Exploring environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety: A comparative study among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia

Cvetković, V. M., Sudar, S., Ivanov, A., Lukić, T., & Grozdanić, G. (2024). Exploring environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety: A comparative study among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia. Open Geosciences, 16(1), 20220669.

Research Article

Vladimir M. Cvetković*, Srna Sudar, Aleksandar Ivanov, Tin Lukić, and Goran Grozdanić

Exploring environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety: A comparative study among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia

https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2022-0669 received May 06, 2024; accepted June 14, 2024

Abstract: This comparative study aims to investigate envir- onmental awareness, knowledge, and safety among stu- dents in Montenegro and North Macedonia, considering the unique socio-cultural and environmental contexts of both countries. A mixed-methods approach involving sur- veys and interviews was employed to gather data from students in educational institutions across Montenegro and North Macedonia. The study assessed various factors, including students’ awareness of environmental issues, their perceived level of knowledge, and their attitudes towards safety measures. A comprehensive series of 400 face-to-face interviews was carried out, and these inter- views encompassed 200 students from Montenegro and an equal number from North Macedonia, taking place at two esteemed academic institutions: The University of Montenegro in Podgorica and The University of St. Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, Republic of North Macedonia. Our hypothetical conceptual fra- mework proposes that a combination of variables, including gender (H1), age (H2), year of study (H3), and rate of study (H4), signiﬁcantly inﬂuences the attitudes of students from Montenegro and North Macedonia towards environmental



* Corresponding author: Vladimir M. Cvetković, Department of Disasters and Environmental Security, Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Gospodara Vucica 50, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia; Scientiﬁc- Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia; International Institute for Disaster Research, Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia, e-mail: vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs Srna Sudar: Project Oﬃce, Rectorate, University of Montenegro, Cetinjska 2, 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro, e-mail: srna@ucg.ac.me Aleksandar Ivanov: Department of Social, Political and Legal Sciences, Faculty of Security – Skopje, University St. Kliment Ohridski Bitola, 7000, Bitola, North Macedonia, e-mail: aleksandar.ivanov@uklo.edu.mk

Tin Lukić: Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia, e-mail: tin.lukic@dgt.uns.ac.rs

Goran Grozdanić: Department of Geography, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, Danila Bojovića bb., 81400, Nikšić, Montenegro, e-mail: gorangr@ucg.ac.me

Graphical abstract

awareness, safety, and knowledge. Research ﬁndings indicate signiﬁcant variations in environmental awareness and knowl- edge perception among students in the two countries. While both Montenegro and North Macedonia face environmental challenges, diﬀerences in educational systems and socio-eco- nomic factors contribute to distinct attitudes and behaviours towards environmental issues and safety practices. This study sheds light on the importance of understanding regional diﬀer- ences in environmental awareness and knowledge perception among students. By identifying areas of strength and areas needing improvement, policymakers and educators can develop targeted interventions to enhance environmental education and foster a culture of sustainability in both Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Keywords: environment, awareness, knowledge, safety, per- ception, comparative study, students, survey, Montenegro, North Macedonia

‌Introduction

Environmental issues today span the globe, inﬂuencing both present and prospective environmental conditions. These challenges diﬀer from one region to another but collectively require a comprehensive and collaborative response from multiple sectors [1]. As the world grapples

Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

with diverse and complex environmental challenges, a multifaceted and collaborative approach involving mul- tiple sectors is essential for eﬀective management and mitigation [2]. The course of an individual’s life, inﬂu- enced by their experiences and existence, collectively delineates the path towards the attainment of estab- lished goals, motivated by their needs, desires, and aspirations [3].

Environmental awareness refers to the awareness and understanding individuals possess about the environmental impacts of their actions and the broader ecological chal- lenges facing our planet [4–7]. This awareness is increas- ingly critical as we confront escalating issues such as climate change and ecological degradation [8]. The development of this awareness is inﬂuenced by various factors, including education, media exposure, cultural values, and personal experiences with nature [8,9]. In recent years, the impor- tance of environmental awareness has become increasingly evident as global challenges related to climate change and environmental degradation intensify [10]. Promoting aware- ness and encouraging changes in behaviour towards environmental sustainability is crucial in lessening the det- rimental eﬀects of unsustainable practices on both human health and the broader ecosystem [1,11]. To eﬀectively address the intricate nature of these environmental chal- lenges, a cooperative eﬀort among varied scientiﬁc disci- plines is essential [5,12–15].

Raising environmental awareness is vital for instilling a sense of environmental responsibility and encouraging sustainable practices among individuals and communities [16]. It plays a foundational role in shaping attitudes and behaviours that support environmental stewardship.

Paramount among the objectives humanity must urgently pursue today is a fundamental shift in behaviour and mindset towards ensuring the sustainability and adaptability of our environment [11,17–19]. Central to this imperative is the culti- vation of respect for and stewardship of nature and resources, advocating for sustainable living as a cornerstone of human values, attitudes, existence, and lifestyle [20–22]. Acknowled- ging humanity’s signiﬁcant responsibility for environmental harm, pollution, and resource depletion, the primary goal of the global environmental movement is evident: to promote increased awareness of available resources, prevalent envir- onmental challenges, and ongoing changes [23]. Through this heightened awareness, the movement seeks to catalyze a transformative shift in human behaviour towards a more sustainable existence [24].

Understanding the perceptions and knowledge of young individuals regarding environmental issues is crucial for devel- oping eﬀective educational strategies and policies that promote sustainable practices [12,25–29]. Environmental knowledge refers

to the understanding and information that individuals have about the environment and its various components, including ecosystems, biodiversity, natural resources, and the human impact on these elements [30]. This knowledge encompasses both scientiﬁc facts and a broader understanding of envir- onmental policies, sustainability practices, and the ecolo- gical consequences of human actions [31–35]. Having a robust body of environmental knowledge is crucial because it empowers individuals to make informed decisions about their behaviours and practices that impact the environment [35]. It also plays a critical role in shaping attitudes towards environmental conservation and sustainability. People who are more knowledgeable about the environment are gener- ally more likely to engage in behaviours that contribute to its preservation and restoration [36].

Grasping how young people perceive and understand environmental issues is key to crafting eﬀective educa- tional strategies and policies that encourage sustainable practices [2–7]. The environmental challenges we face today are widespread, inﬂuencing both our present circum- stances and future prospects [37]. Although these issues diﬀer from one region to another, they universally necessi- tate a thorough and collaborative response across various sectors [38]. Enhancing awareness and encouraging shifts in behaviour towards sustainability are vital to reduce the harmful eﬀects of unsustainable practices on both human health and the ecosystem [39]. Tackling these intricate envir- onmental issues demands the uniﬁed eﬀorts of multiple scientiﬁc disciplines [40].

The educational system in every nation, Montenegro and North Macedonia included, holds the responsibility of instilling foundational values and fostering a deep under- standing of environmental stewardship, nature apprecia- tion, human potential, and the importance of sustainable living. This framework not only supports individual devel- opment eﬀorts but also underscores the necessity of mana- ging resources judiciously to meet escalating human demands. Moreover, within this system, educators play a pivotal role as they possess the potential to shape the atti- tudes and perceptions of children, adolescents, and students towards sustainability. They should actively promote sus- tainable lifestyles, introduce ecological concepts, and under- score the signiﬁcance of resource limitations. Failure to embrace sustainable practices and the reckless exploitation of resources not only jeopardize environmental integrity but also pose substantial security threats, impeding future human progress and stability.

In recent years, concerns about environmental sustain- ability and awareness have increasingly gained prominence worldwide [41]. As societies grapple with the challenges posed by climate change, pollution, and dwindling natural resources,

understanding the dynamics of environmental awareness and knowledge perception becomes imperative [42–44].

Taking the aforementioned into consideration, this study delves into these intricacies, focusing on the perspec- tives of students in Montenegro and North Macedonia. Montenegro and North Macedonia, two Balkan countries characterized by diverse landscapes and ecosystems, pro- vide an intriguing backdrop for examining environmental attitudes and perceptions among the youth [45–48]. Despite sharing geographical proximity and similar environmental concerns, disparities in educational systems, cultural inﬂu- ences, and socioeconomic factors may shape distinct out- looks on environmental issues [22,49].

By conducting a comparative analysis between these two nations, this study assessed various factors, including students’ awareness of environmental issues, their per- ceived level of knowledge, and their attitudes towards safety measures. Speciﬁcally, it seeks to elucidate how environ- mental awareness is cultivated, the extent of knowledge acquisition regarding ecological matters, and the perceived sense of safety and preparedness in addressing environ- mental challenges. Our hypothetical conceptual framework proposes that a combination of variables, including gender (H1), age (H2), year of study (H3), and rate of study (H4), signiﬁcantly inﬂuences the attitudes of students from Montenegro and North Macedonia towards environmental awareness, safety, and knowledge. Through a comprehen- sive examination of survey data, qualitative interviews, and relevant literature, this research endeavours to contribute valuable insights into the drivers and barriers shaping environmental attitudes among the youth in Montenegro and North Macedonia. By shedding light on these dimensions, policymakers, educators, and environmental advocates can devise more eﬀective strategies for fostering environmental stewardship and resilience in future generations.
1. ‌Literature review
  
  Various studies [31,50–53] suggest that environmental aware- ness and behaviour are inﬂuenced by a combination of cog- nitive, emotional, and behavioural factors. In nations such as Switzerland (Community Clean-up Events: Swiss Environ- mental Foundation, “Cleanup Campaign”; Environmental Education Programs: Swiss Federal Oﬃce for the Environ- ment, “Environmental Education”; Advocacy and Lobbying: Greenpeace Switzerland), the United States (Sustainable Life- style Choices: Environmental Protection Agency, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”; Green Business Initiatives: U.S. Green Building Council, “LEED Certiﬁcation”), China (Volunteering
  
  for Conservation Projects: China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation; Policy Engagement and Public Consultations: Ministry of Ecology and Environ- ment of the People’s Republic of China), and Malaysia (Environmental Education Programs: Malaysian Environ- mental NGOs; Advocacy and Lobbying: Friends of the Earth Malaysia (SAM)), citizen engagement and active involve- ment contribute to the enhancement of environmental sus- tainability awareness [41]. Also, environmental knowledge plays a key role in shaping conservation activities, percep- tion, and pro-environmental behaviour, both privately and publicly, and is further aﬀected by psychological, educa- tional, and cultural elements [15,33,54,55]. Besides that, the research studies [35,43,56] indicate that familiarity with local environmental issues plays a constructive role in encoura- ging pro-environmental conduct through several channels. These include motivation, perception of eﬀectiveness, under- standing of consequences, education, and cultural values [57,58]. Additionally, local environmental knowledge contri- butes to policy formation and planning. Personal, social, and demographic factors are also noted to signiﬁcantly inﬂuence these dynamics [59–61].
  
  Students typically exhibit a pro-environmental mindset, which is inﬂuenced by a variety of factors such as their level of comprehension, societal security, socio-economic back- ground, and formal education [22]. However, their grasp of ecological concepts and information tends to be modest, with secondary school students marginally better informed [49]. Although students express heightened concern regarding air pollution stemming from vehicular traﬃc, their awareness regarding issues of injury and violence remains conspicuously low [62]. Notwithstanding, approximately 70% of high school students in Macedonia voice apprehension about environ- mental matters [20], echoing ﬁndings that both Serbian and Macedonian students harbour a degree of environmental awareness and ecological perspective [63].
  
  Participation in academic pursuits is linked to engage- ment in environmental conservation activities, suggesting a correlation between perception, attitude, and action [64]. Nonetheless, students’ perceptions and understanding of environmental challenges exhibit variance across local, national, and global scales, with age and gender groups dis- playing only a tenuous correlation [32]. In Bodrum, Turkey, the foremost environmental health concerns among stu- dents revolve around smoking, air pollution, and ozone depletion [65]. In Hong Kong, students demonstrate a limited grasp of environmental issues and experience minimal con- cern for environmental quality [66]. While many North Macedonian secondary education students evince an incli- nation towards environmental issues, there exists a recog- nized necessity for more comprehensive environmental
  
  education and motivation from extracurricular societal ave- nues [67]. Over time, Macedonian students’ environmental knowledge has witnessed a decline, with average levels diminishing from 39.19% in 2002 to 34.71% in 2009 [68]. Factors such as motivation and perceived eﬀectiveness signif- icantly inﬂuence the adoption of pro-environmental beha- viours among university students [35]. Nonetheless, a majority of Macedonian students display a readiness to actively engage in addressing environmental pollution issues [69]. Both in Turkey and Macedonia, the emphasis is predominantly placed on knowledge acquisition, while the cultivation of skills, atti- tudes, and environmentally responsible behaviours receives comparatively lesser attention [70].
  
  Ensuring the safety, cleanliness, and hygiene-promoting attributes of school facilities ranks high on the agenda in North Macedonia [71]. Students exhibit a predilection for social risk factors, with terrorism taking precedence, along- side considerations of water pollution and nuclear power plants as signiﬁcant technological hazards [72]. In north- eastern Montenegro, there exists a pressing need for heigh- tened environmental awareness, as public participation in environmental protection endeavours remains inadequate [7]. While many students across diverse studies demonstrate an awareness of environmental issues, there frequently exists a dearth of knowledge and support for environmental protection measures [73].
  
  Literature reviews reveal signiﬁcant gender discrepan- cies in environmental attitudes and behaviours. Across diverse socio-economic strata, females consistently demon- strate heightened environmental responsibility in compar- ison to males [74]. Pro-environmental conduct manifests distinct gender patterns, with speciﬁc psychological deter- minants exerting varying inﬂuences on each gender [75]. Notably, a discernible gender divide in sustainability aware- ness persists, intensifying with age and notably accentuated within institutions prioritizing Education for Sustainable Development [76]. Although the impact of gender on envir- onmental awareness among post-graduate cohorts may lack consistency, certain studies indicate a propensity towards heightened awareness among females [77]. Additionally, female students tend to perceive environmental risks with greater acuity relative to their male counterparts [78] and articulate heightened levels of environmental concern overall [78,79].
  
  Research spanning various ﬁelds highlights how age inﬂuences perceptions and behaviours across diﬀerent contexts, emphasizing the need for age-responsive strate- gies in workplace safety, environmental knowledge, and health competencies [80–82]. In construction sites, older workers’ perceptions of safety are mainly shaped by work- load and job satisfaction, whereas younger workers focus
  
  more on organizational relationships, mental stress, and job security [80]. In environmental contexts, the decline in intergenerational knowledge sharing among Indigenous populations highlights the rigidity of local knowledge sys- tems in the face of rapid ecological changes, posing risks to adaptive management strategies [81]. The pandemic under- scored the generational diﬀerences in valuing certain competencies, revealing an increased appreciation for health-oriented and safety-conscious behaviours across age groups [82]. Similarly, in educational settings, primary school students’ environmental awareness is linked to their existing knowledge and motivation for conservation, indi- cating that age inﬂuences environmental awareness devel- opment [50]. For older women in urban settings, safety perceptions are categorized into psychological, functional, and environmental concerns, suggesting that policy inter- ventions should address these aspects to support active ageing [83]. Environmental perceptions notably aﬀect the mental and physical health of middle-aged and older adults, with greater disparities observed among females, rural resi- dents, individuals with lower education levels, and those in lower-income brackets [84].
  
  The relationship between an individual’s living envir- onment and their understanding and perception of envir- onmental awareness, knowledge, and safety is intricately linked [85–87]. Studies show that living near hazardous facilities like nuclear power plants can alter how commu- nities perceive risks. Those in closer proximity often feel less threatened and may even incorporate the facility into their local identity positively [85]. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, it was observed that being conﬁned to one place might lead to increased pro-social and environ- mental behaviours. A strong connection to one’s place of residence could further encourage these behaviours [86]. Belonging to a community generally improves the quality of life, although this connection is not directly tied to attach- ment to a speciﬁc place. Smaller towns are known for enhan- cing environmental, psychological, and relational aspects of life, highlighting the beneﬁts of living outside major urban centres [87]. Where individuals reside determines their exposure to climate change risks and the community’s ability to manage and respond to them eﬀectively, underscoring the signiﬁcance of geographic factors in public health strategies [88]. Percep- tions of a safe living environment not only reduce safety- related anxiety but also enhance safety culture awareness and decrease accident rates. This underscores the importance of both tangible and psychological aspects of the environment in creating safer living conditions [89–91].
  
  The literature review [24,29,34,92–94] on educational impact in environmental and safety studies reveals a com- plex relationship between the study duration and
  
  environmental and safety perceptions among diverse stu- dent populations. The academic year of environmental studies students does not signiﬁcantly aﬀect their sustain- ability habits, implying that the duration of their study alone may not be decisive in shaping sustainable habits [54]. In con- trast, the length of time spent in environmental education slightly boosts environmental appreciation and intentions for proactive environmental behaviours and learning, with stu- dents showing incremental increases each year [29]. Among pedagogical university students, ﬁrst-year students exhibit a stronger inclination towards pro-environmental behaviours compared to other student groups, suggesting a high initial motivation that may need nurturing to sustain over time [92]. This readiness appears to grow as students advance, with each additional year spent on campus increasing the likelihood of engaging in pro-environmental behaviours by 4–10 percentage points annually [93]. In the realm of patient safety, nursing students initially perceive high levels of knowl- edge and competency, especially in their ﬁrst year. However, this perception moderates in the second year before increasing again by the third year, suggesting a ﬂuctuating self-assessment of skills as they advance in their studies [34]. For younger learners, fourth- and ﬁfth-graders involved in environmental education programs show a growing aware- ness of their potential impact on nature over a school year. However, this does not necessarily translate into an enhanced appreciation for the environment or an increase in intentions to learn or behave environmentally, which raises questions about the eﬀectiveness of current educational approaches [29]. Finally, there appears to be no signiﬁcant link between environmental knowledge and attitudes among students in their ﬁnal year of secondary school, pointing to a disconnect that might limit the eﬀectiveness of environmental education
  
  in fostering a proactive environmental attitude [94].
  
  Identiﬁed gaps in current research on environmental awareness and behaviour underscore the need for compre- hensive investigation across various dimensions, including cognitive, emotional, and behavioural inﬂuences, eﬀective- ness of societal engagement strategies, psychological factors shaping environmental knowledge, impact of local environ- mental knowledge, gender discrepancies, age-responsive strategies, inﬂuence of living environment, and evaluation of educational impact.

‌Methods

This comparative study aims to investigate environmental awareness, perception of knowledge, and safety among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia, considering

the unique socio-cultural and environmental contexts of both countries. The primary inquiry of this comparative study is as follows: “How do environmental awareness, perception of knowledge, and safety among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia vary, considering the distinctive socio-cultural and environmental contexts of each nation? Furthermore, what is the inﬂuence of gender, age, year of study, and rate of study on the attitudes of students from these regions towards environmental aware- ness, safety, and knowledge?” Regarding that, our hypothe- tical conceptual framework proposes that a combination of variables, including gender (H1), age (H2), year of study (H3), and rate of study (H4), signiﬁcantly inﬂuences the attitudes of students from Montenegro and North Macedonia towards environmental awareness, safety, and knowledge (Figure 1). A mixed-methods approach involving surveys and inter- views was employed to gather data from students in educa- tional institutions across Montenegro (The University of Montenegro in Podgorica) and North Macedonia (The University of St. Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, Republic of North Macedonia). Surveys were designed to collect quantitative data, allowing for the measurement of speciﬁc variables such as envir- onmental awareness, perceived knowledge levels, and attitudes towards safety measures. This quantitative data provided numer- ical insights and statistical analyses to identify trends and asso- ciations among diﬀerent factors. In contrast, interviews were employed to capture qualitative data, oﬀering deeper insights into students’ perceptions, experiences, and attitudes regarding environmental issues and safety measures. Through open-ended questions and discussions, interviews provided rich contextual information, allowing researchers to understand the nuances of students’ perspectives and the underlying reasons behind their attitudes and behaviours. Because of that, the study assessed various factors, including students’ awareness of environ- mental issues, their perceived level of knowledge, and their

attitudes towards safety measures.

A multistage random sampling method was employed for a study conducted in 2023–2024 within two Universities across Montenegro and North Macedonia. The initial phase involved the purposive selection of two universities, namely, The University of Montenegro in Podgorica and The University of St. Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, Republic of North Macedonia. These universities were intentionally chosen due to their pro- minence and representativeness within their respective coun- tries’ educational landscapes. The University of Montenegro stands as a leading academic institution in Montenegro, while The University of St. Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, is recognized for its signiﬁcance in North Macedonia’s higher education system. Their selection ensures a comprehensive representation of students from diverse academic backgrounds and geographic regions within Montenegro and North Macedonia. Following

‌Figure 1: Designing research steps to explore students’ perspectives on environmental awareness perception of knowledge, and safety.

this deliberate selection process, the study progressed to the subsequent phase where speciﬁc classrooms were chosen for conducting face-to-face interviews with students.

Classrooms for the interviews were selected through a systematic process to ensure a representative sample of stu- dents from the participating universities in Montenegro and North Macedonia. Firstly, a list of relevant courses or pro- grams oﬀered at each university was compiled. These courses were chosen based on their relevance to the study’s objectives and the likelihood of attracting a diverse student population. Then, from the list of identiﬁed courses, a random sampling technique was employed to select a subset of classes. Before conducting interviews, institutional approval was sought from the relevant authorities at each university. Practical considerations such as class schedules, availability of classrooms, and logistical feasibility were taken into account when ﬁnalizing the selection of class- rooms. Once the classrooms were selected, face-to-face inter- views were conducted with the students present in those classes. The interviews were typically conducted after obtaining consent from both the students and the instruc- tors, ensuring that the process was conducted ethically and respectfully. A comprehensive series of 400 face–to–face interviews was carried out, and these interviews encom- passed 200 students from Montenegro and an equal number from North Macedonia, taking place at two esteemed men- tioned academic institutions.

