How to Achieve a Healthier and More Sustainable Europe by 2040 According to the Public? Results of a Five-Country Questionnaire Survey
1.1. Motivation and Research Questions
1.2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.2. Brief Description of the Scenarios
2.4. Socio-Economic Background
3.1. What Scenarios Are the Most Preferred in Various Domains of Living and Countries?
3.2. Which Population Segments Are More Willing to Support the More Sustainable and Healthier Scenarios?
4.1. What Scenarios Are the Most Preferred in Various Domains of Living and Countries?
4.2. Are There Socioeconomic Distinctions in the Public Acceptability of the Scenarios?
4.3. What Value Orientations Would Explain Public Acceptability of the Healthier and More Environmentally Friendly Scenarios?
4.4. Limitations and Strengths
4.5. Policy Implications
Conflicts of Interest
|Value Item||Cronbach’s α|
|Altruistic value orientation||0.82|
|A world of peace (free of war and conflicts)|
|Equality (equal opportunity for all)|
|Social justice (righting injustice, care for the weak)|
|Biospheric value orientation||0.9|
|Preventing environmental pollution (protection of natural resources)|
|Protecting the environment (preserving nature)|
|Respecting the earth (harmony with other species)|
|Egoistic value orientation||0.73|
|Authority (the right to lead or command)|
|Influence (having an impact on people and events)|
|Wealth (material possessions, money)|
|Pleasure (joy, gratification of desires)|
|Enjoying life (enjoying food, sex, leisure etc.)|
|Self-indulgence (doing pleasant things)|
|Healthy (not being sick physically or mentally)|
|Reciprocation of favours (avoidance of indebtedness)|
|Family security (safety for loved ones)|
- Staatsen, B.; van der Vliet, N.; Kruize, H.; Hall, L.; Morris, G.; Bell, R.; Stegeman, I. INHERIT: Exploring Triple-Win Solutions for Living, Moving and Consuming that Encourage Behavioural Change, Protect the Environment, Promote Health and Health Equity. EuroHealthNet, Brussels. 2017. Available online: https://inherit.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/INHERIT-Report-A4-Low-res_s.pd (accessed on 17 May 2020).
- The First and Last Mile—The Key to Sustainable Urban Transport. Transport and Environment Report 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/the-first-and-last-mile (accessed on 14 April 2020).
- Mueller, N.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Cole-Hunter, T.; de Nazelle, A.; Dons, E.; Gerike, R.; Götschi, T.; Panis, L.I.; Kahlmeier, S.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Health impact assessment of active transportation: A systematic review. Prev. Med. 2015, 76, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; de Boer, I.J.M. Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans—A Life Cycle Assessment. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Garnett, T.; Mathewson, S.; Angelides, P.; Borthwick, F. Policies and Actions to Shift Eating Patterns: What Works? A Review of the Evidence of the Effectiveness of Interventions Aimed at Shifting Diets in more Sustainable and Healthy Directions 2015. Available online: https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_chatham_house_0.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2020).
- Chel, A.; Kaushik, G. Renewable energy technologies for sustainable development of energy efficient building. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 655–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 2030 Climate & Energy Framework. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en (accessed on 16 February 2020).
- Lee, A.C.K.; Maheswaran, R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- WHO Urban Green Spaces and Health. A Review of Evidence 2016. Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2016/urban-green-spaces-and-health-a-review-of-evidence-2016 (accessed on 13 May 2020).
- United Nations About the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 28 March 2020).
- Guillen-Hanson, G.; Strube, R.; Xhelili, A. INHERIT: Reaching the ‘Triple-Win’, Four Future Scenarios of a Healthier, more Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040. 2018. Available online: https://www.scp-centre.org/publications/reaching-the-triple-win/ (accessed on 12 February 2020).
