensive exploration of geoethical awareness among residents of Hellenic UGGps, illuminating both the strengths and disparities in public engagement with geoethical values across diverse regions. By integrating quantitative survey data with advanced cluster analysis, the research reveals a nuanced landscape in which supportive attitudes toward geoethics are widespread, yet significant differences persist based on geography, demographics, and personal experience. The identification of distinct engagement profiles underscores the importance of targeted educational strategies and participatory programs that can bridge gaps in awareness and foster deeper community involvement. The findings suggest that UGGps with strong outreach, geoeducational initiatives, and accessible opportunities for participation are more successful in embedding geoethical principles within their communities. However, the presence of less-engaged and critical segments highlights the ongoing need for innovative and inclusive approaches that address local barriers and encourage broader societal involvement. Future research should build on these insights by employing longitudinal and mixed-methods designs, expanding the range of influencing factors studied, and exploring the impact of policy and management interventions. Ultimately, embedding geoethics as a living, shared value demands continuous collaboration among UGGp managers, researchers, educators, policymakers and the communities they serve. Such partnerships can transform Hellenic UGGps into laboratories for the resilient, inclusive and sustainable stewardship of geological heritage, offering a replicable model for UGGps worldwide.