‌Study area

The study was conducted across two distinct regions: Montenegro and North Macedonia (Figure 2). Montenegro, located in the Balkans region of Southeast Europe, is char- acterized by diverse landscapes, including coastal areas along the Adriatic Sea, mountainous terrain, and inland regions [45,46]. The Republic of Montenegro, covering an expanse of 13,812 km2, is positioned within the cate- gory of smaller European nations, occupying the 39th position in terms of landmass. Notably, it boasts diverse aquatic territories, including 347 km2 of inland sea, 2,047 km2 of territorial sea, and a substantial conti- nental shelf sea spanning 4,917 km2 [95]. North Macedonia, situated to the east of Montenegro, shares similar geo- graphic features, with mountainous regions, lakes, and val- leys deﬁning its landscape [47,48]. The Republic of North Macedonia encompasses an area totalling 25,713 km2 and is centrally situated on the Balkan Peninsula. Within its borders, crucial road arteries, such as corridors 8 and 10, serve as vital conduits linking it to the wider international community. Stretching back to the Paleogene era, North Macedonia has resided within the South Balkan extensional region, witnessing ongoing Neogene extension activities that persist to the present day. Its geological narrative is intri- cately intertwined with the North Anatolian fault and the Southern Hellenic trench [95,96].

‌Figure 2: Study area: location of Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Both countries have unique socio-cultural backgrounds and environmental contexts that shape the perceptions and attitudes of their inhabitants, particularly concerning environ- mental awareness, knowledge perception, and safety aware- ness among students [22 ,49]. Montenegro and North Macedonia face various environmental challenges, including issues related to waste management, air and water pollution, and natural resource conservation [20,62,63]. In addition, safety concerns such as emergency preparedness, personal security, and adher- ence to safety protocols also contribute to the overall well-being of individuals within these regions [71].
‌Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents

The sample includes basic socio-economic and demographic data for 400 students, with an equal split between Montenegro and North Macedonia. When considering gender distribution, the sample exhibits a higher proportion of males (52.5%) compared to females (47.5%). In terms of age composition, the majority of students fall within the 21-year-old category (29.0%), whereas

the smallest cohort consists of 22-year-old students (26.0%). Concerning residential locations, the majority hail from urban areas (33.75%), with smaller proportions from suburban and rural regions. Regarding academic progression, the highest enrolment is observed in the fourth year (27.0%), contrasting with the lowest enrolment in the ﬁrst year (18.75%). The aca- demic achievement shows that a larger percentage of students regularly pass exams (42.5%), while a smaller group encounters diﬃculties with examinations (30.0%) (Table 1).

In the sample from Montenegro, the student demo- graphic shows the following results. Regarding gender dis- tribution, 55% of the students are male and 45% are female. The age distribution is as follows: 28% of the students are aged 21 years, 27% are aged 22 years, 25% are aged 20 years, and 20% are aged 19 years. Concerning residence, 40% of the students live in suburban areas, 33% in the city centre, and 27% in villages. The academic year distribution indi- cates that 29% of the students are in their fourth year, 25.5% in their third year, 23% in their second year, and 22.5% in their ﬁrst year. Regarding study habits, 45% of the students face diﬃculties, 40% regularly pass exams, and 15% have pending exams (Table 1).

Regarding gender distribution, in the sample from North Macedonia, 52.5% of the students are female and 47.5% are male. The age distribution is as follows: 30% of the students are aged 21 years, 27.5% are aged 20 years, 25% are aged 22 years, and 17.5% are aged 19 years. Concerning residence, 35% of the students live in the city centre, 33.5% in suburban areas, and 31.5% in villages. The academic year distribution indicates that 32.5% of the students are in their ﬁrst year, 28.5% in their third year, 28% in their second year, and 11% in their fourth year. Regarding study habits, 45% of the students regularly pass exams, 30% face diﬃculties, and 25% have pending exams (Table 1).

Comparative analysis of the samples shows notable diﬀer- ences between the student demographics from Montenegro and North Macedonia. The sample from Montenegro has a higher proportion of male students (55% vs 47.5%) and a higher percentage of students living in suburban areas (40% vs 33.5%), while the sample from North Macedonia has a higher propor- tion of female students (52.5% vs 45%), a greater percentage of students in their ﬁrst year (32.5% vs 22.5%), and more students regularly passing exams (45% vs 40%) (Table 1).

‌Questionnaire design for surveys and focus group interviews

The questionnaire on environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety is structured into several sections to comprehen- sively capture respondents’ socio-demographic information,

attitudes towards environmental awareness, knowledge of environmental protection, and contributions to environmental protection. Here’s an analytical dissection of its constituent parts: (a) socio-demographic questions: this section collects basic information about the respondents, including gender, age, education level, region of origin, parents’ education, resi- dence during studies, year of study, and study rate; (b) envir- onmental awareness attitudes: respondents are asked to rate their agreement with statements reﬂecting environmental awareness attitudes on a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions cover various aspects such as humanity’s impact on the environment, the importance of natural resources, and the role of individuals in environmental protection; (c) knowledge of environmental protection atti- tudes: similar to the previous section, respondents rate their agreement with statements related to knowledge of environ- mental protection on a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. These questions address topics such as sustainable development, climate change, recycling, and government responsibility in environmental conservation; (d) contribute to environmental protection: respondents are asked how they would contribute to environmental protection, along with their opinions on essential actions for protecting the environment and actions that should be avoided. In addi- tion, they are given the opportunity to suggest any missing questions in the questionnaire. By including these sections, the questionnaire aims to gather comprehensive data on respondents’ attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours related to environmental issues, providing valuable insights for research and policy-making.

‌Table 1: Basic socio-economic and demographic data for students in Montenegro and North Macedonia (n = 400)

Variables	Category	Montenegro	North Macedonia	Total
		N %	N %	N	%
Gender	Male	110 55.0	95 47.5	205	52.5
	Female	90 45.0	105 52.5	195	47.5
Age	19	40 20.0	35 17.5	75	18.75
	20	50 25.0	55 27.5	105	26.25
	21	56 28.0	60 30.0	116	29.0
	22	54 27.0	50 25.0	104	26.0
Place of residence	City centre	66 33.0	70 25.0	136	33.75
	Suburban area	80 40.0	67 33.5	147	36.75
	Village	54 27.0	63 31.5	117	29.5
Study year	I	45 22.50	65 32.5	110	27.5
	II	46 23.0	56 28.0	102	25.5
	III	51 25.50	57 28.5	108	27.0
	IV	58 29.0	22 11.0	80	20.0
Study rate	Regularly pass exams	80 40.0	90 45.0	170	42.5
	Pending exams	30 15.0	50 25.0	80	20.0
	Diﬃculties with exams	90 45.0	60 30.0	150	37.5

A meticulously designed survey tool was carefully developed, incorporating a blend of closed-ended inquiries and a 5-point Likert scale spanning from 1 (strongly dis- agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Various established survey methodologies [15,31,33,35,43,50–56] were consulted and adapted to align with the speciﬁc context of enhancing community resilience to disasters in Serbia. To evaluate the questionnaire’s clarity and eﬀectiveness, a preliminary test involving 35 participants was conducted in Belgrade (central Serbia) in March 2024, with feedback collected through online platforms. Our study rigorously adhered to the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration, which provides guidelines for socio-medical research involving human subjects. Prior to their participation, all individuals provided informed consent. The research protocol obtained approval from the Scientiﬁc-Professional Society for Dis- aster Risk Management’s scientiﬁc research group review board, ID-01012024.

The focus group was presented with questions derived from earlier stages of the research, honing in on key aspects highlighted by the overarching study. These encompass: (a) perspectives regarding Montenegro’s environmental condi- tion, (b) identiﬁcation of the top ﬁve environmental chal- lenges in Montenegro, (c) recognition of institutions within Montenegro engaged in environmental preservation, and

(d) recommendations for safeguarding Montenegro’s nat- ural heritage. It is noteworthy that these inquiries are meti- culously formulated to allow for a thorough exploration of the subject matter, without necessitating detailed responses, thereby eliciting authentic reactions from participants. This approach ensures an authentic evaluation of participants’ viewpoints and sentiments.

‌Analyses

The analysis deployed an array of statistical methods such as t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson’s correlation, and multivariate linear regression. An initial evaluation uncovered non-compliance with the homoge- neity of variance assumption, prompting the application of the Welsh and Brown–Forsythe tests, which adeptly handle such deviations. These statistical procedures were conducted using a two-tailed approach with a deﬁned sig-

niﬁcance level of p < 0.05, employing IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26, New York, NY, USA). Further scrutiny of the internal consis- tency across several subscales via Likert scales yielded encoura- ging outcomes. Notably, the Environmental Awareness Attitudes

Subscale, incorporating 15 variables, achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88. Environmental Knowledge Assessment Subscale, with 18 variables, reached an alpha of 0.82; and the Environmental Knowledge Assessment, also with 5 vari- ables, mirrored this value at 0.81. This thorough methodo- logical approach provides a dependable framework for understanding the key factors that contribute to environ- mental awareness, perception of knowledge, and safety among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Besides that, this analysis, coupled with the focus group interview, endeavours to delve deeper into the perceptions and comprehension of environmental issues among stu- dents. Through the qualitative insights gleaned from the focus group discussions, we aim to elucidate the subtleties in students’ attitudes and awareness regarding environ- mental concerns. Furthermore, the focus group interview serves as a platform for exploring participants’ viewpoints on the prioritization of environmental issues within Montenegro. By aﬀording participants the liberty to articu- late their opinions and rationale freely, our objective is to unearth valuable insights into their familiarity with envir- onmental institutions and elicit constructive suggestions for addressing environmental challenges. Ultimately, the ana- lysis of data from the focus group interview will furnish a comprehensive understanding of students’ environmental awareness, thus oﬀering invaluable insights for future interventions and policy formulation in environmental edu- cation and advocacy. Following this, the analysis was struc- tured around particular inquiries, with the primary criteria for comparison including (a) regional categorization, (b) type of secondary education completed, and (c) the status of the participant (whether they were a regular or non-reg- ular student).

‌Results

The results of the study are presented in four dimensions: the predictors of environmental awareness, safety, and environmental knowledge; comparative descriptive statistical analysis of students’ environmental knowledge, awareness, and safety attitudes in Montenegro and North Macedonia; inﬂuences of demographic and socioeconomic factors on the environmental awareness and perception of knowledge, and safety; and inﬂuences of demographic and socioeco- nomic factors on the environmental awareness and percep- tion of knowledge, and safety; additional ﬁndings from the focus group interview in Montenegro.

‌The predictors of environmental awareness, safety, and environmental knowledge

Multivariate regression analysis was employed to explore the interplay between six demographic and socio-economic variables (gender, age, academic year, study pace) and three dimensions of students’ perspectives on environmental aware- ness (15 variables), and knowledge (15 variables), and contri- bute to environmental safety (5 variables). These dimensions encompass attitudes towards environmental awareness, knowledge of environmental protection, and contributions to environmental safety. Overall, these demographic and socio-economic variables were chosen as predictors because they are known to inﬂuence individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours related to environmental issues. Gender was self-reported, age was collected in years, academic year was determined by participants’ current level of study, and study pace was assessed based on participants’ self- reported study load per semester.

The analysis conducted conﬁrmed that the assumptions necessary for this analytical method were met, including normal distribution (veriﬁed through visual inspection of his- tograms and conducting statistical tests such as the Shapiro- Wilk test or Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality), linearity (assessed by examining scatterplots of each independent vari- able against the dependent variable), multicollinearity (evalu- ated using variance inﬂation factors and correlation matrices), and homogeneity of variance (examined by inspecting scatter- plots of the standardized residuals against the predicted values). This extensive veriﬁcation signiﬁcantly strengthens the reliability of the study’s outcomes and enhances the trust- worthiness of the statistical procedures used.

The results of the multivariate regressions regarding con- tributions to environmental safety indicate that gender (β =

0.16) emerges as the most signiﬁcant predictor, explaining 1.6% of the variance. However, other variables such as age, place of residence, year of study, and study rate did not show statisti- cally signiﬁcant eﬀects on contributions to environmental safety. This model (R2 = 0.027, Adj. R2 = 0.015, F = 3.01, t =

61.25, p < 0.01), with all the mentioned independent variables,

explains the 1.5% variance in contributions to environmental

safety (Table 2).

Conversely, the ﬁndings from the multivariate regression analysis concerning the subscale of environmental awareness attitudes indicate that, despite including all speciﬁed indepen-

dent variables, this model (R2 = 0.019, Adj. R2 = 0.006, F = 1.51, t = 80.30, p ≥ 0.05) only accounts for a mere 0.6% of the variance in environmental awareness attitudes. Consequently, it is deemed

statistically insigniﬁcant (Table 2).

At least, the results from the multivariate regression ana- lysis of the knowledge of environmental protection attitudes subscale reveal that this model (R2 = 0.013, Adj. R2 = 0.002, F =

1.11, t = 28.30, p ≥ 0.05), which includes all speciﬁed indepen-

dent variables, explains only 0.2% of the variance in attitudes

towards environmental protection. This indicates that the model does not reach statistical signiﬁcance (Table 2).

‌A comparative descriptive statistical analysis of students’ environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety attitudes in Montenegro and North Macedonia

‌Environmental awareness attitudes

The research ﬁndings indicate that students from Montenegro and North Macedonia rate the following attitudes with the

‌Table 2: Results of a multivariate regression analysis concerning students’ insights on environmental awareness, safety and environmental knowledge (n = 400)

Predictor variable

Environmental awareness attitudes Knowledge of environmental protection

attitudes

Contribute to environmental safety

	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Gender	0.067	0.048	0.074	−0.058	0.051	−0.060	0.245	0.082	0.158
Age	−0.135	0.056	−0.146	0.007	0.059	0.007	0.020	0.095	0.013
Place of residence	0.035	0.073	0.024	0.034	0.077	0.022	−0.104	0.125	−0.042
Study year	0.125	0.061	0.128	−0.135	0.065	−0.131	0.144	0.105	0.086
Study rate	0.028	0.047	0.031	−0.042	0.049	−0.044	−0.005	0.080	−0.003
R2 (R 2 )		0.019 (0.006)		0.020 (0.008)			0.027 (0.015)

adj

*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; B: unstandardized (B) coeﬃcients; SE: std. error; β: standardized (β) coeﬃcients. Note: male, aged 21–22, from a rural area and in the fourth year of university, consistently excels in exams and fulﬁls academic obligations, have been coded as 1; 0 has been assigned otherwise.

highest values: biodiversity preservation is vital for humanity (M = 3.92), individuals signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the environment (M = 4.77), and knowledge fosters environmental awareness (M = 4.22). These ﬁndings suggest a high level of awareness regarding the importance of biodiversity, the inﬂuence of

individuals on the environment, and the signiﬁcance of knowledge in promoting environmental awareness among students in both countries. In contrast, they rate the fol- lowing three items with the lowest values: humanity is

responsible for environmental damage (M = 3.63), legal reg- ulations govern nature conservation (M = 2.78), and nature beneﬁts humanity (M = 3.63). These ﬁndings point to poten- tially less-pronounced awareness of individual responsi-

bility for environmental damage, legal regulations in nature conservation, and the beneﬁts nature provides to humanity among the respondents (Table 3 and Figure 2).

The research ﬁndings on the diﬀerences in the level of environmental awareness between students from Montenegro and North Macedonia reveal signiﬁcant disparities in their perspectives. Namely, students in Montenegro demonstrate a higher awareness of the importance of access to natural resources for the survival of humankind compared to their counterparts in North Macedonia (M = 3.97 vs M = 3.05).

Furthermore, Montenegrin students stand out with signiﬁ–

cantly higher average ratings when it comes to perceiving the impact of environmental conditions on human health com- pared to students in North Macedonia (M = 4.53 vs M = 2.86). In addition, Montenegrin students exhibit greater awareness of

how resource scarcity jeopardizes national security and well- being compared to students in North Macedonia (M = 4.02 vs M = 3.25). Moreover, students in Montenegro surpass their

peers in North Macedonia with a higher average rating regarding the belief that legal regulations govern nature conservation (M = 3.20 vs M = 2.35) (Table 3 and Figure 2).

On the other hand, students in North Macedonia stand

out with signiﬁcantly higher average ratings concerning the belief that natural resources are universally available compared to students in Montenegro (M = 4.72 vs M = 3.13). Similarly, students in North Macedonia demonstrate greater

awareness of the importance of biodiversity preservation for humanity compared to students in Montenegro (M = 4.17 vs M = 2.09). Moreover, students in North Macedonia exhibit slightly higher average ratings concerning the belief

that environmental awareness begins in families compared to students in Montenegro (M = 4.14 vs M = 3.78). Additionally, students in North Macedonia show slightly higher average ratings regarding the belief that knowledge fosters environ-

mental awareness compared to students in Montenegro (M = 4.25 vs M = 4.01). Conversely, students in North Macedonia express greater trust in the renewability of natural resources compared to students in Montenegro (M = 3.47 vs M = 2.73). Furthermore, students in North Macedonia stand out with

slightly higher average ratings concerning the belief that development often harms the environment compared to stu- dents in Montenegro (M = 4.18 vs M = 3.86) (Table 3 and Figure 3).

Ultimately, it was found that there is no signiﬁcant diﬀerence between students from both countries regarding the belief that individuals signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the envir- onment. Similarly, there is no signiﬁcant diﬀerence between students from both countries regarding the belief that: immersion in nature fosters environmental stewardship;

‌Table 3: Comparison of environmental awareness variables between Montenegro and North Macedonia

Environmental awareness variables Montenegro North Macedonia Total

	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Humanity’s survival hinges on natural resource accessibility	3.97	0.99	3.05	1.23	3.51	1.06
Natural resources are universally available	3.13	1.04	4.72	0.59	3.92	1.08
Individuals signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the environment	4.65	0.53	4.88	0.53	4.77	0.79
Environmental conditions profoundly impact human health	4.53	0.79	2.86	1.25	3.70	1.02
All natural resources have renewable potential	2.73	1.13	3.47	1.01	3.10	1.07
Development often harms the environment	3.86	0.98	4.18	1.19	4.02	1.09
Immersion in nature fosters environmental stewardship	4.24	0.77	4.20	0.99	4.22	0.88
Resource scarcity jeopardizes national security	4.02	0.87	3.25	1.13	3.64	0.92
Legal regulations govern nature conservation	3.20	1.18	2.35	1.03	2.78	0.12
Biodiversity preservation is vital for humanity	2.09	0.90	4.17	0.98	3.13	0.87
Humanity is responsible for environmental damage	3.59	1.19	4.02	1.13	3.80	1.16
Environmental awareness begins in families	3.78	1.13	4.14	1.00	3.96	0.99
Knowledge fosters environmental awareness	4.01	0.93	4.25	0.93	4.13	0.95
Collective action protects nature	4.09	0.92	3.95	1.24	4.02	1.16
Nature beneﬁts humanity	3.65	1.23	3.61	1.01	3.63	1.10

humanity is responsible for environmental damage; collec- tive action protects nature; and nature beneﬁts humanity (Table 3 and Figure 2).

In response to the question of whether human survival depends on the accessibility of natural resources, most respondents in both samples provided aﬃrmative answers. Statistically, a higher level of agreement (83%) was observed in the North Macedonian sample compared to 75% in the Montenegrin sample. Researchers attribute this variance to Montenegro’s neoliberal economic model over the past two decades, which prioritizes prosperity and development over the conservation of natural resources. Both samples exhib- ited signiﬁcant scepticism regarding the universal accessi- bility of natural resources, with 30% of respondents from each sample expressing doubt. Furthermore, a considerable proportion (28% in each sample) suggested that natural resources are not equally accessible to everyone. Researchers attribute this sentiment to the neoliberal economic frame- work, where access to resources is primarily controlled by powerful economic entities through state or private capital.

The unregulated exploitation of these resources leads to swift proﬁts, exacerbating the division between aﬄuent and impoverished economies and resulting in signiﬁcant harm to both humanity and the environment.

The combined sample showed signiﬁcant agreement on this topic, with 88% expressing alignment with this notion. Minor instances of scepticism and disagreement were deemed statistically insigniﬁcant for further consid- eration. A majority of respondents (95% of the combined sample) concurred that the environment directly aﬀects human health, rendering the 5% discordance statistically inconsequen- tial. Both samples predominantly disagreed or expressed doubt regarding the renewability of natural resources. Sustainable resource management systems necessitate a delicate balance between exploitation and regeneration, achieved through meti- culous management and legislative measures. The constraints imposed by the ﬁnite nature of natural resources underscore the scepticism regarding their renewability.

Responses to the question regarding the negative envir- onmental impact of development varied, ranging from

‌Figure 3: Environmental awareness variables comparison between Montenegro and North Macedonia.

aﬃrmative acknowledgement to scepticism about its validity. Such opinions are inﬂuenced by educational levels, aware- ness, quality of life, and environmental circumstances. While examples worldwide illustrate the positive inﬂuence of devel- opment on the environment, instances of adverse environ- mental impacts, particularly in Montenegro’s coastal regions due to excessive construction, have also shaped public opi- nion. While a majority of respondents (73%) aﬃrmed the positive impact of nature exposure on environmental aware- ness, nearly one-third (27%) expressed scepticism. This dis- crepancy raises questions about the role of modern lifestyles, dominated by technology, in impeding positive experiences with nature. Further analysis and research may shed light on this topic in the future.