- Steg, L.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Why are Energy Policies Acceptable and Effective? Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 92–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossi, F.; Strube, R.; Xhelili, A. INHERIT: Citizen Insights for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040. A Qualitative Analysis in Five Countries. 2018. Available online: https://inherit.eu/wp-content/uploads/INHERIT_Focus_Groups_AnalyticalReport_Final.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Xhelili, A.; Strube, R.; Grossi, F.; Zvěřinová, I.; Taylor, T.; Martinez-Juarez, P.; Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C.; Gjorgjev, D. A Technological Scenario for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040: Citizen Perceptions and Policy Implications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chang, K.M.; Hess, J.J.; Balbus, J.M.; Buonocore, J.J.; Cleveland, D.A.; Grabow, M.L.; Neff, R.; Saari, R.K.; Tessum, C.W.; Wilkinson, P.; et al. Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of policy uptake: A review of air quality, transportation and diet co-benefits modeling studies. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 113001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quam, V.G.M.; Rocklöv, J.; Quam, M.B.M.; Lucas, R.A.I. Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Health Co-Benefits: A Structured Review of Lifestyle-Related Climate Change Mitigation Strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Söderholm, P.; Hildingsson, R.; Johansson, B.; Khan, J.; Wilhelmsson, F. Governing the transition to low-carbon futures: A critical survey of energy scenarios for 2050. Futures 2011, 43, 1105–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spiecker, S.; Weber, C. The future of the European electricity system and the impact of fluctuating renewable energy—A scenario analysis. Energy Policy 2014, 65, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, U. Climate for Change, or How to Create a Green Modernity? Theory Cult. Soc. 2010, 27, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinionmobile/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/surveyKy/2257 (accessed on 15 January 2020).
- Alberini, A.; Bigano, A.; Ščasný, M.; Zvěřinová, I. Preferences for Energy Efficiency vs. Renewables: What Is the Willingness to Pay to Reduce CO2 Emissions? Ecol. Econ. 2018, 144, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drews, S.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim. Policy 2016, 16, 855–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akter, S.; Bennett, J. Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: The case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Metzger, M.J.; Murray-Rust, D.; Houtkamp, J.; Jensen, A.; La Riviere, I.; Paterson, J.S.; Pérez-Soba, M.; Valluri-Nitsch, C. How do Europeans want to live in 2040? Citizen visions and their consequences for European land use. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018, 18, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Special Eurobarometer 479: Future of Europe. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2217_90_2_479_ENG (accessed on 19 March 2020).
- Special Eurobarometer 492: Europeans’ Attitudes on EU Energy Policy. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2238_91_4_492_ENG (accessed on 23 February 2020).
- Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in Five Countries: Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2007, 38, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harring, N.; Jagers, S.C.; Matti, S. Public Support for Pro-Environmental Policy Measures: Examining the Impact of Personal Values and Ideology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Steg, L.; Groot, J.I.M. de Environmental Values. Available online: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199733026-e-5 (accessed on 18 January 2020).
- Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; van der Werff, E. Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Zvěřinová, I.; Ščasný, M.; Máca, V. Barriers and Potential for Adopting Healthier, More Equitable and Environmentally Friendly Solutions Identified in a Five-Country Survey. 2018. Available online: https://inherit.eu/upload/five_country_survey.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2020).
- Neuvonen, A.; Kaskinen, T.; Leppänen, J.; Lähteenoja, S.; Mokka, R.; Ritola, M. Low-carbon futures and sustainable lifestyles: A backcasting scenario approach. Futures 2014, 58, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scenario Method. European Foresight Platform (EFP). Available online: http://www.foresight-platform.eu/community/forlearn/how-to-do-foresight/methods/scenario/ (accessed on 17 May 2020).
- Churchill, G.A. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4625-2335-1. [Google Scholar]
- Mueller, R.O.; Hancock, G.R. Factor Analysis and Latent Structure, Confirmatory. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Smelser, N.J., Baltes, P.B., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 5239–5244. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8. [Google Scholar]
- Rosseel, Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Feldmann, C.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Q. Prefer. 2015, 40, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, B.E.; Fahy, F. Locating the locale of local food: The importance of context, space and social relations. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2015, 30, 563–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winter, M. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stride, V.; Cranney, L.; Scott, A.; Hua, M. Outdoor gyms and older adults—Acceptability, enablers and barriers: a survey of park users. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2017, 28, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.L.C.; Lo, T.L.T.; Ho, R.T.H. Understanding Outdoor Gyms in Public Open Spaces: A Systematic Review and Integrative Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; McKenzie, T.L. Impact and cost-effectiveness of family Fitness Zones: A natural experiment in urban public parks. Health Place 2012, 18, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- European Commission Expectations and Concerns from a Connected and Automated Mobility. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2231 (accessed on 13 May 2020).
- Brown, V.; Moodie, M.; Cobiac, L.; Mantilla Herrera, A.M.; Carter, R. Obesity-related health impacts of fuel excise taxation—An evidence review and cost-effectiveness study. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Brännlund, R.; Nordström, J. Carbon tax simulations using a household demand model. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2004, 48, 211–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallbekken, S.; Sælen, H. Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2966–2973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giskes, K.; Avendaňo, M.; Brug, J.; Kunst, A.E. A systematic review of studies on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight/obesity conducted among European adults. Obes. Rev. 2010, 11, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Ridder, D.; Kroese, F.; Evers, C.; Adriaanse, M.; Gillebaart, M. Healthy diet: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions. Psychol. Health 2017, 32, 907–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Lutz, C. Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2019, 1, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rohan, M.J. A Rose by Any Name? The Values Construct. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2000, 4, 255–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973; ISBN 978-0-02-926750-9. [Google Scholar]
- Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Reframing Environmental Messages to be Congruent with American Values. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2003, 10, 126–136. [Google Scholar]
- De Dominicis, S.; Schultz, P.W.; Bonaiuto, M. Protecting the Environment for Self-interested Reasons: Altruism Is Not the Only Pathway to Sustainability. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Krosnick, J.A.; MacInnis, B. Does the American Public Support Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Daedalus 2013, 142, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacovidou, E.; Wehrmeyer, W. Making sense of the future: Visions and transition pathways of laypeople and professionals from six EU countries. Glob. Bioeth. 2014, 25, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Diepeveen, S.; Ling, T.; Suhrcke, M.; Roland, M.; Marteau, T.M. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Steg, L. Values, Norms, and Intrinsic Motivation to Act Proenvironmentally. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collado, S.; Staats, H.; Corraliza, J.A. Experiencing nature in children’s summer camps: Affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 33, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M.; Bruehlman-Senecal, E.; Dolliver, K. Why Is Nature Beneficial?: The Role of Connectedness to Nature. Environ. Behav. 2008, 41, 607–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, K.-P.; Lee, S.-L.; Chao, M.M. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 49, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardi, A.; Goodwin, R. The Dual Route to Value Change: Individual Processes and Cultural Moderators. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2011, 42, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Jackson, T. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. Sustain. Dev. Res. Netw. 2005, 29, 30. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.337.433&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 13 April 2020).