Respondents across both samples showed notable scep- ticism regarding the universal accessibility of natural resources, with 30% of each sample expressing doubt. In addition, a substantial portion (28% in each sample) sug- gested that natural resources are not equally accessible to everyone. Researchers attribute this sentiment to the neo- liberal economic framework, wherein access to resources is primarily controlled by powerful economic entities through state or private capital. The unregulated exploitation of these resources leads to swift proﬁts, exacerbating the divi- sion between aﬄuent and impoverished economies and resulting in signiﬁcant harm to both humanity and the environment.

Concerning the impact of natural resource scarcity or depletion on the security of the country and individuals, 80% of students across both samples responded positively. However, the 20% who answered negatively or expressed doubt raised questions about their understanding of the various types of security impacted by such scarcity or depletion. The researchers suggest that a lack of awareness about environmental issues may contribute to this senti- ment, as the diminishing natural resources can profoundly undermine the country’s power and overall economic development, potentially jeopardizing both the nation’s and individuals’ survival.

As for whether the protection and preservation of nature and natural resources are solely governed by laws, the situation varied within each sample. In North Macedonia, 50% of respon- dents answered positively, while the remaining 50% expressed doubt or provided negative responses. In Montenegro, 41% responded positively, while 59% expressed doubt or negativity. This distribution prompts inquiries into the reasons behind such varied perceptions. Researchers attribute this to a lack of environmental awareness among respondents, as legal reg- ulations represent just one aspect of environmental protection. Both North Macedonia and Montenegro, aspiring EU members, have signed numerous international strategies, declarations,

conventions, and protocols committing to nature and natural resource conservation. However, eﬀective enforcement and implementation of these regulations require a high level of societal and individual environmental awareness.

The necessity of biodiversity conservation for human survival was questioned, with 89% of students across both samples responding negatively and only 11% responding positively. This could be interpreted as a consequence of insuﬃcient attention or understanding among respondents, possibly due to the complex nature of the question or the lack of focus during the response. Regarding whether envir- onmental awareness is instilled within families, 76% of respondents across the entire sample answered positively, with 13% expressing doubt and 11% responding negatively. Given the multifaceted nature of family upbringing and its impact on environmental awareness, this question war- rants further sociological analysis. Similarly, the question of whether environmental awareness is acquired through knowledge yielded similar responses across both samples. It is worth emphasizing that a well-established environ- mental awareness within families can further enhance and deepen environmental awareness acquired through education.

Finally, the signiﬁcance of a collective approach to nature and natural resource protection was highlighted, with 78% of respondents across the entire sample pro- viding positive responses. Given the global nature of environmental issues, a collective, socially, and corporately responsible approach is deemed essential for eﬀective nature and natural resource conservation. Such an approach involves a spectrum of activities at national, transnational, and international levels, emphasizing the shared responsi- bility of all segments of society, from families and educational institutions to communities and employees. The perception that nature exists to serve humanity garnered varied responses, with 69% providing positive responses, 20% oﬀering negative responses, and 11% expressing doubt. This diversity in responses underscores the complexity of environmental attitudes shaped by factors such as exposure to nature, understanding of biodiversity conservation, and environmental awareness.

‌Environmental knowledge attitudes

Results of the research indicate that students from Montenegro and North Macedonia rate the following aspects with the highest values: the protection of ﬂora and fauna is imperative for their preservation (M = 4.14); human activities stand as the

primary catalysts of climate change (M = 3.96); sustainable

development involves ﬁnding a harmonious equilibrium

(M = 3.75). Conversely, they rate the following three aspects with the lowest values: human actions indeed have an impact on the ozone layer (M = 2.15); waste, when managed eﬀectively, can be a valuable resource (M = 2.73); water resources, con- trary to common belief, are not inexhaustible (M = 2.61) (Table 4 and Figure 3).

Montenegrin students generally rate the concept of ﬁnding a harmonious equilibrium slightly higher (M = 3.91) compared to their peers in North Macedonia (M = 3.56) concerning sustainable development. Likewise, Montenegrin

students rate human activities as primary catalysts of climate change lower (M = 3.55) compared to North Macedonian stu- dents (M = 4.38). Both groups assign high importance to the protection of ﬂora and fauna for their preservation, with Montenegrin students rating it slightly higher (M = 4.18) than those in North Macedonia (M = 4.10). Moreover, Montenegrin students recognize the importance of recy- cling more (M = 4.02) compared to their counterparts in North Macedonia (M = 2.49) concerning recycling eﬀorts and energy conservation. However, human actions impacting

the ozone layer receive slightly higher ratings from Montenegrin students (M = 1.97) than from those in North Macedonia (M = 2.33). In addition, regarding water resources and their exhaust- ibility, Montenegrin students have a lower perception (M = 2.23) compared to their peers in North Macedonia (M = 2.98). Notably, North Macedonian students rate human activities aﬀecting water quality higher (M = 3.56) than those in Montenegro (M = 2.84). Moreover, vehicle emissions and their impact on the ozone layer receive higher ratings from Montenegrin stu- dents (M = 4.10) compared to those in North Macedonia (M = 3.43). Montenegrin students also attribute more value to eﬀective

waste management (M = 3.38) than their counterparts in North Macedonia (M = 2.08) regarding waste management as a valu- able resource (Table 4 and Figure 4).

On the other side, North Macedonian students rate the impact of forest resource protection on air quality notably higher (M = 3.87) than those in Montenegro (M = 2.24). In addition, the establishment of protected areas for preser-

vation receives higher ratings from North Macedonian stu- dents (M = 4.04) compared to those in Montenegro (M = 3.60). Both groups acknowledge the direct threats posed by fossil fuel use, with similar ratings between Montenegrin (M = 4.13) and North Macedonian (M = 3.95) students regarding the utilization of fossil fuels and human health. However, North Macedonian students attribute more responsibility to governments (M = 3.93) than those in

Montenegro (M = 3.45) regarding government responsibility

for resource management. Montenegrin students rate envir-

onmental protection achieved through laws and strategies slightly higher (M = 3.83) than their counterparts in North Macedonia (M = 3.79). Eﬀective waste management as a pressing environmental challenge is perceived as more pressing by North Macedonian students (M = 4.02) than by those in Montenegro (M = 3.71) (Table 4 and Figure 3).

Overall, these ﬁndings suggest nuanced diﬀerences in envir-

onmental knowledge between students from Montenegro and North Macedonia. While students in Montenegro tend to prior- itize the protection of ﬂora and fauna and recognize the impor- tance of sustainable development, their counterparts in North Macedonia show a stronger emphasis on the role of human activities in climate change and the signiﬁcance of recycling eﬀorts. These variations may reﬂect diﬀerent educational

‌Table 4: Environmental knowledge variables comparison between Montenegro and North Macedonia

Environmental knowledge variables Montenegro North Macedonia Total

	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Sustainable development involves ﬁnding a harmonious equilibrium	3.91	0.66	3.56	1.30	3.75	0.90
Human activities stand as the primary catalysts of climate change	3.55	1.09	4.38	0.95	3.96	1.12
The protection of ﬂora and fauna is imperative for their preservation	4.18	0.84	4.10	1.21	4.14	1.08
Recycling eﬀorts contribute signiﬁcantly to energy conservation	4.02	0.89	2.49	1.45	3.26	1.17
Human actions indeed have an impact on the ozone layer	1.97	0.89	2.33	1.24	2.15	1.06
Water resources, contrary to common belief, are not inexhaustible	2.23	1.06	2.98	1.29	2.61	1.18
Human activities, beyond mere usage, aﬀect the quality of water	2.84	1.06	3.56	1.13	3.20	1.10
Vehicle emissions are contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer	4.10	0.79	3.43	1.15	3.77	0.99
Waste, when managed eﬀectively, can be a valuable resource	3.38	1.06	2.08	0.99	2.73	1.02
The protection of forest resources directly impacts air quality	2.24	1.10	3.87	1.09	3.05	1.05
The establishment of protected areas	3.60	1.01	4.04	1.00	3.99	1.05
The utilization of fossil fuels poses direct threats to human health	4.13	0.75	3.95	1.06	4.04	1.01
Governments, bear the primary responsibility for the resources	3.45	1.06	3.93	1.19	3.69	1.13
Environmental protection is achieved through laws and strategies	3.83	0.91	3.79	1.00	3.81	0.92
Eﬀective waste management	3.71	1.10	4.02	0.85	3.87	0.95

approaches, cultural attitudes, and environmental chal- lenges in each country.

Sustainable development epitomizes a nuanced equili- brium among technological advancement, environmental stew- ardship, and the socio-political fabric of society. Within the North Macedonian cohort, 51% exhibited aﬃrmative responses, while 38% harboured uncertainty, witha further 10% in dissent. Those hesitating in their response, in the researcher’s estimation, may lack comprehensive understanding or, drawing from per- sonal encounters, harbour scepticism towards the assertion. Conversely, within the Montenegrin cohort, it is salient to note that eight respondents refrained from answering, constituting 8% of the sample. Notably, 68% of respondents unequivocally endorsed the statement, with 24% expressing ambivalence. The notable prevalence of uncertainty can be elucidated by the composition of the sample, wherein 56% comprise ﬁrst and second-year students, potentially possessing limited exposure to interdisciplinary paradigms and the fundamental underpinnings of environmental conservation and sustainable development.

Attribution of climate change to human activity emerges prominently. In the North Macedonian sample, 58% concurred, with 21% uncertain and a corresponding 21% dissenting. Likewise, in the Montenegrin cohort, 66% acknowledged human inﬂuence, while 17% remained uncer- tain, and 14% dissented. Comparative analysis underscores the conspicuous representation of the “unsure” and “dis- agree” factions within the Montenegrin cohort. It is reason- able to anticipate heightened cognizance of the issue among individuals inclined towards biological pursuits. However, it also serves as a barometer of deﬁcient comprehension con- cerning climate change, thus necessitating a reservoir of individuals capable of devising judicious normative, stra- tegic, and pragmatic remedies.

Consensus among pertinent international institutions corroborates the anthropogenic origins of climate change. Concurrently, eﬀorts pivot on mitigating its repercussions, adaptive responses, and prognostic prognoses. The prodi- gious consumption of fossil fuels has engendered a

‌Figure 4: Environmental knowledge variables comparison between Montenegro and North Macedonia.

palpable surge in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, con- comitant with exacerbating particulate matter, deleteriously impacting air quality and climate dynamics. Conjoined with apprehensions surrounding ozone depletion, escalating defor- estation, biodiversity loss, and dwindling arable land, the col- lective repercussions underscore the exigency of scrutinizing climate change, relegating it to the zenith of global political agendas. Ergo, the elevated incidence of negative or sceptical responses attests to the gravity of the global predicament.

Preservation of ﬂora and fauna mandates safeguarding measures. In the North Macedonian cohort, a substantive majority (86%) advocated for protective measures, while 14% evinced scepticism or dissent. Similarly, in the Montenegrin demographic, 89% articulated support, with 11% oscillating between uncertainty and rejection. Although ostensibly minor, these proportions furnish a compelling impetus to fortify and augment educational outreach concerning these themes. In deliberating on the collective approach towards nature conser- vation and resource preservation, the study expounds on North Macedonia and Montenegro’s accession to international commitments under the aegis of nature conservation impera- tives. This entails meticulous alignment of domestic legislation and comprehensive implementation of protective protocols, mindful of the economic, social, and ecological capacities of the state, communities, and individuals. Crucially, robust data and understanding of species, their vulnerability, and prudent management are indispensable prerequisites. This imperative ﬁnds manifestation in Red Books, seminal com- pilations maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature [97], delineating protected species and conservation strategies. Legal safeguards, predominantly manifest in stringent nature reserves with minimal human intrusion, fortify the preservation paradigm. National parks, emblematic of holistic conservation endeavours, orchestrate an intricate tapestry of protection and sustainable utilization to safeguard the intrinsic worth of the locale. Complementing the Red Books, the scholarly community has promulgated the Black Book [98], cataloguing species extinct or imperilled due to human negligence, underscoring the imperative of respon- sible stewardship. The extensive implementation of all these measures in North Macedonia and Montenegro implies that any responses falling under the “disagree” or “uncertain” categories can be attributed, at the very least, to inadequate knowledge or lack of information.

In the North Macedonian sample, 80% of respondents provided aﬃrmative responses, while 10% expressed nega- tive views and 10% were uncertain regarding recycling conserves energy. In the Montenegrin cohort, the distribu- tion diﬀers slightly, though insigniﬁcantly for this analysis – 77% responded positively, 9% negatively, and 14% indi- cated uncertainty. Waste resulting from human activities,

whether direct or indirect, as a consequence of meeting escalating human needs, disrupts the environmental and societal quality of life. Numerous waste materials can undergo reuse through proper disposal methods, namely, by segregating fractions. This practice culminates in recy- cling, a process that engenders novel products from items or materials with renewed utility value. Consequently, the establishment of recycling centres emerges as one of the most eﬃcacious means of waste management and reduction.

Human activities do not inﬂuence ozone layer deple- tion: Within the North Macedonian sample, 55% of partici- pants aﬃrmed this assertion, 14% exhibited uncertainty, and 31% dissented. Conversely, within the Montenegrin sample, 76% agreed, 10% were uncertain, and 8% dis- sented. This query may be construed as a trick question due to its negative framing, where a negative response paradoxically aﬃrms the premise – namely, that human activities do not aﬀect ozone layer depletion. Hence, it is plausible that some respondents may have misconstrued the query. Nevertheless, despite such ambiguities, there is a pressing need to bolster and deepen educational initia- tives concerning these topics to ensure that the knowledge and awareness of future policymakers or practitioners attain the requisite level for innovatively addressing issues pertinent to ozone layer preservation.

Through routine economic activities, human endea- vours contribute to ozone layer depletion. Chief among these deleterious impacts are greenhouse gases and chloro- ﬂuorocarbons. Freon, among the most noxious substances to the ozone, ﬁnds application in the fabrication of refrig- eration and air conditioning units. Although proscribed in many developed nations, it continues to be employed in less- developed and developing countries. In addition, exhaust emissions from transportation and detonations of nuclear weapons, releasing hazardous nitrogen dioxide gas, pose signiﬁcant threats to the ozone layer.

In the North Macedonian sample, 58% disagreed with this statement, 21% were uncertain, and 21% concurred. Conversely, within the Montenegrin cohort, 34% disagreed, 36% expressed uncertainty, and 25% agreed. A substantial proportion of respondents in both groups concur with this assertion, indicative, in the researchers’ view, of the pre- vailing circumstances or conditions within which respon- dents reside. This phenomenon is closely tied to the abundant water resources and commendable water quality in North Macedonia and Montenegro, obviating the perception of global scarcity or limitation of this crucial resource.

Water quality hinges not directly on human activities but on its utilization: Respondents from North Macedonia articulated their viewpoints on this matter as follows: 34%

dissented, 24% were uncertain, and 42% assented. Similarly, respondents from Montenegro voiced their opinions as fol- lows: 6% dissented, 9% were uncertain, and 85% assented. Notably, the percentage of dissent among North Macedonian respondents (34%) is noteworthy, alongside those expres- sing uncertainty, constituting 58% of the total sample. This sizable percentage of negative or undecided responses, according to the researchers, may be attributed to insuﬃ– cient knowledge and awareness among students from North Macedonia regarding the impacts of economic activities and lifestyle choices. This underscores the imperative to inten- sify educational eﬀorts to enhance awareness and under- standing of environmental protection issues and natural resources, as well as the responsibilities incumbent upon all, from governmental entities to individual citizens, to ensure the sustainable utilization of resources that directly and indirectly impact the quality of life and the survival of humanity.

In the Montenegrin sample, 15% of respondents dis- agreed, 33% were uncertain, and 48% agreed that vehicle exhaust emissions contribute to ozone layer depletion. In the North Macedonian sample, 14% disagreed, 27% were uncertain, and 59% agreed with this statement. Regarding the question of whether waste is a resource, 20% of respon- dents from North Macedonia disagreed, 20% were uncer- tain, and 60% agreed. In Montenegro, 13% disagreed, 20% were uncertain, and 65% agreed. Despite the similar responses, a notable divergence is observed, with more North Macedonian respondents considering waste not a resource. Strategic waste management requires signiﬁcant human and ﬁnancial resources, aiming to reduce environmental vulnerability and improve the quality of life. Managing waste ade- quately, considering it a resource represents a highly proﬁtable economic activity. Inadequate waste manage- ment or its absence aﬀects air quality, and availability of healthy natural resources, and ultimately contributes to climate change.

The perception that protected areas are crucial for nature conservation elicited responses from North Macedonian respon- dents where 17% disagreed, 10% were uncertain, and 73% agreed. In Montenegro, 4% disagreed, 23% were uncertain, and 73% agreed. This question underscores the need to strengthen knowledge about resource protection methods and indivi- dual and institutional responsibilities. International conven- tions and EU directives also impose obligations to ensure future generations enjoy resources (sustainable develop- ment). Respondents from North Macedonia answered as follows: 7% disagreed, 15% were uncertain, and 78% agreed that fossil fuel use (coal, oil, and natural gas) directly and indirectly impact human health. Similarly, respondents from Montenegro provided very similar responses: 5% disagreed,

19% were uncertain, and 76% agreed. These responses high- light the current relevance of this issue globally and in both countries, driven by the number of vehicles and congested traﬃc in major cities where the majority of respondents reside.

In the North Macedonian sample, 7% disagreed, 14% were uncertain, and 79% agreed that governments (at national and local levels) bear the most responsibility for resource preservation and use. In the Montenegro sample, 15% disagreed, 36% were uncertain, and 49% agreed. The divergence in responses, especially in Montenegro, indi- cates two possibilities: individual responsibility and unfa- miliarity with the responsibilities and obligations of state institutions at national and local levels. Therefore, environ- mental governance, management, and legislative acts require scrutiny, particularly in educational programs focusing on environmental protection.

Respondents from North Macedonia expressed their views as follows: 14% disagreed, 10% were uncertain, and 76% agreed that nature conservation is achieved through laws and strategies. In Montenegro, responses were as fol- lows: 6% disagreed, 24% were uncertain, and 70% agreed. The sizable portion of uncertain responses indicates poten- tial trust issues in state institutions, possibly due to poli- tical upheavals in both countries in recent decades and political interference in resource allocation. These ﬁndings serve as a warning to political structures and governments in both countries to ensure eﬀective law enforcement relies on citizen trust in institutions and their inten- tions. The biggest ecological problem in Montenegro/ North Macedonia is waste. In the North Macedonian sample, 14% disagreed, 21% were uncertain, and 65% agreed. In the Montenegrin sample, 13% disagreed, 28% were uncertain, and 59% agreed.

Considering both countries are in development and heavily inﬂuenced by tourism and agriculture, the responses indicate that waste management is a pressing issue for further sustainable and cleaner development, generating less waste and protecting resources. These responses could be subject to future analysis. In the context of the research results, participants were asked how they believed they could best contribute to environmental protection. They were pre- sented with three options: (a) Declaration of Protected Areas: This option involves safeguarding resources and biodiversity by declaring protected areas. In response, 89% of respondents from Montenegro (MNE) agreed, while 70% of respondents from North Macedonia (SMAK) expressed agreement; (b) Waste Reduction: This option entails reducing waste through minimizing production and waste generation, as well as through recycling eﬀorts. Among respondents, 82% from MNE and 69% from North Macedonia (SMAK) agreed with

‌Table 5: Environmental protection impact assessment between Montenegro and North Macedonia

Environmental safety variables Montenegro North Macedonia Total

	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Declaring protected areas and conserving resources, biodiversity	4.27	0.87	3.95	1.06	4.11	0.98
Reducing waste through decreased production and recycling	4.04	1.05	3.93	1.19	3.98	1.12
Raising awareness of environmentally responsible behaviour	4.65	0.59	3.79	1.00	4.22	0.81

this approach; (c) Raising Awareness: This option involves raising and/or strengthening awareness of environmentally friendly and necessary behaviours, such as living in harmony with nature, sustainable resource use, and avoiding environ- mental pollution. A signiﬁcant majority of respondents sup- ported this option, with 92% from MNE and 83% from North Macedonia (SMAK) expressing agreement.

‌Environmental safety attitudes

The analysis of environmental safety variables for the total sample indicates that “Raising awareness of environmen- tally responsible behaviour” received the highest rating (M = 4.22, SD = 0.81), while “Reducing waste through

decreased production and recycling” was rated the lowest

(M = 3.98, SD = 1.12). Further, the obtained results indicate several signiﬁcant diﬀerences in environmental protection awareness between Montenegro and North Macedonia. In

terms of declaring protected areas and conserving resources and biodiversity, students from Montenegro demonstrate a higher level of awareness (M = 4.27) compared to students

from North Macedonia (M = 3.95). Although the diﬀerence is

less pronounced, students from Montenegro also exhibit a

slightly higher level of awareness of waste reduction through decreased production and recycling (M = 4.04) compared to participants from North Macedonia (M = 3.93) (Table 5 and Figure 5).

However, the most signiﬁcant diﬀerence is observed in raising awareness of responsible behaviour towards the environment, where students from Montenegro show a considerably higher level of awareness (M = 4.65) compared

to students from North Macedonia (M = 3.79). These results

suggest the need for further exploration of diﬀerences in

environmental policies and educational programs between these two countries, as well as potential strategies to enhance environmental protection awareness in North Macedonia (Table 5 and Figure 4).

‌Figure 5: Environmental protection impact assessment between Montenegro and North Macedonia.

‌Inﬂuences of demographic and socioeconomic factors on the environmental awareness and perception of knowledge, and safety

The results of the examination of these correlations are presented in two parts: inﬂuences on environmental aware- ness and safety, and inﬂuences on the perception of environ- mental knowledge. This approach was chosen to systematize the results and enhance clarity in understanding the inﬂu- ences of various factors.

‌Inﬂuences on the environmental awareness and safety attitudes

Correlating Students’ environmental awareness, safety, and age

According to the results of Pearson’s correlation, it was found that there is a statistically signiﬁcant correlation between the students’ age and the next variables regarding environmental awareness and safety: humanity’s survival hinges on natural resource accessibility (p = 0.000); natural

resources are universally available (p = 0.035); individuals

signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the environment (p = 0.002); envir- onmental conditions profoundly impact human health (p = 0.013); all natural resources have renewable potential (p =

0.002); resource scarcity jeopardizes national security and well-being (p = 0.000); legal regulations govern nature con- servation (p = 0.000); biodiversity preservation is vital for

humanity (p = 0.000); environmental awareness begins in families (p = 0.000); reducing waste through decreased production and recycling (p = 0.026) (Table 6).

However, according to Pearson’s correlation results, there

is no statistically signiﬁcant relationship found between the student’s age and the following variables: development often harms the environment; immersion in nature fosters environ- mental stewardship; humanity is responsible for environ- mental damage; knowledge fosters environmental awareness; collective action protects nature; nature beneﬁts humanity; declaring protected areas and conserving resources and bio- diversity (Table 6).

In further analyses, it was found that with an increase in students’ age, students demonstrate a heightened aware- ness of the crucial role of access to natural resources for humanity’s survival. In addition, as students grow older, there is an increasing recognition of the inﬂuence indivi- duals exert on the environment and the profound impact of environmental conditions on human health. Concurrently, the perceived importance of the renewable potential of all natural resources tends to increase with age. Furthermore, older students exhibit a greater awareness of the risks posed by resource scarcity to national security and well-being. Likewise, there is an escalating acknowledgment of the importance of legal regulations in governing nature

‌Table 6: Pearson’s correlation results for the relationship between students’ environmental awareness, safety and their age (n = 400)

Variables		Age
	Sig.		r
Humanity’s survival hinges on natural resource accessibility	0.000**		0.209
Natural resources are universally available	0.035*		0.106
Individuals signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the environment	0.002*		0.154
Environmental conditions profoundly impact human health	0.013*		0.123
All natural resources have renewable potential	0.002*		0.156
Development often harms the environment	0.470		0.042
Immersion in nature fosters environmental stewardship	0.918		0.005
Resource scarcity jeopardizes national security and well-being	0.000**		0.244
Legal regulations govern nature conservation	0.000**		0.266
Biodiversity preservation is vital for humanity	0.000**		0.189
Humanity is responsible for environmental damage	0.832		0.011
Environmental awareness begins in families	0.000**		0.204
Knowledge fosters environmental awareness	0.054		0.96
Collective action protects nature	0.960		0.003
Nature beneﬁts humanity	0.297		0.052
Declaring protected areas and conserving resources and biodiversity	0.333		0.049
Reducing waste through decreased production and recycling	0.026*		−0.112
Raising awareness of environmentally responsible behaviour	0.090		0.086
Note: p ≤ 0.05; *p ≤ 0.01.

‌Table 7: Independent samples t-test ﬁndings on gender disparities in students’ environmental awareness and safety variables (n = 400)

Variable	F	t	Sig. (2-tailed)	df	Male M (SD)	Female M (SD)
Survival hinges on resource accessibility	0.041	−3.072	0.002*	392	4.00 (1.017)	4.31 (0.921)
Resources are universally available	0.112	3.470	0.719	396	3.08 (1.077)	3.12 (1.200)
Individuals inﬂuence the environment	50.819	0.000	0.001**	396	4.78 (0.441)	4.58 (0.665)
Environmental conditions aﬀect health	6.231	−0.360	0.139	392	4.66 (0.774)	4.76 (0.608)
All resources have renewable potential	6.244	−0.359	0.082	396	2.69 (1.084)	2.90 (1.308)
Development harms the environment	7.483	3.470	0.045*	396	3.73 (0.891)	3.50 (1.103)
Nature immersion fosters stewardship	14.49	3.430	0.087	392	4.29 (0.810)	4.11 (1.180)
Resource scarcity jeopardizes security	5.926	−1.472	0.720	396	4.12 (0.840)	4.09 (1.040)
Legal regulations govern conservation	1.791	−1.483	0.365	392	3.19 (1.100)	3.29 (1.203)
Biodiversity preservation is vital	6.790	−1.746	0.310	298	2.17 (0.972)	2.27 (0.991)
Humanity is responsible for the damage	1.905	−1.730	0.983	388	3.88 (1.099)	3.87 (1.168)
Environmental awareness begins in families	24.23	1.953	0.000**	396	4.12 (0.942)	3.70 (1.247)
Knowledge fosters environmental awareness	7.057	2.011	0.017**	392	4.20 (0.800)	3.97 (1.094)
Collective action protects nature	5.547	1.714	0.657	396	4.19 (0.843)	4.15 (1.027)
Nature beneﬁts humanity	2.256	1.707	0.356	392	3.74 (1.216)	3.86 (1.289)
Protected areas and biodiversity conservation	0.786	1.429	0.376	393	4.21 (0.812)	4.08 (0.941)
Waste reduction and recycling	1.836	1.124	0.176	394	4.03 (1.11)	3.89 (1.23)
Environmental behaviour awareness	28.65	3.689	0.000**	395	4.65 (0.53)	4.36 (0.994)
Note: p ≤ 0.05; *p ≤ 0.01.

conservation and the preservation of biodiversity for the beneﬁt of humanity. Moreover, older students increasingly recognize the signiﬁcance of the family’s role in fostering environmental awareness. Overall, the ﬁndings highlight a compelling trajectory in students’ environmental awareness as they mature, marked by a growing recognition of key factors shaping sustainability eﬀorts and environmental stewardship.

However, a contrasting trend is observed regarding the belief in the eﬀectiveness of waste reduction through decreased production and recycling eﬀorts. This ﬁnding suggests that older students may have less faith in the eﬃcacy of waste reduction and recycling endeavours. The declining trend in belief in the eﬀectiveness of waste reduction and recycling eﬀorts warrants further investiga- tion to better understand its nature and potential under- lying causes.

T-Tests for gender diﬀerences in students’ environmental awareness and safety

The results of independent samples t-tests for gender dif- ferences in students’ environmental awareness and safety variables suggest a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with the following variables: survival hinges on resource accessibility (p = 0.002); individuals inﬂuence the environment

(p = 0.001); development harms the environment (p = 0.045);

environmental awareness begins in families (p = 0.001); knowledge fosters environmental awareness (p = 0.017); and

environmental behaviour awareness (p = 0.001). Instead, there was no statistically signiﬁcant relationship found between gender and the remaining variables. (Table 7).

Further results show that men (M = 4.78; SD = 0.44) believe that individuals have a greater impact on the envir- onment than women (M = 4.58; SD = 0.67). They also believe more (M = 3.73; SD = 0.89) that development harms the environment compared to women (M = 3.50; SD = 1.10), that environmental awareness begins in the family (M =

4.12; SD = 0.94) compared to women (M = 3.70; SD = 1.25). Furthermore, they are more likely to believe (M = 4.20; SD

= 0.80) that knowledge fosters environmental awareness than women (M = 3.97; SD = 1.09). In addition, they rate environmental behaviour awareness higher (M = 4.65; SD = 0.53) compared to women (M = 4.36; SD = 0.99). In contrast, women are more likely to believe (M = 4.31; SD = 0.92) that survival depends on resource availability compared to

men (M = 4.00; SD = 1.02) (Table 7).

ANOVA analysis of students’ environmental awareness and safety by residence, study year, and study rate

The results of the one-way ANOVA indicated connections between the place of residence of students and the next

variables: resource scarcity jeopardizes security (p = 0.025), and biodiversity preservation is vital (p = 0.000). With other variables, no statistically signiﬁcant association with place

of residence was found (Table 8).

Further analysis revealed that students living in rural areas (M = 3.25; SD = 1.22) reported higher scores for the belief that resource scarcity jeopardizes security compared to students residing in urban centres (M = 3.16; SD = 1.02) and suburban areas (M = 2.97; SD = 1.10). Additionally, it was found that students living in rural areas (M = 2.59; SD = 0.99) expressed stronger beliefs in the importance of bio-

diversity preservation compared to those living in urban centres (M = 2.36; SD = 0.99) and suburban areas (M = 1.98; SD = 0.98).

After performing further analyses, it has been deter-

mined that correlations exist between students’ study year and next variables: survival hinges on resource accessi- bility (p = 0.000); environmental conditions aﬀect health

(p = 0.000); all resources have renewable potential (p =

0.004); development harms the environment (p = 0.000); resource scarcity jeopardizes security (p = 0.004); legal regulations govern conservation (p = 0.003); knowledge fosters environmental awareness (p = 0.049); nature bene- ﬁts humanity (p = 0.000); waste reduction and recycling (p = 0.093); environmental behaviour awareness (p = 0.006). With other variables, no statistically signiﬁcant association

with place of residence was found (Table 8).

Additional analysis indicates that fourth-year students (M = 4.43; SD = 0.98) exhibited stronger endorsements for the notion that survival hinges on resource accessibility, surpassing both second-year (M = 4.11; SD = 1.01) and ﬁrst- year counterparts (M = 3.86; SD = 0.90). Moreover, fourth- year students (M = 4.90; SD = 0.80) demonstrated heightened awareness regarding the impact of environmental condi- tions on health, in contrast to their ﬁrst-year peers (M = 4.49; SD = 0.85). Furthermore, third-year students (M = 3.05; SD = 1.17) expressed a more pronounced belief in the renewability of all resources compared to ﬁrst-year stu- dents (M = 2.29; SD = 1.15). Conversely, ﬁrst-year students (M = 4.00; SD = 1.05) were more inclined to perceive devel- opment as harmful to the environment than their third-year counterparts (M = 3.87; SD = 1.01). Similarly, fourth-year students (M = 4.29; SD = 1.04) demonstrated a heightened concern regarding the security implications of resource scar- city compared to ﬁrst-year students (M = 4.16; SD = 1.01). In addition, fourth-year students (M = 4.35; SD = 1.01) displayed a stronger belief in the role of legal regulations in conservation compared to ﬁrst-year students (M = 4.08; SD = 1.00). Moreover, fourth-year students (M = 3.42; SD = 1.08) under- scored the importance of biodiversity preservation more emphatically than ﬁrst-year students (M = 2.97; SD = 1.03). Further examination revealed that fourth-year students con-

sistently attributed higher scores to the following variables: the role of knowledge in fostering environmental awareness (M = 4.26; SD = 0.87), the beneﬁts of nature to humanity

(M = 3.54; SD = 0.78), and the awareness of environmental behaviour (M = 4.17; SD = 0.75).

Following additional analyses, it has been discovered

that correlations exist between students’ study rate and the next variables: survival hinges on resource accessibility (p = 0.000); all resources have renewable potential (p =

0.000); development harms the environment (p = 0.000);

resource scarcity jeopardizes security (p = 0.000); legal regulations govern conservation (p = 0.000); humanity is responsible for damage (p = 0.000); nature beneﬁts humanity (p = 0.044); protected areas and biodiversity conservation (p = 0.000); waste reduction and recycling (p = 0.000); environ- mental behaviour awareness (p = 0.021). With other variables, no statistically signiﬁcant association with place of residence

was found.

Additional analysis indicates that students who reported having pending exams and obligations alongside regularly passing exams (M = 4.43; SD = 0.00) demonstrated the highest scores regarding survival hinges on resource accessibility,

while those who reported regularly passing exams and ful- ﬁlling obligations (M = 3.86; SD = 0.00) showed the lowest scores. Students who reported regularly passing exams but also having pending exams and obligations (M = 4.28; SD = 0.70) demonstrated the highest scores regarding protected areas and biodiversity conservation, while those who reported “Other” (M = 4.09; SD = 0.89) showed the lowest scores. Also, students who reported regularly passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations (M = 4.00; SD = 1.050) demonstrated the highest scores regarding development harms the environment, while those who reported regu- larly passing exams but also having pending exams and obligations (M = 3.36; SD = 0.85) showed the lowest scores. On the other side, students who reported having diﬃ– culties with passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations (M =

3.22; SD = 0.91) demonstrated the highest scores regarding

all resources having renewable potential, while those who

reported “Other” (M = 3.06; SD = 1.27) showed the lowest scores. Also, students who reported having diﬃculties with passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations (M = 3.42; SD = 1.29) demonstrated the highest scores regarding humanity being responsible for damage, while those who reported regularly passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations (M = 2.92; SD = 1.05) showed the lowest scores.

Furthermore, students who reported “Other” (M = 4.10; SD = 1.01) demonstrated the highest scores regarding waste

reduction and recycling, while those who reported having

diﬃculties with passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations (M = 3.75; SD = 1.40) showed the lowest scores. Also, students who reported “Other” (M = 4.62; SD = 0.57) demon- strated the highest scores regarding environmental beha-

viour awareness, while those who reported regularly

‌Table 8: One-way ANOVA results examine the relationship between students’ place of residence, study year, study rate, and variables related to students’ environmental awareness and safety variables (n = 400)

Variables Place of residence Study year Study rate

	F	p	F	p	F	p
Survival hinges on resource accessibility	0.038	0.963	6.159	0.000**	6.727	0.000**
Resources are universally available	1.689	0.186	0.966	0.409	3.410	0.018*
Individuals inﬂuence the environment	0.326	0.722	1.779	0.151	0.585	0.625
Environmental conditions aﬀect health	1.113	0.330	6.842	0.000**	0.825	0.481
All resources have renewable potential	0.102	0.903	4.603	0.004*	8.246	0.000**
Development harms the environment	1.374	0.255	6.361	0.000**	8.370	0.000**
Nature immersion fosters stewardship	0.775	0.462	0.605	0.612	2.092	0.101
Resource scarcity jeopardizes security	3.706	0.025*	4.468	0.004*	12.589	0.000**
Legal regulations govern conservation	0.526	0.591	4.546	0.003*	7.641	0.000**
Biodiversity preservation is vital	10.720	0.000**	2.651	0.048*	1.856	0.137
Humanity is responsible for the damage	0.341	0.711	0.982	0.401	6.952	0.000**
Environmental awareness begins in families	2.042	0.131	1.914	0.127	4.125	0.007*
Knowledge fosters environmental awareness	2.101	0.124	2.647	0.049*	2.933	0.033*
Collective action protects nature	2.675	0.070	1.463	0.224	29.241	0.000**
Nature beneﬁts humanity	2.732	0.066	10.419	0.000**	2.732	0.044*
Protected areas and biodiversity conservation	1.212	0.299	1.005	0.391	6.991	0.000**
Waste reduction and recycling	0.442	0.643	2.150	0.093	13.519	0.000**
Environmental behaviour awareness	1.388	0.251	4.224	0.006*	3.284	0.021*
Note: p ≤ 0.05; *p ≤ 0.01.

passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations (M = 4.50; SD = 0.65) showed the lowest scores. Similarly, students who reported “Other” (M = 3.96; SD = 1.12) demonstrated the highest scores regarding nature beneﬁts humanity, while those who reported regularly passing exams but also having pending exams and obligations (M = 3.14; SD = 1.14) showed the lowest scores. In addition, students who reported “Other” (M = 4.35; SD = 0.62) demonstrated the highest scores regarding resource scarcity jeopardising security, while those who reported regularly passing exams but also having pending exams and obligations (M = 3.41; SD = 1.08) showed the lowest scores. Finally, students who reported “Other” (M = 4.35; SD = 0.62) demonstrated the highest scores regarding legal regulations governing conservation, while those who reported having diﬃculties with passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations (M = 3.94; SD = 1.14) showed the lowest scores.

‌Inﬂuences on environmental knowledge attitudes

Correlating students’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, and age

According to the results of Pearson’s correlation, it was found that there is a statistically signiﬁcant correlation between the students age and next variables regarding perception of environmental knowledge: sustainable development involves

ﬁnding a harmonious equilibrium among technological advancement, environmental conservation (p = 0.010); human activities stand as the primary catalysts of climate change (p = 0.001); human actions indeed have an impact on the ozone layer (p = 0.612); vehicle emissions are a contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer (p = 0.001); waste, when managed eﬀectively, can be a valu- able resource (p = 0.005); the utilization of fossil fuels poses direct threats to human health (p = 0.027); govern- ments bear the primary responsibility for the resources (p = 0.001); environmental protection is achieved through laws and strategies (p = 0.004); eﬀective waste management emerges as the most pressing environmental challenge in north Macedonia (p = 0.000) (Table 9).

However, according to Pearson’s correlation results,

there is no statistically signiﬁcant relationship found between the student’s age and the following variables: the protection of ﬂora and fauna is imperative for their preservation; recy- cling eﬀorts contribute signiﬁcantly to energy conservation; water resources, contrary to common belief, are not inex- haustible; human activities, beyond mere usage, aﬀect the quality of water; the protection of forest resources directly impacts air quality; the establishment of protected areas is paramount for the preservation of nature (Table 9).

In further analyses, it was found that older students tend to demonstrate a heightened awareness of sustain- able development, the role of human activities in climate

change, the impact of vehicle emissions on the ozone layer, the potential of eﬀective waste management, the health risks associated with fossil fuel utilization, and the role of governments in environmental protection. They also perceive eﬀective waste management as a pressing envir- onmental challenge in North Macedonia. However, there are no signiﬁcant associations between age and the percep- tion of the importance of protecting ﬂora and fauna, recy- cling eﬀorts, water resource conservation, the impact of human activities on water quality, the protection of forest resources, and the establishment of protected areas.
T-tests for gender diﬀerences in students’ environmental knowledge perception

The results of independent samples t-tests for gender dif- ferences in students’ environmental knowledge perception variables suggest a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with the following variables: human activities and climate change

(p = 0.005); recycling and energy conservation (p = 0.028); human actions and the ozone layer (p = 0.001); water resources sustainability (p = 0.001); human activities and water quality (p = 0.003); vehicle emissions and the ozone layer (p = 0.001); fossil fuels and human health (p = 0.001) (Table 10). In place, there was no statistically signiﬁcant

relationship found between gender and the remaining variables: sustainable development; ﬂora and fauna pre- servation; waste management; forest resources and air quality; protected areas and nature preservation; govern- ment responsibility for resources; environmental protection

laws and strategies; waste management in North Macedonia (Table 10).

Further results indicate that men more prominently (M = 3.71; SD = 0.93) than women (M = 3.37; SD = 1.41)

emphasize that human activities stand as the primary cat-

alysts of climate change. In addition, men more signiﬁ– cantly (M = 4.17; SD = 0.80) compared to women (M = 3.93; SD = 1.28) believe that recycling eﬀorts contribute signiﬁcantly to energy conservation. Furthermore, men more prominently (M = 1.86; SD = 0.874) compared to women (M = 2.62; SD = 1.43) highlight that human actions indeed have a substantial impact on the depletion of the ozone layer. Moreover, men (M = 4.00; SD = 0.88) more signiﬁcantly compared to women (M = 3.64; SD = 1.11) aﬃrm that vehicle emissions are a signiﬁcant contributor

to the depletion of the ozone layer. Finally, it was deter- mined that men (M = 4.30, SD = 0.66) more prominently compared to women (M = 3.85, SD = 1.03) emphasize that the utilization of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural

gas, poses direct threats to human health (Table 10).

ANOVA analysis of students’ environmental knowledge perception by residence, study year, and study rate

The outcomes of the one-way ANOVA demonstrated asso- ciations between students’ place of residence and such as ﬂora and fauna preservation (p = 0.012) and vehicle emis-

sions and the ozone layer (p = 0.004). With other variables,

‌Table 9: Pearson’s correlation results for the relationship between students’ perception of environmental knowledge and their age (n = 400)

Variables		Age
	Sig.		r
Sustainable development involves ﬁnding a harmonious equilibrium	0.010*		0.131
Human activities stand as the primary catalysts of climate change	0.001**		0.165
The protection of ﬂora and fauna is imperative for their preservation	0.105		0.081
Recycling eﬀorts contribute signiﬁcantly to energy conservation	0.350		0.047
Human actions indeed have an impact on the ozone layer	0.612		0.026
Water resources, contrary to common belief, are not inexhaustible	0.766		−0.015
Human activities, beyond mere usage, aﬀect the quality of water	0.129		−0.076
Vehicle emissions are contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer	0.001**		0.159
Waste, when managed eﬀectively, can be a valuable resource	0.005*		−0.140
The protection of forest resources directly impacts air quality	0.886		−0.007
The establishment of protected areas, preservation of nature	0.146		0.073
The utilization of fossil fuels poses direct threats to human health	0.027*		0.110
Governments, bear the primary responsibility for the resources	0.001**		0.172
Environmental protection is achieved through laws and strategies	0.004*		0.145
Eﬀective waste management	0.000**		0.298
Note: p ≤ 0.05; *p ≤ 0.01.

‌Table 10: Independent samples t-test ﬁndings on gender disparities in students’ environmental knowledge perception (n = 400)

Variable	F	t	Sig. (2-tailed)	df	Male M (SD)	Female M (SD)
Sustainable development	57.10	1.909	0.057	382	3.84 (0.715)	3.67 (1.001)
Human activities and climate change	14.11	2.847	0.005*	394	3.71 (0.938)	3.37 (1.412)
Flora and fauna preservation	18.08	2.819	0.959	382	3.37 (1.412)	4.28 (1.038)
Recycling and energy conservation	117.78	2.204	0.028*	394	4.17 (0.801)	3.93 (1.283)
Human actions and the ozone layer	13.64	2.185	0.000**	394	1.86 (0.874)	2.62 (1.432)
Water resources sustainability	1.527	−6.299	0.000**	392	2.05 (1.060)	2.52 (1.217)
Human activities and water quality	14.66	̶6.255	0.003*	382	2.74 (1.102)	3.09 (1.251)
Vehicle emissions and the ozone layer	0.111	−4.106	0.000**	390	4.00 (0.888)	3.64 (1.110)
Waste management	0.011	−4.098	0.871	382	3.41 (1.106)	3.39 (1.123)
Forest resources and air quality	0.077	−2.995	0.287	390	2.10 (1.069)	2.22 (1.037)
Protected areas and nature preservation	5.283	−2.986	0.109	382	3.65 (1.010)	3.82 (1.114)
Fossil fuels and human health	0.302	3.560	0.000**	394	4.30 (0.669)	3.85 (1.031)
Government responsibility for resources	19.92	3.537	0.890	382	3.69 (1.051)	3.71 (1.141)
Environmental protection laws and strategies	19.95	0.162	0.565	396	3.91 (0.871)	3.84 (1.240)
Waste management in North Macedonia	57.10	−1.066	0.321	396	3.80 (0.944)	3.68 (1.159)
Note: p ≤ 0.05; *p ≤ 0.01.

no statistically signiﬁcant association with place of resi- dence was found (Table 11).

Further analysis revealed that students living in rural areas (M = 4.41; SD = 0.62) reported higher scores for the belief that the protection of ﬂora and fauna is imperative for their preservation compared to students residing in urban centres (M = 4.14; SD = 1.01) and suburban areas

(M = 4.41; SD = 0.99). In addition, it was found that students

living in suburban areas (M = 4.01; SD = 0.93) expressed stronger beliefs that vehicle emissions are a contributor to the depletion

of the ozone layer compared to those living in rural (M = 3.84; SD = 0.93) and urban centres (M = 3.65; SD = 1.08).

After performing further analyses, it has been deter-

mined that correlations exist between students’ study year and the next variables: ﬂora and fauna preservation (p = 0.049); recycling and energy conservation (p = 0.029); human actions and the ozone layer (p = 0.005); water

resources sustainability (p = 0.002); human activities and water quality (p = 0.000); vehicle emissions and the ozone layer (p = 0.000); waste management (p = 0.000); forest

‌Table 11: One-way ANOVA results examine the relationship between students’ place of residence, study year, study rate, and variables related to students’ environmental knowledge perception (n = 400)

Variables Place of residence Study year Study rate

	F	p	F	p	F	p
Sustainable development	0.165	0.848	1.540	0.204	15.933	0.000**
Human activities and climate change	0.553	0.575	6.886	0.000**	3.282	0.021*
Flora and fauna preservation	4.450	0.012*	2.638	0.049*	0.759	0.518
Recycling and energy conservation	0.346	0.708	3.047	0.029*	8.499	0.000**
Human actions and the ozone layer	1.043	0.353	4.399	0.005*	10.124	0.000**
Water resources sustainability	0.674	0.510	4.896	0.002*	1.504	0.213
Human activities and water quality	0.768	0.465	11.931	0.000**	5.299	0.001**
Vehicle emissions and the ozone layer	5.682	0.004*	20.532	0.000**	3.702	0.012*
Waste management	0.558	0.573	10.142	0.000**	4.173	0.006*
Forest resources and air quality	0.606	0.546	9.518	0.000**	5.600	0.001**
Protected areas and nature preservation	0.785	0.457	1.892	0.130	2.383	0.069
Fossil fuels and human health	0.477	0.621	4.332	0.005*	1.322	0.267
Government responsibility for resources	1.156	0.316	6.188	0.000**	0.148	0.931
Environmental protection laws and strategies	0.896	0.409	1.579	0.194	3.191	0.024*
Waste management in North Macedonia	2.329	0.099	7.038	0.000**	12.281	0.000**
Note: p ≤ 0.05; *p ≤ 0.01.

resources and air quality (p = 0.000); fossil fuels and human health (p = 0.005); waste management in North Macedonia (p = 0.000); government responsibility for resources (p = 0.000). With other variables, no statistically signiﬁcant asso-

ciation with students’ study year was found (Table 11).

Further analysis revealed that students in the second year of the study demonstrated the highest average score (M = 4.49; SD = 0.59) for the “Flora and fauna preservation” topic, while those in the third year had the lowest average

score (M = 4.15; SD = 1.17). Regarding “Recycling and energy conservation,” fourth-year students had the highest average score (M = 4.26; SD = 1.09), whereas ﬁrst-year students had the lowest average score (M = 3.89; SD = 0.95). For the “Human actions and the ozone layer” topic, fourth-year stu- dents had the highest average score (M = 2.43; SD = 1.37), while ﬁrst-year students had the lowest average score (M = 1.79; SD = 0.682). In terms of “Water resources sustain- ability,” ﬁrst-year students had the highest average score (M = 2.56; SD = 1.29), whereas fourth-year students had the lowest average score (M = 1.97; SD = 1.07). Second-year stu- dents had the highest average score (M = 3.39; SD = 1.14) for the “Human activities and water quality” topic, while fourth- year students had the lowest average score (M = 2.46; SD = 1.26). Also, the “Vehicle emissions and the ozone layer” topic saw second-year students with the highest average score (M = 4.25; SD = 0.678) and fourth-year students with the lowest average score (M = 3.32; SD = 1.060). Further, for “Waste management,” second-year students had the highest average score (M = 3.96; SD = 0.943), whereas ﬁrst-year students had the lowest average score (M = 3.15; SD = 0.778). Also, second- year students also had the highest average score (M = 2.48; SD = 1.15) for “Forest resources and air quality,” while fourth-year students had the lowest average score (M = 1.80; SD = 0.86). Similarly, in the ﬁeld of “Fossil fuels and human health,” second-year students had the highest average score (M = 3.84; SD = 0.92), and ﬁrst-year students had the lowest average score (M = 3.47; SD = 1.02). In addition, “Waste Management in North Macedonia” had second-year students with the highest average score (M = 4.01; SD = 0.994) and ﬁrst-year students with the lowest average score (M = 3.32; SD = 1.07). Finally, for “Government responsibility for resources,” fourth- year students had the highest average score (M = 3.95; SD = 0.97) and ﬁrst-year students had the lowest average score (M = 3.32; SD = 1.26).

Overall, the results suggest that students’ engagement

with environmental issues tends to increase as they pro- gress through their studies. Second-year and fourth-year students show the highest levels of interest and awareness, while ﬁrst-year students may beneﬁt from more targeted education and awareness campaigns to increase their engagement.

Following additional analyses, it has been discovered that correlations exist between students’ study rate and the following variables: sustainable development (p = 0.848);

human activities and climate change (p = 0.575); recycling

and energy conservation (p = 0.708); human actions and the ozone layer (p = 0.353); human activities and water quality (p = 0.465); vehicle emissions and the ozone layer (p = 0.004); waste management (p = 0.573); forest resources and air quality (p = 0.546); environmental protection laws and strategies (p = 0.409); and waste management in North Macedonia (p = 0.099). With other variables, no statistically signiﬁcant association with students’ study year was found

(Table 11).

Further analysis revealed that students who regularly pass exams and fulﬁl obligations demonstrated the highest average scores for the attitude “Sustainable development involves ﬁnding a harmonious equilibrium among techno- logical advancement, environmental conservation” (M =

4.06; SD = 0.95), while those who have diﬃculties with

passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations showed the lowest

average scores (M = 3.43; SD = 0.80). Regarding the attitude “Human activities stand as the primary catalysts of climate change,” students who regularly pass exams had slightly higher average scores (M = 3.67; SD = 1.22) than those who

faced diﬃculties with passing exams (M = 3.05; SD = 1.30).

When it comes to the attitude “Recycling eﬀorts contribute

signiﬁcantly to energy conservation,” students who regu- larly pass exams obtained the highest average scores (M = 4.18; SD = 1.05), whereas those who have diﬃculties with passing exams achieved the lowest average scores (M =

3.76; SD = 1.35). For the attitude “Human actions indeed have an impact on the ozone layer,” students who regu-

larly pass exams had lower average scores (M = 2.53; SD = 1.341) compared to those who have diﬃculties with passing exams (M = 1.90; SD = 0.98). Besides that, the attitude “Vehicle emissions are a contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer” showed that students who regularly pass

exams had lower average scores (M = 2.70; SD = 1.21) than those who have diﬃculties with passing exams (M = 3.40; SD = 1.25). In terms of the attitude “Waste, when managed eﬀectively, can be a valuable resource,” students who reg-

ularly pass exams demonstrated average scores close to the average (M = 3.75; SD = 1.22), while those who have diﬃcul- ties with passing exams also showed similar average scores (M = 3.81; SD = 0.74). Regarding the attitude “The protection of forest resources directly impacts air quality,” students who regularly pass exams had similar average scores (M = 3.39; SD = 1.12) to those who have diﬃculties with passing exams (M = 3.71; SD = 0.94). Regarding “Environmental Protection Laws and Strategies,” students who regularly pass exams had lower average scores (M = 3.71; SD = 1.29)

compared to students who have diﬃculties with passing exams (M = 4.19; SD = 0.91). Finally, for “Waste Management in North Macedonia,” students who regularly pass exams had lower average scores (M = 3.43; SD = 1.10) than those who have diﬃculties with passing exams (M = 3.70; SD = 1.01).

‌Additional ﬁndings from the focus group interview in Montenegro

‌Assessing environmental perceptions in Montenegro: A comparative analysis by region and student characteristics

For this investigation, participants were presented with three response options and encouraged to provide a ratio- nale for their selection. The response choices were (a) poor,

(b) good, and (c) excellent. The analysis is conducted through two distinct criteria: (a) regional breakdown and representation of secondary schools and (b) comparison based on academic year and student status. The researcher perceives the rationale behind this analysis as the need to assess the quality of information relative to the type of secondary education completed and to evaluate environ- mental awareness and comprehension in relation to academic progression. Furthermore, through the second criterion, the aim is to discern the quality of information conveyed by regular versus non-regular students. The ana- lysis, based on regional demographics and secondary school representation, is elaborated in Table 12.

Among graduates from gymnasiums, 44% perceive Montenegro’s environmental state as unfavourable, while 56% view it positively. When considering the overall respon- dent pool, 23% of gymnasium graduates express pessimism regarding the environmental state, contrasted with 29%

who hold an optimistic outlook. Notably, all students who completed medical school (100%) share a perception of the environmental state as poor. Within this group, 23% of respondents who graduated from medical schools align with this viewpoint. For students from other secondary schools, 25% perceive the environmental state as unfavour- able, 50% as favourable, and 25% as excellent. In terms of the entire respondent population from other secondary schools, 6% view the environmental state negatively, 13% positively, and 6% excellently.

While these statistics provide numerical insights, the narratives behind these perceptions oﬀer a richer under- standing. In the central region, rationales are grounded in everyday observations rather than formal education. Surprisingly, students from other secondary schools demonstrate a deeper understanding of environmental issues compared to gymnasium graduates, as evidenced by their comprehensive examples. Conversely, the southern region highlights diﬀerent con- cerns. Despite a basic grasp of the subject, students pri- marily focus on local environmental challenges, particularly coastal protection and urbanization issues. While positive instances of coastal protection are cited, concerns arise regarding excessive urbanization leading to environmental degradation. In the northern region, a notable depth of knowledge and comprehension regarding environmental matters is observed. Interestingly, there is no discrepancy in understanding between gymnasium and other secondary school graduates. Rural residency among 20% of focus group participants in this region suggests that their justiﬁcations are backed by tangible examples, such as deforestation, inadequate protection of national parks, lax enforcement of hunting and ﬁshing laws, and unauthorized construction. Moreover, students express dissatisfaction with Montenegro’s stringent yet poorly enforced laws, signalling a higher level of education fostered by collaboration with governmental institutions and numerous non-governmental organizations.

‌Table 12: Distribution of participants and type of completed secondary school by regions in Montenegro

State of the environment

Region

	High school	Medical school	Other secondary schools	High school	Medical school	Other secondary schools	High school	Medical school	Other secondary schools
Bad	2	2	0	1	1	0	1	1	1
Good	2	0	1	2	0	0	1	0	1
Excellent	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Total	4	2	1	3	1	1	2	1	2

Central Southern Northern Type of completed secondary school

Ultimately, their proposals for environmental improvement stem from practical experiences, demonstrating a high degree of realism. The analysis, based on student representation by academic year and study status, is detailed in Table 13.

This table indicates that as students progress through higher years of university, the number of those who believe the environmental state is good decreases. The reasons lie both in the maturation of awareness regarding real environmental issues and in the decline in students’ exam performance. The assumption is that studying leads to the strengthening of critical awareness and awareness of the environment and its protection issues.

‌The quintessential environmental challenges in Montenegro

The investigation into this matter has been somewhat explored in the preceding inquiry. Here, the crux lies in conﬁrming whether students possess a genuine grasp of the most pivotal ecological issues and their ability to compile a roster of priority concerns regarding the environment. The analytical framework incorporates regional categorization, academic progression, and student categorization. Upon scru- tinizing the data, a mosaic of logical yet intriguing insights emerges. Notably, the prevalence of diverse waste types and ensuing pollution manifests prominently in the perspectives of respondents, oﬀering a lucid portrayal. Within the central region, such perspectives stem from the presence of the Aluminum Plant in Podgorica and its raw materials reposi- tory in the Nikšić bauxite mine, where waste generation lacks adequate management. Concurrently, the spectre of air pollution pervades the proximal and distal environs of these industrial nodes, alongside the looming menace of water con- tamination and agricultural soil degradation. This vantage point bespeaks discontent fuelled by the dearth of recycling hubs and essential water treatment facilities.

Conversely, in the southern precincts, waste concerns pivot not on industrial ediﬁces but on the paucity of

suitable waste storage or recycling avenues for daily refuse emanating from tourist and residential hubs. In the northern expanse, the waste conundrum intertwines with the coal mine and thermal power plant in Pljevlja, acting as the solitary economic entities engendering a gamut of waste categories. Within the narratives of the central and northern locales, recommendations advocating heightened investments in innovative technologies and meticulous blueprinting of potential recycling outposts and landﬁll sites abound, while the southern domain ﬁnds solace in earmarking adequate waste disposal locales. The pervasive conundrum of unchecked urbanization casts its shadow across all realms, albeit to varying degrees. Signiﬁcantly, the southern landscape emerges as the epicentre of this predicament, wherein “territorial des- olation in the service of tourism prevails, with all endeavours conducted haphazardly, in deﬁance of Montenegro’s spatial blueprint” (quote from a respondent).

Indicative markers in these tabulations unfold as fol- lows: (a) three-ﬁfths (or marginally less than two-ﬁfths) of respondents hailing from the central quadrant accord pre- cedence to waste as an ecological quandary, with an ana- logous cohort earmarking water pollution as paramount, while a mere one-seventh discern excessive urbanization as a salient environmental issue. Notably, respondents from the central swathes do not perceive natural endow- ments like ﬂora and fauna as imperilled, particularly given the presence of national parks like “Skadar Lake” and “Lovćen”; (b) 40% of respondents from the southern sphere identify excessive urbanization as the chief ecological bug- bear, whereas 20% apportion equal priority to waste, pre- servation of natural resources, and safeguarding of ﬂora and fauna. Intriguingly, respondents from the southern sector do not construe water pollution as an urgent con- cern. This stance may stem from conﬂating wastewater issues with waste, despite clear delineations in the ques- tioning, or from the overarching nature of the excessive urbanization issue, which encapsulates water pollution concerns. The impetus behind their emphasis on preser- ving ﬂora and fauna lies in the dwindling spatial expanse

‌Table 13: The representation of examinees-students at the University of Montenegro (UCG) according to the year and student status

Environmental condition				Year of	study
		I		II		III		IV
	Regular	Non-regular	Regular	Non-regular	Regular	Non-regular	Regular	Non-regular
Poor	2	—	2	—	1	2	1	1
Good	2	—	3	—	1	—	1	—
Excellent	1	—	0	—	—	—	—	—
Total	5	—	5	—	2	2	2	1

due to urban sprawl and the heightened incidence of forest conﬂagrations along coastal peripheries.

‌Institutions in Montenegro engaged in environmental protection and methods of protecting natural resources in Montenegro

The aim of this inquiry was to gain an understanding of students’ general awareness of institutions involved in environmental protection, as well as to assess their knowl- edge of the hierarchical status of state institutions. The indicators are as follows: 63% of respondents know which institutions in the country are engaged in environmental protection, while the remaining 27% of the focus group is partially familiar with this topic, and 10% of respondents are unaware of the relevant institutions; and the best knowledge of institutions engaged in environmental pro- tection is demonstrated by respondents from the northern region, followed by those from the central region, with the fewest respondents from the southern region.

The goal of this inquiry (methods of protecting natural resources in Montenegro) was to ascertain whether respon- dents possess an understanding of how and which priorities are set for the protection of natural resources in Montenegro. The aim was not to determine percentages but rather to see if environmental considerations are made in line with principles of environmental protection and sustainable management. Apart from the southern region, respondents oﬀered a number of proposals, which can be categorized into (a) admin- istrative and (b) educational-operational measures. Regarding administrative measures, respondents pay the most attention to (a) strict enforcement of laws; (b) strengthening inspection activities; and (c) detailed planning and broader community involvement in planning. Concerning educational-operational measures, students particularly emphasize raising awareness among the population. Such an approach is characteristic of every region in Montenegro.

Operational measures vary from region to region. In the southern region, respondents insist on protecting space and water, as well as drastically reducing urbanization. Respondents from this region exhibit conﬂicting views, as they do not prioritize water pollution among the top ﬁve environmental problems, yet all propose measures for water protection. This is the best evidence supporting the conclusion drawn by the researcher in the chapter on major environmental problems, where it is noted that stu- dents from the southern region perceive this water pollu- tion issue as part of the broader issue of space pollution.

In the central region, operational measures are reduced to detailed planning within spatial planning frameworks, as

well as controlled use of natural resources. Detailed plan- ning within spatial plans must adhere to sustainable plan- ning and management of natural resources. Controlled use of natural resources implies the utilization of resources entrusted through the Concessions Law, as envisaged by law and with enhanced control over plans and their imple- mentation, as well as those resources used for tourism-educa- tional purposes, managed by National Parks. In the northern region, the most measures are proposed, ranging from admin- istrative to protective measures such as (a) preserving green areas, (b) using alternative energy and heating systems, (c) establishing new green spaces, and (d) treating wastewater. In addition, proposals are made regarding cooperation among institutions, the non-governmental sector, and local commu- nities in planning and implementing plans, aiming for trans- parent processes related to environmental protection. It is entirely logical that most measures and activities are found in the northern region, considering that the spectrum of envir- onmental protection issues is most prevalent in this area.

‌Enhancing environmental awareness: Analysing the focus group’s insights

The analysis of the focus group regarding environmental knowledge represents a logical progression from the initial phase, during which 18 questions were included in the survey. Building upon the insights gleaned in the initial phase, four key questions were singled out for the focus group: (a) How many National Parks exist in Montenegro, and what measures are in place to safeguard the natural assets placed under their protection?; (b) strategies for addressing and mitigating waste issues in Montenegro;

(c) identifying sustainable practices for the utilization of natural resources; and (d) assessing Montenegro’s vulner- ability to climate change and exploring strategies for resi- lience and adaptation (Table 14).

The primary objective of this analysis is to gauge the depth of environmental knowledge possessed by students at the time of the study and to ascertain how this knowledge level varies across diﬀerent academic years at the Faculty of Biology. Inquiring about the number of National Parks in Montenegro and the methods employed to protect the natural resources within them revealed a comprehensive under- standing among respondents. They demonstrated awareness not only of National Parks but also of other protective desig- nations like regional parks, nature reserves, and natural monuments. However, responses to the latter part of the questions largely revealed gaps in information, particularly concerning the scope of protection provided by National Parks, which respondents believed was primarily physical.

‌Table 14: Detailed analysis of these questions along with the corresponding responses

Year, number, and status of the student according to the year of study

Oﬀered questions

National parks present in Montenegro Protection of natural

resources occurs in national parks

Protection of natural resources

Regular Non- Regular Non-regular Regular Non-regular Regular Non-regular

	regular	a	b	c	a	b	c	a	b		a	b	a	b	c	a	b	c
5	0	—	—	5	—	—	—	5	—		—	—	1	—	4	—	—	—
I			5				5					1		4
5	0	—	—	5	—	—	—	5	—		—	—	2	—	3	—	—	—
II	—	—	5	—	—	—	5	—	—		—	2	—	3	—	—	—
2	2	—	—	2	—	—	2	2	—		2	—	2	—	—	1	—	1
III	—	—	2	—	—	2	2	—	2		—	2	—	—	1	—	1
2	1	—	—	—	1	—	—	2	—		1	—	1	1	—	1	—	—
IV	—	—	2	—	—		2	—	1		—	1	1	—	1	—	—
14	3	—	—	14	1	—	2	14	—		3	—	6	1	7	2	—	1
	17			17						17						17

Table 14 oﬀers an in-depth analysis of this query, yet it leaves a lingering inquiry into the methods employed to safeguard natural assets. Speciﬁcally, only one (1) student asserted that they are preserved through regulatory mea- sures, representing merely 6% of the focus group or 33% of the cohort comprising non-regular students. The researcher notes an evident dearth in knowledge or comprehension regarding both natural resources and the legislative frame- work governing this domain. While there exists a conven- tional enumeration of protected natural assets, a prevailing situation emerges where the criteria for delineating these assets hierarchically remain elusive, coupled with a conspic- uous absence of familiarity with protective measures.

‌Waste management solutions in Montenegro

This question stands out as one of the most signiﬁcant within the scope of this research, as it fundamentally pro- vides insights into students’ understanding of the environ- ment and environmental protection issues. Centred on waste management, statistically marked as the foremost environmental concern, the question is designed, according to the researcher’s perspective, to reveal the knowledge or lack thereof among students, rather than extracting “dry percentages” for analysis.

Given that waste is identiﬁed as Montenegro’s major ecological challenge, corresponding knowledge is expected. However, the insights drawn from this analysis directly reﬂect the lack of awareness or distinction between indus- trial and other forms of waste. Most respondents frequently

propose the establishment of recycling centres, the introduc- tion of various waste containers, the standardization of landﬁlls, and similar measures. Notably, the absence of sug- gestions on addressing solid and liquid waste from mines, such as tailings, is evident.

Examining the situation regionally, distinct patterns emerge: (a) in the southern region, waste management is primarily seen through addressing landﬁll issues in one or more municipalities. Proposals focus on securing suitable spaces for standardized landﬁlls or constructing regional landﬁlls, which seems reasonable given the absence of major land-based industrial entities causing signiﬁcant pollution. Notably, proposals regarding liquid waste and waste polluting the sea, both from tourist complexes and ships, particularly in the Bar port, are lacking, as are ade- quate suggestions for addressing communal pollution; (b) in the central region, major polluters like the aluminium plant and the bauxite mine in Nikšić prompt respondents to address air and water pollution issues. However, solid waste resulting from the operations of these entities is not identiﬁed by respondents. Suggestions revolve around tech- nological advancements, especially in air and water puriﬁ– cation near these industrial sites; (c) in the northern region, all respondents highlight issues with the Pljevlja municipality and its thermal power plant and coal mine. Problems with air pollution are more pronounced here, with Pljevlja being a notorious environmental hotspot in the country. It is logical to expect respondents from this region to demonstrate more knowledge about waste, which they do, primarily in terms of identiﬁcation. Proposed solutions lean towards “green methods” within the operations of these entities, advocating

for increased investments in the production segments causing the most air pollution.
‌Identifying sustainable practices for utilizing natural resources

The sustainable way of using natural resources was the primary focus of this question. Its aim was to determine which natural resources are being utilized and whether they fall under the term sustainable management based on the way they are used. This question is the best indi- cator of how life in a speciﬁc region of the country shapes environmental attitudes. In this approach, it was necessary to present to the respondents all natural resources – assets managed according to the principle of direct utilization, in accor- dance with Montenegro’s legislative framework. According to regions, the situation appears as follows: (a) in the southern region, respondents primarily view the sea, forests, ﬂora, and fauna as natural resources. Concerning the sea, students believe it is not being managed sustainably, especially regarding the use of ﬁshery resources. The prevailing opi- nion is that ﬁsh are being overﬁshed, and there are insuﬃ– cient data on ﬁsh stocks, suggesting a need for strengthened control. However, according to the researcher’s opinion, enhanced control is only a means of sustainable management, while a proposal for a sustainable management method is lacking. Forests in the southern region are not interesting in terms of exploitation but are signiﬁcant from a protective aspect, particularly against forest ﬁres. Hence, reforestation of burnt areas with ﬁre-resistant species is suggested to expe- dite the return of nature to its normal state, creating condi- tions for the re-establishment of wildlife, which is forced to leave its natural habitat; (b) in the central region, lifestyle determines a diﬀerent perspective on the sustainable use of natural resources. In this region, respondents prioritize the following natural resources for sustainable management: (a) utilization of National Parks; (b) water usage; and (c) hunting and ﬁshing.

The use of national parks – Skadar Lake and Lovćen – is not conducted sustainably. While the tourist aspect of utilizing national parks is not questioned by students, the management of natural resources within the parks is brought into focus. The primary issue concerning Skadar Lake is illegal ﬁshing and the lack of data on its ﬁsh stock. Illegal ﬁshing cannot be tolerated, especially through unconventional and prohibited methods. Regarding Lovćen National Park, students identify the main pro- blem as the perceived poor management of its forests and suggest strengthening control given existing man- agement plans.

In the central region, students believe water resources are not managed sustainably. They advocate for regulating river ﬂows and utilizing their full energy potential while safeguarding the environment. Since water resources are managed through concessions, strict adherence to conces- sion laws is recommended, along with enhanced control over concessionaires. Due to the lack of data on ﬁsh stocks, maximum control over ﬁshing activities and adherence to conventional ﬁshing methods are proposed. In addition, stu- dents suggest valorising water resources through quality water sports oﬀerings. Students believe hunting and ﬁshing can be controlled through legal compliance, good manage- ment plans for hunting grounds, enhanced inspection oversight, and educational programs involving hunters, ﬁsh- ermen, and local communities. In the northern region, stu- dents identify management issues in national parks, forests, and water bodies, which will be further analysed. Three national parks are located in this region: Durmitor, Biogradska Gora, and Prokletije.

For Durmitor National Park, students propose max- imal protection, especially considering its UNESCO status. They emphasize uncoordinated construction within the park, treating any such construction as illegal, and sug- gest restrictive construction practices to ensure sustain- able management. Given its susceptibility to forest ﬁres, modern protection methods, education investment, and proper equipment are recommended. Students propose similar measures for Biogradska Gora National Park, which generally faces fewer issues, focusing on maxi- mizing planning documents for tourism and education activities. For Prokletije National Park, which recently gained status, students recommend rational planning for forest, wild- life, and water resource utilization, emphasizing the protec- tion of key water bodies.

Forest resource utilization is seen as a point of conten- tion between state and non-state institutions. Students pro- pose measures ranging from transparent forest planning to intensiﬁed reforestation eﬀorts and strengthened inspec- tion oversight over forest management. Regarding water resources in the northern region, students advocate for hydroelectric potential utilization, tourist valorization of water bodies, rigorous inspection oversight, and punitive measures.
‌Climate change threat and adaptation strategies for Montenegro

The importance of climate change worldwide was a suﬃ– cient reason for students to be asked this question at this stage of the research. In addition, the aim of this question is

to determine whether there is an intention among students to permanently monitor environmental issues, as this can be established in the second part of the question, where methods of resistance and adaptation to climate change in Montenegro are sought. Table 10 depicts students’ attitudes according to their year of study regarding the degree of threat to Montenegro from climate change.

The dominant perception among respondents is that Montenegro faces a modest threat from climate change, with 47% of the focus group sharing this view. Meanwhile, 29% of respondents believe that Montenegro is not threa- tened by climate change, while 24% consider the threat to be signiﬁcant. A thorough examination of the data highlights key insights into the preconceptions formed by students during their secondary education and the evolution of their understanding during their academic pursuits, profoundly shaping their perspectives. Speciﬁcally, among ﬁrst and second-year students, there is a lack of consensus regarding the severity of the threat posed by climate change in Montenegro; half of them perceive no threat, while the other half perceive a slight threat. However, this perception shifts signiﬁcantly in later years, when the majority recognizes a substantial threat to Montenegro.

As for the strategies to combat or adapt to climate change, the analysis reveals regional disparities in priorities and approaches among students. Nonetheless, common themes emerge across all regions, emphasizing the need to curtail urba- nization, enhance green spaces, and impose stricter regulations on natural resource utilization. Moreover, there is a unanimous call for legal reforms aimed at eﬀectively monitoring gas emis- sions, curbing excessive urban development, and managing natural resources more sustainably.

‌Discussion

The ﬁndings of this comparative study underscore the signiﬁcant role that socio-cultural and environmental con- texts play in shaping the environmental awareness, per- ception of knowledge, and attitudes toward safety among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia. The results of this study highlight notable diﬀerences in environ- mental awareness among students from Montenegro and North Macedonia, providing valuable insights into their perceptions and attitudes towards environmental issues. The obtained results indicating diﬀerences between stu- dents are similar to the ﬁndings of previous research in other countries [5 ,6,12,13,22,49,67]. On the basis of results of our statistical analyses, we can conﬁrm that our hypotheses are supported. Our hypothetical conceptual framework, which

proposes that a combination of variables including gender (H1), age (H2), year of study (H3), and rate of study (H4) signiﬁcantly inﬂuences the attitudes of students from Monte- negro and North Macedonia towards environmental aware- ness, safety, and knowledge, has been validated by the data. All four hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4) have been conﬁrmed through rigorous statistical testing.

The Southeastern European region, comprising coun- tries such as Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, presents a complex landscape of environ- mental challenges and policy responses, as illuminated by several studies [99–101]. Croatia’s rapid integration into multilateral environmental agreements, partly attrib- uted to its comparatively faster economic development, contrasts sharply with the struggles faced by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Slovenia in navigating deﬁcient policies and low awareness among individuals and cor- porations, impeding progress towards sustainability [99]. Insights into environmental awareness among students reveal nuanced disparities. While students from Croatia and Slovenia demonstrate heightened consciousness of environmental issues, those in Serbia and Croatia display a stronger commitment to sustainability [100]. Similarly, both Serbian and Macedonian students exhibit a founda- tional level of environmental consciousness [101], although Serbian primary school students lack the knowledge neces- sary to actively contribute to environmental awareness initiatives [4]. Across the Balkans, primary school students generally exhibit a moderate level of environmental aware- ness and attitudes, with no signiﬁcant diﬀerences based on gender or parental education [63]. However, consumer beha- viour in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina notably lags behind that of Serbia and Croatia in pro-environmental activities [102]. Comparatively, the notable contrasts between stu- dents from Montenegro and North Macedonia in understanding the impact of environmental conditions on human health and national security underscore the distinct inﬂuences of sociocul- tural and educational contexts on their perceptions. Montenegrin students demonstrate a heightened awareness of the impor- tance of natural resources for human survival and the implications of resource scarcity on national security, unlike their counterparts from North Macedonia [103].

These ﬁndings not only emphasize the need for enhanced regional collaboration but also underscore the necessity for tailored educational strategies to address dis- parities in environmental understanding and action across Southeastern Europe. Furthermore, the shared consensus among students from diﬀerent regions regarding the critical importance of biodiversity protection suggests a potential foundation for collaborative eﬀorts in promoting ecological sustainability throughout the region [8].

The results from our study provide a multifaceted view of the inﬂuence of demographic and socio-economic variables on environmental awareness, safety, and knowl- edge among students from Montenegro and North Macedonia. Utilizing a hypothetical conceptual framework, we aimed to discern the speciﬁc roles of gender, age, year of study, study rate, and parental education levels in shaping these environmental attitudes. Our multivariate regression analysis reveals that gender emerges as the most signiﬁcant predictor in the domain of contributions to environmental safety. This suggests that gender-related diﬀerences may inﬂuence how students perceive and engage in activities related to environmental safety [7 9,104,105]. The small eﬀect size, however, indicates that while gender is a predictor, it alone does not substantially explain the variance in envir- onmental safety attitudes, suggesting that other unexamined factors might also play signiﬁcant roles [18]. In contrast, the regression models for environmental awareness and knowl- edge of environmental protection show that none of the variables included – gender, age, place of residence, year of study, study rate, and parental education – statistically signiﬁcantly impact these dimensions. This could suggest that these aspects of environmental awareness might be inﬂuenced more by other, non-examined factors such as personal experiences [18,58], peer inﬂuence [106], or speciﬁc educational content related to environmental issues [28,107]. The overall low explanatory power of our models high- lights a crucial aspect of environmental education and behaviour research: the complexity and potentially multi- faceted nature of the inﬂuences on environmental attitudes. It indicates that simple demographic and socio- economic factors might not be suﬃcient to fully explain the variations in environmental awareness and suggests a need for further research to explore other variables that could play signiﬁcant roles. For instance, qualitative fac- tors such as personal values [2 5,108,109], cultural inﬂuences [110], or speciﬁc educational interventions [111] might pro- vide deeper insights into the shaping of these attitudes

[1 12,113].

A signiﬁcant ﬁnding from our research is the high rating of certain environmental attitudes by students from both countries. For instance, the belief that biodiversity pre- servation is crucial for humanity received a high mean, indicating a strong recognition of the importance of biodi- versity. Similarly, students expressed a robust conviction that individuals signiﬁcantly impact the environment and that knowledge enhances environmental awareness. These ﬁndings underscore a well-established awareness among students about the pivotal role of individual actions and education in environmental sustainability [1 14,115]. Contra- rily, some attitudes related to environmental responsibility

and legal regulations received notably lower ratings. The perceived responsibility of humanity for environmental damage and the role of legal regulations in nature conserva- tion were among the lowest rated. This suggests a possible gap in recognizing the broader societal and legal frame- works necessary for eﬀective environmental management [116]. The relatively low rating for the statement that nature beneﬁts humanity further indicates a potential undervalua- tion of the ecosystem services provided by nature, which are crucial for human survival and well-being [117]. Moreover, the disparities between students from Montenegro and North Macedonia in understanding the impact of environ- mental conditions on human health and national security are particularly striking. Montenegrin students displayed a higher level of awareness regarding the importance of nat- ural resources for human survival and the implications of resource scarcity on national security compared to their North Macedonian counterparts. This suggests that environ- mental education and the prevailing socio-economic con- texts might inﬂuence environmental perceptions diﬀerently in the two countries [118].

The environmental knowledge assessment underscores notable diﬀerences in environmental understanding among students from Montenegro and North Macedonia, reﬂecting the distinct impacts of socio-cultural and educational con- texts on their perceptions. Also, the ﬁndings show a robust consensus across both student groups about the critical importance of biodiversity protection, emphasizing the gen- eral awareness of biodiversity’s essential role in ecological sustainability [119]. Despite this shared understanding, other aspects of environmental knowledge reveal signiﬁcant dis- crepancies. Montenegrin students exhibit a greater appre- ciation for the principles of sustainable development [120], suggesting a possibly more integrated approach to sustain- ability in their education or national policy, as compared to their peers in North Macedonia. Conversely, students from North Macedonia demonstrate a more acute awareness of the direct eﬀects of human activities on climate change, which may reﬂect direct engagement with or education about the global impacts of local actions [27], possibly driven by diﬀerent environmental experiences or curri- culum focuses [42].

The assessment also uncovered areas of lower aware- ness, notably the impacts of human actions on the ozone layer, the value of waste as a resource, and the non-inex- haustibility of water resources. These ﬁndings suggest that environmental education on these topics may be lacking or insuﬃcient in both countries [121], potentially hindering eﬀective environmental management and practices [115]. Divergences in perceptions about recycling and waste management are particularly pronounced. Montenegrin

students have a much higher regard for the importance of recycling compared to North Macedonian students. This disparity might indicate the need for more focused educa- tional initiatives in North Macedonia to elevate awareness and practice of recycling [122].

The ﬁndings of this analysis on environmental safety variables reveal pivotal insights into environmental pro- tection awareness among students from Montenegro and North Macedonia. The highest ratings were given to the importance of raising awareness of environmentally respon- sible behaviour, suggesting a strong recognition among stu- dents of the critical role that individual and collective actions play in environmental sustainability. This could reﬂect the success of current educational campaigns and initiatives aimed at fostering a culture of environmental responsibility [44 ,123]. Conversely, the aspect of reducing waste through decreased production and recycling received the lowest rat- ings. This indicates a potential area for improvement in envir- onmental education and policy-making [124]. The lower emphasis on waste reduction might suggest a lack of expo- sure [125] to, or understanding of, the practical measures needed to implement these critical sustainability practices eﬀectively [17]. It may also reﬂect challenges related to infra- structure and accessibility of recycling programs or a broader cultural perspective on consumption and waste [126].

Moreover, the study highlights a discernible diﬀerence in the level of environmental protection awareness between the two countries. Students from Montenegro generally demonstrate a higher awareness in areas such as declaring protected areas and conserving resources and biodiversity, compared to their counterparts in North Macedonia. This heightened awareness might be attributed to Montenegro’s strong emphasis on environmental protection in its national policies and educational curricula, which are likely inﬂu- enced by its geographic and biological diversity [7,126].

The less pronounced but still notable higher aware- ness among Montenegrin students regarding waste reduc- tion through decreased production and recycling also suggests that national policies and educational initiatives could be having a more signiﬁcant impact in Montenegro than in North Macedonia [127]. These diﬀerences underline the importance of targeted educational programs and the adaptation of policy frameworks that cater speciﬁcally to the needs and contexts of each country [128]. Also, the results suggest that as students mature, they tend to develop a deeper understanding of environmental issues and their implications for society. This maturation process aligns with developmental theories which emphasize that cognitive and social development signiﬁcantly inﬂuence individuals’ aware- ness and attitudes towards environmental issues [129]. The observed increase in recognition of the critical roles of natural

resources in humanity’s survival, individual impact on the environment, and the eﬀects of environmental conditions on human health highlights the pivotal role of education and experience in fostering environmental awareness. As students age, their exposure to environmental education and real-world experiences likely contributes to this enhanced awareness, emphasizing the need for continuous educational engagement throughout their developmental stages [130].

Furthermore, the acknowledgment of the importance of legal regulations in governing nature conservation under- scores the critical role of policy interventions in promoting environmental sustainability [130,131]. This observation sug- gests that while educational eﬀorts are crucial, they should be complemented by robust regulatory frameworks [132]. Such frameworks are essential for eﬀectively addressing environmental challenges and promoting responsible stew- ardship of natural resources, indicating a synergistic approach where education and policy work in concert [19].

In addition, the increasing recognition of the family’s role in fostering environmental awareness highlights the importance of socialization processes in shaping indivi- duals’ environmental values and behaviours [133]. This ﬁnding implies that interventions targeting families and broader social networks can play a crucial role in culti- vating environmentally responsible attitudes and beha- viours across all age groups [134]. By engaging families in environmental education, we can leverage the inﬂuence of familial bonds and social interactions to reinforce environ- mental awareness from an early age [135]. However, the declining belief in the eﬀectiveness of waste reduction and recycling eﬀorts among older students presents a challenge [135]. This trend suggests potential gaps in waste manage- ment education and communication strategies, indicating a need for targeted interventions [136]. Tailored educa- tional programs that adapt to the evolving perceptions of students as they age could be more eﬀective in maintaining engagement and promoting sustainable practices [137].

The results have shown that men show a greater ten- dency to believe that individuals have a greater impact on the environment, that development harms the environ- ment, that environmental awareness begins in the family, that knowledge fosters environmental awareness, and that they are more aware of environmental behaviour. On the other hand, women express a greater belief that survival depends on resource availability. These results emphasize the need to understand and take into account the diﬀerent perspectives of men and women in the development of strate- gies and policies for environmental preservation [77–79,104,138]. Diﬀerences may arise from sociocultural factors [14,139,140], such as traditional gender roles and expectations [141–149]. In addition, diﬀerent experiences of men and women may

inﬂuence their perceptions, with women possibly paying more attention to everyday environmental practices [116,150–154], while men are more focused on broader environmental issues [1 8,77 ,79,138].

The level of education and information can also be important, as educated individuals may have diﬀerent per- spectives on issues such as the impact of individuals on the environment or the importance of recycling [112,126]. There are also theories suggesting that biological factors may play a role, although this issue is complex [155]. The results sug- gest intriguing connections between students’ place of resi- dence and their perceptions of environmental issues, notably that resource scarcity jeopardizes security and that biodiversity preservation is vital. Students living in rural areas reported stronger beliefs in these areas compared to their urban and suburban counterparts, which may reﬂect a closer daily inter- action with natural resources and ﬁrst-hand experiences of biodiversity’s beneﬁts and vulnerabilities [156].

Further analyses indicate signiﬁcant diﬀerences in how students from various academic years perceive envir- onmental issues. Notably, fourth-year students exhibited stronger endorsements of the notion that survival hinges on resource accessibility and displayed a heightened aware- ness of the impact of environmental conditions on health. This progression suggests that as students advance in their studies, they likely gain a deeper understanding and appre- ciation of complex environmental dynamics, potentially inﬂuenced by their academic exposure and maturation [1 57,158]. In addition, the study also explored correlations between students’ study rates and various environmental variables. Findings reveal that students engaged in faster- paced studies tend to have more pronounced awareness and concern for issues like resource scarcity, the harm of devel- opment on the environment, and the importance of legal regulations in conservation. This might indicate that stu- dents who progress more rapidly through their curriculum are either more exposed to or possibly more receptive to environmental education [159].

Interestingly, the analysis related to students’ aca- demic performance and exam pressures showed varied responses. Students facing academic diﬃculties or jug- gling pending exams often demonstrated higher scores in understanding the renewability of resources and recognizing humanity’s responsibility for environmental damage. This could suggest that students who experience academic challenges may also reﬂect more critically on broader societal issues, including environmental sustain- ability [21,160,161]. Overall, these results underscore the critical inﬂuence of educational progress, place of resi- dence, and academic pressures on students’ environ- mental awareness.

Furthermore, students from rural areas have a heigh- tened awareness of the importance of preserving ﬂora and fauna, likely due to their closer proximity to natural envir- onments and direct experiences with biodiversity. Conversely, students from suburban areas show a greater awareness of the eﬀects of vehicle emissions on the ozone layer, possibly reﬂecting higher exposure to urban pollution dynamics compared to their rural and urban counterparts. Also, further analysis indicates notable variations across diﬀerent years of study, revealing that students’ environ- mental awareness evolves as they progress academically. Second-year students frequently report higher scores on a variety of environmental topics, suggesting an initial peak of engagement that may be driven by the curriculum’s focus during these formative years. In contrast, ﬁrst-year students often show lower awareness, which may highlight the need for integrating environmental education more thoroughly at the onset of higher education to build a strong foundation of environmental understanding [162]. These patterns not only reﬂect the impact of academic progression on environ- mental awareness but also suggest the inﬂuence of curri- culum design and the timing of environmental education delivery within academic programs [163]. Enhancing early exposure to environmental topics could foster a more uni- formly high level of awareness from the beginning of stu- dents’ academic journeys, potentially leading to more informed and engaged future citizens [26].

To enhance the practical relevance of the study, policy- makers and educators should collaborate on tailored edu- cational programs that address gaps in environmental understanding and action, integrating comprehensive envir- onmental education into curricula and promoting commu- nity involvement through outreach initiatives. Policymakers should enact robust environmental policies that support sustainable practices and conservation eﬀorts, while educa- tors should receive professional development opportunities to enhance their environmental teaching skills. Speciﬁc recommendations include revising curricula to include topics like biodiversity preservation and waste reduction, implementing public awareness campaigns, and enfor- cing legislation aimed at reducing pollution and pro- moting renewable energy sources. By investing in these strategies, stakeholders can bridge the gap between envir- onmental awareness and action, empowering individuals to protect the environment and contribute to a sustainable future in Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Identifying and addressing potential barriers to imple- menting these recommendations is crucial for stakeholders aiming to promote environmental awareness eﬀectively. One signiﬁcant obstacle may be resistance to change within educational institutions, where established curricula and

teaching methods may hinder the integration of new envir- onmental topics. In addition, limited funding and resources allocated to environmental education initiatives may pose challenges, especially in regions with competing priorities for education spending. Another barrier is the lack of coor- dination and collaboration between government agencies, educational institutions, and community organizations involved in environmental initiatives. Moreover, addressing cultural and social barriers, such as entrenched attitudes and beliefs about the environment, requires targeted communication and out- reach eﬀorts aimed at fostering a culture of environmental stewardship and responsibility. By acknowledging and proac- tively addressing these barriers, stakeholders can create an enabling environment for promoting environmental awareness and fostering a culture of sustainability in Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Limitations of this study include: (a) the study employed a multistage random sampling method; however, it may not fully represent all students in Montenegro and North Macedonia, as it was conducted within speciﬁc universities and classrooms; (b) ﬁndings may not be generalizable to other regions or countries beyond Montenegro and North Macedonia due to the unique socio-cultural and environ- mental contexts of these nations; (c) the study was conducted during a speciﬁc timeframe (2023–2024), and environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety atti- tudes among students may have evolved since then; (d) data on students’ perceptions of environmental issues and safety measures were collected through self-report surveys and interviews, which may be subject to response bias; (e) external variables beyond the scope of this study, such as media inﬂuence, familial background, and personal experiences, could have inﬂuenced students’ attitudes

and perceptions, but were not directly examined; and

(f) participation in the study was voluntary, potentially introducing self-selection bias as individuals with a par- ticular interest in environmental issues may have been more inclined to participate. Despite these limitations, this comparative study provides valuable insights into environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia, oﬀering a foundation for further research and targeted interven- tions to enhance environmental education and sustain- ability practices in the region.
‌Recommendations

Based on the ﬁndings of this comparative study, several recommendations can be proposed to enhance the environ- mental awareness, perception of knowledge, and attitudes towards safety among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia (Table 15): (a) given the signiﬁcant diﬀerences in environmental awareness between students from Monte- negro and North Macedonia, integrating environmental education early in the academic curriculum and main- taining this integration throughout all years of study can help bridge these gaps; (b) educational programs should consider the unique socio-cultural and environmental con- texts of each country. Tailored content that addresses spe- ciﬁc local and national environmental challenges can make education more relevant and impactful for students; (c) since the family’s role in fostering environmental awareness is signiﬁcant, creating educational programs that involve families and communities can amplify the impact of formal

‌Table 15: Feasibility, costs, and priority of proposed recommendations for enhancing environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety

Recommendation Feasibility Costs Priority

Integrate environmental education early in the academic curriculum and maintain integration throughout all years of study

Develop tailored educational programs considering the unique socio-cultural and environmental contexts of each country

High Moderate High

High High High

Create educational programs involving families and communities to amplify the impact of formal education Moderate Low Moderate

Strengthen policy and regulatory frameworks, ensuring they are well communicated to the younger population

Moderate Moderate High

Design programs to engage all genders equally and challenge existing stereotypes Moderate Low Moderate

Implement targeted educational interventions for waste management education, particularly in recycling and reducing waste production

Regularly update educational content to reﬂect the latest scientiﬁc ﬁndings and current environmental challenges

Promote educational approaches that intersect with economics, sociology, science, and politics to provide students with a holistic view of environmental issues

High Moderate High

High Low High

High Moderate High

education; (d) strengthening policy and regulatory frame- works, along with ensuring these are well communicated to the younger population, could enhance understanding and compliance; (e) programs designed to engage all gen- ders equally, and challenge existing stereotypes can ensure more balanced involvement and empowerment in environ- mental actions; (f) given the low ratings for waste manage- ment education, particularly in recycling and reducing waste production, there is a clear need for targeted educa- tional interventions; (g) regular updates reﬂecting the latest scientiﬁc ﬁndings and current environmental challenges will keep the educational content relevant and engaging;

(h) promoting educational approaches that intersect with economics, sociology, science, and politics can provide stu- dents with a holistic view of how environmental issues are interlinked with other societal elements.
‌Conclusions

In this comparative study, we have pinpointed areas where environmental education can be strengthened to tackle sus- tainability challenges eﬀectively in both countries. While students exhibit a solid awareness of biodiversity and respon- sible behaviour, there are notable gaps in understanding other critical practices like waste reduction. To address this, integrating practical environmental skills training, updating curriculum content, and implementing sustainability-focused extracurricular activities are actionable steps for policy- makers and educators. Tailored educational programs that address speciﬁc awareness gaps and incorporate cultural and contextual inﬂuences can bridge disparities and enhance environmental education’s eﬀectiveness. Moreover, policy interventions and educational enhancements are vital to address disparities in environmental knowledge, such as revising frameworks to focus on recycling and waste manage- ment. By prioritizing environmental education and workforce development, both nations can lead by example in promoting sustainable development and environmental stewardship. It is essential for each country to invest in human capital, enhance institutional capacities, and adopt interdisciplinary approaches to address environmental challenges eﬀectively. By aligning domestic policies with international standards and fostering collaboration among stakeholders, nations can collectively tackle environmental protection and sustainable development more comprehensively.

There is a clear call for educational programs that are tailored to address speciﬁc gaps in awareness and that inte- grate a broader range of inﬂuences, including cultural, psy- chological, and contextual factors. Such tailored approaches

can help bridge the identiﬁed gaps, enhance the eﬀective- ness of environmental education, and promote a robust environmental awareness across diverse student popula- tions. Moreover, the ﬁndings underscore the importance of policy interventions and targeted educational enhance- ments to address disparities in environmental knowledge. This could include revising educational frameworks to include more focused initiatives on recycling, waste man- agement, and the broader implications of environmental degradation. By doing so, both Montenegro and North Macedonia can bolster their overall sustainability eﬀorts and foster a more uniform understanding of environ- mental issues among students.

As environmental challenges such as climate change continue to gain global importance, the study highlights the necessity for nations to prioritize environmental edu- cation and workforce development. This involves not only specialized training but also adopting interdisciplinary approaches that integrate environmental education across various sectors of governance and community involve- ment. This study advocates for an integrated approach involving educational enhancements, policy reforms, and international cooperation to eﬀectively tackle environ- mental issues. By investing in human capital and enhancing institutional capacities to align with international environ- mental standards, Montenegro and North Macedonia can lead by example in promoting sustainable development and environmental stewardship at both national and global levels.

Given the signiﬁcance and intricacy of environmental concerns, coupled with their global relevance and the col- lective eﬀorts underway, it is natural to anticipate that environmental knowledge should evolve in tandem with global developments. As conservation eﬀorts and the safe- guarding of natural resources assume a prominent role on the international stage, it is imperative for every nation to engage in a uniﬁed approach towards environmental pre- servation across all pertinent sectors. Environmental lit- eracy emerges as a pivotal factor in addressing key aspects such as nature conservation, resource management, and climate change mitigation. Each country and economy, tai- lored to its capacities, must contribute to cultivating spe- cialized expertise and human capital to eﬀectively address these pressing issues. This necessitates swift adaptations within educational frameworks, oﬀering avenues for further training and adopting an integrative approach essential for navigating the complexities of environmental protection and climate change. The advancement of human capital and insti- tutional capacity should unfold in two key dimensions: (a) specialized training and skill development in targeted ﬁelds, underscored by an appreciation for interdisciplinary

problem-solving approaches, and (b) enhancement of govern- mental administrative structures tasked with enacting and aligning domestic legislation with international standards, alongside robust oversight of environmental protection laws, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and active engage- ment from both economic stakeholders and local communities. Considering the global nature of environmental issues and the increasing complexity of challenges like climate change, it is imperative that nations prioritize environ- mental education and workforce development. This entails not only specialized training but also the integration of interdisciplinary approaches. Furthermore, governments must enhance their administrative capacities to align domestic poli- cies with international standards, ensuring eﬀective implemen- tation and enforcement. By investing in both human capital and institutional frameworks, countries can collectively tackle envir- onmental protection and sustainable development in a more

comprehensive and impactful manner.

Funding information: This research was funded by the Scientiﬁc–Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade (https://upravljanje-rizicima.com/, accessed on 11 May 2024) and the International Institute for Disaster Research (https://idr.edu.rs/, accessed on 11 May 2024), Belgrade, Serbia.

Author contributions: V.M.C. conceived the original idea for this study and developed the study design and ques- tionnaire. Also, V.M.C. and S.S. contributed to the dissemi- nation of the questionnaire, while V.M.C. analysed and interpreted the data. T.L. made a signiﬁcant contribution by drafting the introduction; V.M.C. and S.S. drafted the discussion, and V.M.C., T.L., and S.S. composed the conclu- sions. V.M.C., T.L., and S.S. critically reviewed the data analysis and contributed to revising and ﬁnalizing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the pub- lished version of the manuscript.

Conﬂict of interest: The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest.

Institutional review board statement: The study was con- ducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Scientiﬁc–Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management and the International Institute for Disaster Research (protocol code 005/2024, 1 January 2024).

Informed consent statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data availability statement: Data are contained within the article.

‌References

‌Rapport DJ. Sustainability science: an ecohealth perspective. Sustain Sci. 2007;2:77–84.‌
‌Taylor B, de Loë RC. Conceptualizations of local knowledge in collaborative environmental governance. Geoforum. 2012;43:1207–17.
‌Berrios R, Totterdell P, Kellett S. Individual diﬀerences in mixed emotions moderate the negative consequences of goal conﬂict on life purpose. Pers Individ Diﬀer. 2017;110:18–22.
Panov VI, Mdivani MO, Sh RK, Lidskaya EV. The development of the questionnaire for investigation of ecological consciousness of townspeople in Russia. Procedia-Soc

‌Behav Sci. 2013;86:384–9.
‌Bajaj M. Environmental awareness by curricular and co-curricular activities among student teachers. Sparkling Int J Multidiscip Res Stud. 2019;2:11–6.
‌Oğuz D, Çakci I, Kavas S. Environmental awareness of university students in Ankara, Turkey. Afr J Agric Res. 2010;5:2629–36.
‌Rajovic G, Bulatovic J. State of environmental awareness in northeastern Montenegro: a review. Int Lett Nat Sci. 2015;2:43–56.
‌Sharma K, Bansal M. Environmental consciousness, its antece- dents and behavioural outcomes. J Indian Bus Res. 2013;5:198–214.
‌Cherdymova EI, Afanasjeva SA, Parkhomenko AG, Ponyavina MB, Yulova ES, Nesmeianova IA, et al. Student ecological conscious- ness as determining component of ecological-oriented activity. EurAsian J Biosci. 2018;12:167–74.
Schmidt M, Onyango V, Palekhov D. Environmental challenges and management of natural resources. Implementing environmental and resource management. New York, NY, USA: Springer. 2011.

‌p. 1–4.
‌Norton B. Sustainability, human welfare, and ecosystem health. Environ Values. 1992;1:97–111.
‌Bashir Z, Umar S, Bashir S, Kuchey ZF, ud din Bhat M. A study of environmental awareness, attitude and participation among secondary school students of district Kulgam, J&K., India. Int J Multidiscip Educ Res. 2022;11:4.
‌Bhola N. A study of environmental awareness among secondary school student. EXCEL Int J Multidiscip Manag Stud. 2013;3:57–63.
‌Cvetković VM, Tanasić J, Ocal A, Kešetović Ž, Nikolić N, Dragašević A. Capacity development of local self-governments for disaster risk management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:10406.
‌Marques V, Ursi S, Lima E, Katon G. Environmental perception: Notes on transdisciplinary approach. Sci J Biol Life Sci. 2020;1:1–9.
‌Kaiser FG, Shimoda TA. Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 1999;19:243–53.
‌El-Haggar SM. Sustainability of municipal solid waste manage- ment. Sustain Ind Des Waste Manag. 2007;1:149–96.
‌Kassinis G, Panayiotou A, Dimou A, Katsifaraki G. Gender and environmental sustainability: A longitudinal analysis. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2016;23:399–412.
‌Mathevet R, Bousquet F, Raymond CM. The concept of steward- ship in sustainability science and conservation biology. Biol Conserv. 2018;217:363–70.
Asan I, Mile S, Ibraim J. Attitudes of macedonian high school students towards the environment. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2014;159:636–42.
‌Cvetković V, Milašinović S, Lazić Ž. Examination of citizens attitudes towards providing support to vulnerable people and volunteering during natural disasters. J Soc Sci, TEME. 2017;42(1):35–56.‌
‌Srbinovski MS. Environmental attitudes of Macedonian school students in the period 1995-2016. Inovacije u nastavi-časopis za savremenu nastavu. 2019;32:81–96.
‌McCarthy MA, Thompson CJ, Hauser C, Burgman MA, Possingham HP, Moir ML, et al. Resource allocation for eﬃcient environmental management. Ecol Lett. 2010;13:1280–9.
‌Maltseva SM, Balashova ES, Bystrova NV, Stroganov DA. Ecological safety in the ecological consciousness of pedagogical university students. Siberian J Life Sci Agric. 2021;13:133–45.
Spruyt B, De Keere K, Keppens G, Roggemans L, Van Droogenbroeck F. What is it worth? An empirical investigation into attitudes towards education amongst youngsters following secondary education in Flanders. Br J Sociol Educ.

‌2016;37:586–606.
‌Barrón NG, Gruber S, Huﬀman G. Student engagement and environmental awareness: Gen Z and ecocomposition. Environ Humanit. 2022;14:219–32.
‌Bello TO. Assessment of secondary school students’ awareness of climate change. Int J Sci Res Educ. 2014;2:2713–23.
‌Berglund T, Gericke N, Boeve-de Pauw J, Olsson D, Chang T-C. A cross-cultural comparative study of sustainability consciousness between students in Taiwan and Sweden. Environ Dev Sustain. 2020;22:6287–313.
‌Bergman BG. Assessing impacts of locally designed environ- mental education projects on students’ environmental attitudes, awareness, and intention to act. Environ Educ Res. 2016;22:480–503.
‌Hooper DU, Chapin Iii FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavore S, et al. Eﬀects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a con- sensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. 2005;75:3–35.
‌Karjalainen TP, Habeck JO. When’the environment’comes to visit: Local environmental knowledge in the far north of Russia. Environ Values. 2004;13:167–86.
‌Kulözü N. Youths’ perception and knowledge towards environ- mental problems in a developing country: in the case of Atatürk University, Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23:12482–90.
‌Lian Z, Qian Q, Bao L. Environment knowledge, law-abiding con- sciousness and risk perception inﬂuencing environmental beha- vior. In E3S Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences; 2020. p. 02032.
‌Stevanin S, Bressan V, Bulfone G, Zanini A, Dante A, Palese A. Knowledge and competence with patient safety as perceived by nursing students: The ﬁndings of a cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35:926–34.
‌Vicente-Molina MA, 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;61:130–8.
‌Schneiderhan-Opel J, Bogner FX. The relation between knowledge acquisition and environmental values within the scope of a bio- diversity learning module. Sustainability. 2020;12:2036.
‌Zarte M, Pechmann A, Nunes IL. Problems, needs, and challenges of a sustainability-based production planning. Sustainability. 2022;14:4092.
Colaner N, Imanaka JL, Prussia GE. Dialogic collaboration across sectors: Partnering for sustainability. Bus Soc Rev. 2018;123:529–64.
‌Kropfeld MI, Nepomuceno MV, Dantas DC. The ecological impact of anticonsumption lifestyles and environmental concern. J Public Policy Mark. 2018;37:245–59.‌
‌Podein RJ, Hernke MT. Integrating sustainability and health care. Prim Care: Clin Oﬀ Pract. 2010;37:137–47.
‌Rahman HA. Environmental sustainability awareness in selected countries. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2020;10:85–97.
‌Karpudewan M, Mohd Ali Khan NS. Experiential-based climate change education: Fostering students’ knowledge and motivation towards the environment. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ. 2017;26:207–22.
‌Masud MM, Akhtar R, Afroz R, Al-Amin AQ, Kari FB. Pro-environ- mental behavior and public understanding of climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2015;20:591–600.
‌Roy T, Hasan MK, Sony MMAAM. Climate change, conﬂict, and prosocial behavior in Southwestern Bangladesh: implications for environmental justice. Environment, climate, and social justice: perspectives and practices from the Global South. New York, USA: Springer; 2022. p. 349–69.
‌Frankl A, Lenaerts T, Radusinović S, Spalevic V, Nyssen J. The regional geomorphology of Montenegro mapped using land surface parameters. Z fur Geomorphol. 2016;60:1–14.
‌Djurović P, Djurović M. Physical geographic characteristics and sustainable development of the mountain area in Montenegro. Sustainable development in mountain regions. New York, USA: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 93–111.
‌Tošić B, Živanović Z. Comparative analysis of spatial planning systems and policies: Case study of Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia and Republic of Serbia. Zbornik radova- Geografski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. 2019;67:5–19.
‌Gecevska V. Report on ICT in education in the republic of North Macedonia. Comparative analysis of ICT in education between China and Central and Eastern European Countries. Springer Nature Singapore Pvt. Ltd.; 2020. p. 261–83.
‌Srbinovski M. Macedonian students’ ecological knowledge and level of information about the environment. Nastava i Vasp. 2019;68:381–92.
Padalka R. The psychological constitution of environmental con- sciousness in primary school students. Natura. 2016;16:58–62.
Sarancha I, Fushtei O. Conscious perception of environmental threats: the role of environmental psychology in the formation of environmental consciousness. Pers Environ Issues. 2023;2:5–11.
‌Duan W, Sheng J. How can environmental knowledge transfer into pro-environmental behavior among Chinese individuals? Environmental pollution perception matters. J Public Health. 2018;26:289–300.
‌Rabinovich MI, Zaks MA, Varona P. Sequential dynamics of com- plex networks in mind: Consciousness and creativity. Phys Rep. 2020;883:1–32.
‌Gärling T, Golledge RG. Environmental perception and cognition. Advance in Environment, Behavior, and Design. Vol. 2. New York, USA: Springer; 1989. p. 203–36.
‌Shumilina A, Anciferova N. Mechanisms for developing and shaping environmental consciousness in the globalised world. In E3S Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences; 2023. p. 06023.
‌Liobikienė G, Poškus MS. The importance of environmental knowl- edge for private and public sphere pro-environmental behavior: modifying the value-belief-norm theory. Sustainability. 2019;11:3324.
Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act envir- onmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. 2002;8:239–60.
‌Giﬀord R, Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that inﬂuence pro‐environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int J Psychol. 2014;49:141–57.‌
Corburn J. Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: Improving urban planning for communities at risk. J Plan Educ Res. 2003;22:420–33.
‌Geiger SM, Geiger M, Wilhelm O. Environment-speciﬁc vs. gen- eral knowledge and their role in pro-environmental behavior. Front Psychol. 2019;10:405705.
Amoah A, Addoah T. Does environmental knowledge drive pro- environmental behaviour in developing countries? Evidence from households in Ghana. Environ Dev Sustainability.

‌2021;23:2719–38.
‌Dimovska M, Gjorgjev D, Tozija F. Are schools in Macedonia ready to achieve children’s environmental and health policy priority goals? Injury Prev. 2012;18:A105.
‌Srbinovski M, Stanišić J. Environmental worldviews of Serbian and Macedonian school students. Aust J Environ Educ. 2020;36:20–43.
‌Boca GD, Saraçlı S. Environmental education and student’s per- ception, for sustainability. Sustainability. 2019;11:1553.
‌Sevencan F, Yavuz CI, Acar Vaizoğlu S. Environmental conscious- ness of students from secondary and high schools in Bodrum, Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2017;24:3045–53.
‌Yeung SPM. Environmental consciousness among students in senior secondary schools: The case of Hong Kong. Environ Educ Res. 1998;4:251–68.
‌Ntanos S, Kyriakopoulos GL, Arabatzis G, Palios V, Chalikias M. Environmental behavior of secondary education students: A case study at central Greece. Sustainability. 2018;10:1663.
‌Srbinovski M, Ismaili M, Abazi A. The trend of the high school students’ level of the environmental knowledge in the republic of macedonia. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:1395–400.
‌Ismaili M, Srbinovski M, Sapuric Z. Students’ conative component about the environment in the Republic of Macedonia. Procedia- Soc Behav Sci. 2014;116:95–100.
‌Srbinovski M, Erdogan M, Ismaili M. Environmental literacy in the science education curriculum in Macedonia and Turkey. Procedia- Soc Behav Sci. 2010;2:4528–32.
‌Prosheva S, Kjosevska E, Stefanovska VV. Assessment of the physical environment situation in primary schools in the Republic of North Macedonia. Arch Public Health. 2020;12:5–15.
‌Bilgin A, Radziemska M, Fronczyk J. Determination of risk per- ceptions of university students and evaluating their environ- mental awareness in Poland. Cumhur Üniversitesi Fen Edeb Fakültesi Fen Bilimleri Derg. 2016;37:418–25.
‌Vaizoglu S, Altintas H, Temel F. Evaluation of the environmental consciousness of the students in a medical faculty in Ankara. TAF Prev Med Bulletin; 2005;4(4):151–71.
‌Hampel B, Boldero J, Holdsworth R. Gender patterns in environ- mental consciousness among adolescents. Australian N Z J Sociol. 1996;32:58–71.
‌Vicente-Molina MA, Fernández-Sainz A, Izagirre-Olaizola J. Does gender make a diﬀerence in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country University students. J Clean Prod. 2018;176:89–98.
Olsson D, Gericke N. The eﬀect of gender on students’ sustain- ability consciousness: A nationwide Swedish study. J Environ Educ. 2017;48:357–70.
‌Shivakumara K, Sangeetha Mane R, Diksha J, Nagara O. Eﬀect of gender on environmental awareness of post-graduate students. Br J Educ Soc Behav Sci. 2015;8:25–33.‌
‌Riechard DE, Peterson SJ. Perception of environmental risk related to gender, community socioeconomic setting, age, and locus of control. J Environ Educ. 1998;30:11–9.
‌MacDonald WL, Hara N. Gender diﬀerences in environmental concern among college students. Sex Roles. 1994;31:369–74.
‌Idrees MD, Hafeez M, Kim J-Y. Workers’ age and the impact of psychological factors on the perception of safety at construction sites. Sustainability. 2017;9:745.
‌Fernández-Llamazares Á, Díaz-Reviriego I, Luz AC, Cabeza M, Pyhälä A, Reyes-García V. Rapid ecosystem change challenges the adaptive capacity of local environmental knowledge. Glob Environ Change. 2015;31:272–84.
‌Garai-Fodor M. The impact of the coronavirus on competence from a generation-speciﬁc perspective. Acta Polytech Hungarica. 2022;19:111–25.
‌Lak A, Aghamolaei R, Myint PK. How do older women perceive their safety in Iranian urban outdoor environments? Ageing Int. 2020;45:411–33.
‌Liu T, Liu H, You S. Analysis of the impact of environmental per- ception on the health status of middle-aged and older adults: a study based on CFPS 2020 data. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:2422.
‌Venables D, Pidgeon NF, Parkhill KA, Henwood KL, Simmons P. Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. J Environ Psychol. 2012;32:371–83.
‌Ramkissoon H. COVID-19 Place conﬁnement, pro-social, pro- environmental behaviors, and residents’ wellbeing: A new con- ceptual framework. Front Psychol. 2020;11:566333.
‌Gattino S, De Piccoli N, Fassio O, Rollero C. Quality of life and sense of community. A study on health and place of residence. J Community Psychol. 2013;41:811–26.
‌Hess JJ, Malilay JN, Parkinson AJ. Climate change: the importance of place. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:468–78.
Kim J-S. A study on the relationship between psychological responses and safety accidents to safe housing environments. J Korean Soc Hazard Mitig. 2018;18:9–19.
‌Karaca F, Turkyilmaz A, Myrzagali A, Kerimray A, Bell P. An empirical model for assessing the impact of air quality on urban residents’ loyalty to place of residence. Environ Urbanization ASIA. 2021;12:292–309.
‌Lewinson T, Morgan K. Living in extended-stay hotels: Older residents’ perceptions of satisfying and stressful environmental conditions. J Housing Elder. 2014;28:243–67.
‌Chuvieco E, Burgui-Burgui M, Da Silva EV, Hussein K, Alkaabi K. Factors aﬀecting environmental sustainability habits of university students: Intercomparison analysis in three countries (Spain, Brazil and UAE). J Clean Prod. 2018;198:1372–80.
‌Meyer A. Heterogeneity in the preferences and pro-environ- mental behavior of college students: The eﬀects of years on campus, demographics, and external factors. J Clean Prod. 2016;112:3451–63.
‌DeChano LM. A multi-country examination of the relationship between environmental knowledge and attitudes. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ. 2006;15:15–28.
Grozdanić G, Cvetković VM, Lukić T, Ivanov A. Sustainable earth- quake preparedness: a cross-cultural comparative analysis in

‌Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Sustainability. 2024;16:3138.
‌Dumurdzanov N, Seraﬁmovski T, Burchﬁel BC. Cenozoic tectonics of Macedonia and its relation to the South Balkan extensional regime. Geosphere. 2005;1:1–22.
‌The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Gland, Switzerland IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 2012.
‌Levchev V, Taylor H. Black book of the endangered species paper- back: Word works books. Washington, DC: The Word Works; 1999.
‌Todić D, Todić J. Transboundary issues and cooperation in the domain of environmental protection in the legislations of Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine. 2022;94:1130–78.
‌Todic D. Multilateral environmental agreements and EU integra- tion of western Balkan states (status of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Croatia in multilateral environmental agreements). Eur Energy Environ Law Rev. 2019;28:17–27.
‌Licastro A, Sergi BS. Drivers and barriers to a green economy. A review of selected balkan countries. Clean Eng Technol. 2021;4:100228.
‌Stanišić J, Maksić S. Environmental education in Serbian primary schools: Challenges and changes in curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher training. J Environ Educ. 2014;45:118–31.
‌Hastürk G, Urhanoğlu M, Gökbulut Y. Examination of the envir- onmental awareness primary school students and their attitudes towards the environment. Eur J Educ Stud. 2023;10:337–65.
‌Rönnlund M. Student participation in activities with inﬂuential outcomes: Issues of gender, individuality and collective thinking in Swedish secondary schools. Eur Educ Res J. 2010;9:208–19.
‌Veselinovska SS, Osogovska TL. Engagement of students in environmental activities in school. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2012;46:5015–20.
‌Tarantino N, Tully EC, Garcia SE, South S, Iacono WG, McGue M. Genetic and environmental inﬂuences on aﬃliation with deviant peers during adolescence and early adulthood. Dev Psychol. 2014;50:663.
‌Krasilnikova EV, Kuznecova SN. On the formation of environ- mental consciousness among students of an agricultural univer- sity. IOP Publishing; 2021. p. 042006.
‌Pitts RE, Canty AL, Tsalikis J. Exploring the impact of personal values on socially oriented communications. Psychol Mark. 1985;2:267–78.
‌Meggers BJ. Environmental limitation on the development of culture. Am Anthropol. 1954;56:801–24.
‌Chwialkowska A, Bhatti WA, Glowik M. The inﬂuence of cultural values on pro-environmental behavior. J Clean Prod. 2020;268:122305.
‌Bonell C, Wells H, Harden A, Jamal F, Fletcher A, Thomas J, et al. The eﬀects on student health of interventions modifying the school environment: systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67:677–81.
‌Popescu S, Rusu D, Dragomir M, Popescu D, Nedelcu Ș. Competitive development tools in identifying eﬃcient educa- tional interventions for improving pro-environmental and recy- cling behavior. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:156.
‌Berryhill JC, Prinz RJ. Environmental interventions to enhance student adjustment: Implications for prevention. Prev Sci. 2003;4:65–87.
Robinson J, Shallcross T. Social change and education for sus- tainable living. Curric Stud. 1998;6:69–84.
‌Boyes E, Stanisstreet M. Environmental education for behaviour change: Which actions should be targeted? Int J Sci Educ. 2012;34:1591–614.‌
‌de Anguita PM, Alonso E, Martin MA. Environmental economic, political and ethical integration in a common decision-making framework. J Environ Manag. 2008;88:154–64.
‌Costanza R. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems. 2000;3:4–10.
‌Marquart-Pyatt ST. Contextual inﬂuences on environmental con- cerns cross-nationally: A multilevel investigation. Soc Sci Res. 2012;41:1085–99.
‌Burton PJ, Balisky AC, Coward LP, Kneeshaw DD, Cumming SG. The value of managing for biodiversity. Forestry Chron. 1992;68:225–37.
‌Buchtele R, Lapka M. The usual discourse of sustainable devel- opment and its impact on students of economics: a case from Czech higher education context. Int J Sustainability High Educ. 2022;23:1001–18.
‌Ardoin NM, Bowers AW, Gaillard E. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biol Conserv. 2020;241:108224.
‌Stojanovski V. Policy processes in the institutionalisation of pri- vate forestry in the republic of North Macedonia. Sustainability. 2022;14:4018.
‌Öllerer K. Environmental education–the bumpy road from child- hood foraging to literacy and active responsibility. J Integr Environ Sci. 2015;12:205–16.
‌Willis K, Maureaud C, Wilcox C, Hardesty BD. How successful are waste abatement campaigns and government policies at redu- cing plastic waste into the marine environment? Mar Policy. 2018;96:243–9.
Seadon JK. Sustainable waste management systems. J Clean Prod.

‌2010;18:1639–51.
‌Tansel B. From electronic consumer products to e-wastes: Global outlook, waste quantities, recycling challenges. Environ Int. 2017;98:35–45.
Bloodworth A. Educational (de) segregation in North Macedonia: The intersection of policies, schools, and individuals. Eur Educ Res

‌J. 2020;19:310–28.
‌Blanco MB, Rudman AN, Greene LK, Razaﬁndrainibe F, Andrianandrasana L, Welch C. Back to basics: Gaps in baseline data call for revisiting an environmental education program in the SAVA region, Madagascar. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0231822.
‌Rutter M. Family and school inﬂuences on cognitive development. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1985;26:683–704.
‌Zsóka Á, Szerényi ZM, Széchy A, Kocsis T. Greening due to envir- onmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, con- sumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. J Clean Prod. 2013;48:126–38.
‌Elvan OD. The legal environmental risk analysis (LERA) sample of mining and the environment in Turkish legislation. Resour Policy. 2013;38:252–7.
‌Koebel JT. Facilitating university compliance using regulatory policy incentives. JC UL. 2018;44:160.
Katz-Gerro T, Greenspan I, Handy F, Vered Y. Environmental behavior in three countries: The role of intergenerational trans- mission and domains of socialization. J Environ Psychol. 2020;71:101343.
‌Rezaei A, Ahmadi S, Karimi H. The role of online social networks in university students’ environmentally responsible behavior. Int J Sustainability High Educ. 2022;23:1045–69.‌
‌Nazir J, Pedretti E. Educators’ perceptions of bringing students to environmental consciousness through engaging outdoor experiences. Environ Educ Res. 2016;22:288–304.
‌Kirkman R, Voulvoulis N. The role of public communication in decision making for waste management infrastructure. J Environ Manag. 2017;203:640–7.
‌Chen RH. Eﬀects of deliberate practice on blended learning sus- tainability: A community of inquiry perspective. Sustainability. 2022;14:1785.
‌Cvetković V, Roder G, Öcal A, Tarolli P, Dragićević S. The role of gender in preparedness and response behaviors towards ﬂood risk in Serbia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:2761.
‌Cvetković V, Nikolić N, Nenadić RU, Ocal A, Zečević M. Preparedness and preventive behaviors for a pandemic disaster caused by COVID-19 in Serbia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:4124.
‌Ocal A, Cvetković V, Baytiyeh H, Tedim F, Zečević M. Public reac- tions to the disaster COVID-19: A comparative study in Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, and Serbia. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 2020;11:1864–85.
Adem Ö. Natural disasters in turkey: social and economic per- spective. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2019;1:51–61.
Aktar MA, Shohani K, Hasan MN, Hasan MK. Flood vulnerability assessment by ﬂood vulnerability index (FVI) Method: A Study on Sirajganj Sadar Upazila. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2021;3:1–14.
Al-ramlawi A, El-Mougher M, Al-Agha M. The role of Al-Shifa medical complex administration in evacuation & sheltering planning. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2020;2:19–36.
Aleksandrina M, Budiarti D, Yu Z, Pasha F, Shaw R. Governmental incentivization for SMEs’ engagement in disaster resilience in Southeast Asia. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2019;1:32–50.
Baruh S, Dey C, Dutta NPMK, Dima H. Assam (India) landslides’ 2022: A lesson learnt. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2023;5:1–13.
Carla SRG. School-community collaboration: disaster prepared- ness towards building resilient communities. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2019;1:45–59.
Chakma UK, Hossain A, Islam K, Hasnat GT. Water crisis and adaptation strategies by tribal community: A case study in Baghaichari Upazila of Rangamati District in Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2020;2:37–46.
‌Cvetković V. Risk perception of building ﬁres in Belgrade. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2019;1:81–91.
El-Mougher MM, Sharekh SA, Ali MR, Zuhud EA. Risk management of gas stations that urban expansion crept into in the gaza strip. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2023;5:13–27.
‌Cvetković V, Dragićević S, Petrović M, Mijaković S, Jakovljević V, Gačić J. Knowledge and perception of secondary school students in Belgrade about earthquakes as natural disasters. Pol J Environ Stud. 2015;24:1553–61.
Cvetković V, Nikolić N, Ocal A, Martinović J, Dragašević A.

A Predictive model of pandemic disaster fear caused by corona- virus (COVID-19): implications for decision-makers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:652.
Cvetković V, Stanišić J. Relationship between demographic and environmental factors with knowledge of secondary school stu- dents on natural disasters., SASA. J Geogr Inst Jovan Cvijic. 2015;65:323–40.
Cvetković Vladimir M, Adem Ö, Yuliya L, Eric KN, Neda N, Goran M.

‌Public risk perception of nuclear power in Serbia: Fear of exposure to radiation vs social beneﬁts Energies. 2021;14(9):2464.
‌Nikolić NCV, Zečević M. Human resource management in envir- onmental protection in Serbia. Bull Serbian Geogr Soc. 2020;100:51–72.
‌Piqueira JRC. A mathematical view of biological complexity. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul. 2009;14:2581–6.
‌Xu J. Role of Indigenous people in biodiversity conservation and utilization in Jinping divide Natrue Reserve: An ethnoecological perpective. Chin J Ecol. 2003;86:86–91.
‌Brymer E, Davids K. Ecological dynamics as a theoretical frame- work for development of sustainable behaviours towards the environment. Environ Educ Res. 2013;19:45–63.
Shernoﬀ DJ, Kelly S, Tonks SM, Anderson B, Cavanagh RF, Sinha S, et al. Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learn Instr.

‌2016;43:52–60.
‌Goldman D, Assaraf OBZ, Shaharabani D. Inﬂuence of a non- formal environmental education programme on junior high- school students’ environmental literacy. Int J Sci Educ. 2013;35:515–45.
‌Ivanov A, Cvetković V, Sudar S. Recognition and perception of risks and environmental hazards on the part of the student population in the republic of Macedonia. Univ “St Kliment Ohridski” – Bitola Faculty Security Res Secur: Approaches, Concepts Policies, II. 2015;2:173–95. ISSN 978-608-4532-79-8.
‌Cvetkovic V, Martinović J. Innovative solutions for ﬂood risk management. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2020;2:71–100.
‌Parham-Mocello J, Smith M. Environmentally responsible engi- neering in a new ﬁrst-year engineering experience. Uppsala, Sweden: IEEE; 2022. p. 1–8.
Irby DM, Wilkerson L. Educational innovations in academic medicine and environmental trends. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:370–6.

‌Appendix A

‌A1 Questionnaire on environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety‌

‌A1.1 Socio-demographic Questions:

Gender: (Please circle one)
1. Female
2. Male
Age: (Please write your age)
Highest Level of Education Completed (Name of school and city): (Please circle and complete)
1. Gymnasium
2. High School
Region where you were born and lived until enrolling in college: (Please circle one)
1. Eastern Region
2. Northeastern Region
3. Pelagonian Region
4. Polog Region
5. Skopje Region
6. Southeastern Region
7. Southwest Region
8. Vardar Region
Parents’ Education: (Complete with ES, HS, SS, Vocational School, College, M.Sc., Ph.D.)
1. Mother’s
2. Father’s:
Residence: (Please circle one)
1. City center
2. Suburban area
3. Village
Year of Study: (Please circle one)
1. I
2. II
3. III
4. IV
Where do you live during your studies?
1. Student dormitory
2. Renting
3. With relatives
4. With parents
5. Traveling
6. Other
How do you rate your studies?
1. I regularly pass exams and fulﬁl obligations
2. I have pending exams and obligations
3. I have diﬃculties with passing exams and fulﬁlling obligations
4. Other

‌A1.2 Environmental awareness attitudes

Response: Please select the most suitable option by circling the corresponding number. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.

Humanity’s survival hinges on natural resource acces-

sibility (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)

Natural resources are universally available (1 | 2 | 3 | 4
| 5)
Individuals signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the environment (1
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Environmental conditions profoundly impact human health (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
All natural resources have renewable potential (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Development often harms the environment (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Immersion in nature fosters environmental steward- ship (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Resource scarcity jeopardizes national security and well-being (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Legal regulations govern nature conservation (1 | 2 | 3
| 4 | 5)
Biodiversity preservation is vital for humanity (1 | 2 | 3
| 4 | 5)
Humanity is responsible for environmental damage (1
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Environmental awareness begins in families (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Knowledge fosters environmental awareness (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Collective action protects nature (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
Nature beneﬁts humanity (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
‌A1.3 Knowledge of environmental protection attitudes

Response: Please select the most suitable option by circling the corresponding number. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.
1. Sustainable development involves ﬁnding a harmo-
  nious equilibrium among technological advancement, envir- onmental conservation, and societal democracy or social status (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
  1. By declaring protected areas and conserving resources and biodiversity. (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
  2. By reducing waste through decreased production and recycling. (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
  3. By raising and/or strengthening awareness of environ- mentally responsible behaviour (living in harmony with nature, sustainable resource use, and/or non-pollution of the environment and resources). (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
  4. According to your opinion, what three actions are essen- tial to protect the environment?
2. Human activities stand as the primary catalysts of
  climate change (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
3. The protection of ﬂora and fauna is imperative for their preservation (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
4. Recycling eﬀorts contribute signiﬁcantly to energy conservation (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
5. Human actions indeed have a substantial impact on
  1. According to your opinion, what three actions should never be taken to protect the environment?
  2. Is there anything you expected us to ask but didn’t ﬁnd in the questionnaire? (What would you ask if you were conducting this research?)
  the depletion of the ozone layer (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
6. Water resources, contrary to common belief, are not
  inexhaustible (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
7. Human activities, beyond mere usage, signiﬁcantly aﬀect the quality of water (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
8. Vehicle emissions are a signiﬁcant contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
9. Waste, when managed eﬀectively, can be regarded as a valuable resource (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
10. The protection of forest resources directly impacts air quality, including the attainment of clean air (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
11. The establishment of protected areas is paramount for the preservation of nature (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
12. The utilization of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, poses direct threats to human health (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
13. Governments, operating at both national and local levels, bear the primary responsibility for the conservation and management of resources (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
14. Environmental protection is achieved through the formulation and enforcement of laws and the implementa- tion of strategic initiatives (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)
15. Eﬀective waste management emerges as the most pressing environmental challenge in North Macedonia (1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5)

‌A1.4 Contribute to Environmental Protection

Alongside your opinion, how would you best contribute to environmental protection?

Answer: Please circle the appropriate ﬁeld. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree

‌A2 Questionnaire for focus group interview‌

‌A2.1 Socio-demographic Inquiry

Gender: Please indicate your gender.
Age: State your age.
Highest Education Attained: Specify the highest level of education you have completed.
Region of Origin and Residence until Commencing College: Identify the region where you were born and resided until beginning college.
Parental Education: Provide details on your parents’ educational background.
Place of Residence: Describe your current residential setting.
Academic Year at the Faculty: Indicate your current academic year.
Residence during Academic Pursuits: Specify your living arrangements while attending university.

‌A2.2 Environmental awareness

Assessment of Environmental Conditions in Montenegro: Express your viewpoint regarding the environmental status in Montenegro.
Primary Environmental Concerns in Montenegro: Enumerate the ﬁve most pressing ecological issues necessitating resolution in Montenegro.
Environmental Institutions in Montenegro: Identify and rank institutions in Montenegro engaged in environ- mental protection.
Strategies for Safeguarding Natural Resources in Montenegro: Propose methodologies for safeguarding natural resources within Montenegro.

‌A2.3 Environmental protection proﬁciency

National Park Analysis in Montenegro: Quantify the number of national parks and evaluate their eﬃcacy in conserving designated natural resources.
Waste Management Solutions in Montenegro: Devise stra- tegies for mitigating or resolving waste-related challenges.
Sustainable Utilization of Montenegro’s Natural Endowments: Suggest sustainable approaches for harnes- sing natural resources.
Climate Change Perception and Adaptation Strategies in Montenegro: Assess the perceived threat of climate change and outline strategies for resistance or adaptation.

Vladimir M. Cvetković

Like this:

By Urednik

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Share this:

Like this:

By Urednik

You might also like:

ProSafeNet just earned its place among Europe’s best!

Donation of 270 printed books of the “Emergency Response Guide 2024” to the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia

ProSafeNet Research Hub

Leave a Reply Cancel reply