- Groot, J.I.M.D.; Steg, L. Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Scenario||Driving Sector||Social Processes||Description|
|My life between realities||private sector||individualistic||The main vision is the interconnectivity—everything is digital, connected and personalized. A better future is supported by big data which drive efficiency and performance and enable high-quality and personalized products and services. Development is driven by business and complemented by a governmental intervention.|
|Less is more to me||public sector||individualistic||Material ownership is less important and the influence of the private sector declines. The government also ensures the provision and management of products and services (including access to health care services and education). There is a tendency towards greater sufficiency.|
|One for all, all for one||public sector||collectivist||The main characteristic is the localism which is reflected in the life of society (local diets, community interactions, leisure activities etc.). Support for this future is formed by technological innovations and rules and regulations of policy makers.|
|Our circular community||private sector||collectivist||Society is highly connected and dependent on technology. More emphasis is on commonly-owned and created goods and more efficient services and products. Economy is a closed-loop and service is more important than product ownership.|
|Scenario||My Life in between Realities||Less Is More to Me||One for All, All for One||Our Circular Community|
|(Intercept)||0.21 (0.11–0.42) ***||0.19 (0.1–0.37) ***||0.61 (0.32–1.15)||0.16 (0.08–0.31) ***|
|Green spaces||0.8 (0.51–1.24)||1.68 (1.2–2.36) **||1.15 (0.83–1.58)||5.83 (4.12–8.26) ***|
|Active mobility||2.16 (1.56–2.99) ***||1 (0.74–1.36)||0.42 (0.31–0.56) ***||1.38 (0.99–1.94)|
|Housing||1.9 (1.35–2.68) ***||0.99 (0.72–1.36)||0.46 (0.34–0.64) ***||3.03 (2.18–4.21) ***|
|UK||0.86 (0.58–1.26)||1.03 (0.72–1.47)||0.86 (0.6–1.22)||0.82 (0.58–1.17)|
|LV||1.36 (0.9–2.06)||1.45 (0.98–2.14)||1.21 (0.82–1.79)||1.08 (0.73–1.59)|
|ES||1.22 (0.79–1.88)||1.31 (0.87–1.97)||0.91 (0.61–1.37)||1.6 (1.08–2.36) *|
|PT||1.21 (0.77–1.89)||0.88 (0.57–1.35)||0.9 (0.59–1.36)||1.34 (0.89–2)|
|Male||1.23 (0.96–1.58)||1.03 (0.81–1.3)||1.05 (0.83–1.32)||1.2 (0.96–1.51)|
|Age (18–34 years-reference)|
|35–49 years||0.48 (0.35–0.65) ***||0.46 (0.35–0.62) ***||0.62 (0.46–0.83) **||0.56 (0.42–0.74) ***|
|50–65 years||0.47 (0.34–0.66) ***||0.52 (0.38–0.72) ***||0.72 (0.53–0.99) *||0.44 (0.32–0.61) ***|
|Household income (1st tercile reference)|
|2nd tercile||1.25 (0.9–1.75)||1.45 (1.06–1.98) *||1.32 (0.98–1.79)||1.52 (1.12–2.05) **|
|3rd tercile||1.73 (1.22–2.46) **||1.65 (1.18–2.3) **||1.44 (1.04–2) *||1.55 (1.12–2.15) **|
|missing||0.61 (0.41–0.89) *||0.58 (0.4–0.82) **||0.46 (0.32–0.65) ***||0.59 (0.42–0.84) **|
|Municipality size (up to 4999 people-reference)|
|5000 or more||1.27 (0.96–1.68)||1.24 (0.95–1.61)||0.98 (0.76–1.26)||1.2 (0.93–1.55)|
|Education (primary and lower secondary-reference)|
|upper secondary||1.58 (1.16–2.16) **||1.56 (1.16–2.09) **||1.45 (1.09–1.92) *||1.39 (1.06–1.84) *|
|tertiary||1.93 (1.39–2.69) ***||1.82 (1.33–2.5) ***||1.41 (1.03–1.93) *||1.49 (1.1–2.02) **|
|Chronic disease||0.99 (0.76–1.31)||1.14 (0.88–1.46)||0.94 (0.73–1.21)||0.93 (0.73–1.2)|
|altruistic||1.07 (0.95–1.21)||1.02 (0.91–1.14)||1.09 (0.97–1.22)||1.03 (0.92–1.16)|
|biospheric||1.12 (1.01–1.24) *||1.17 (1.06–1.29) **||1.2 (1.09–1.33) ***||1.15 (1.05–1.27) **|
|egoistic||1.14 (1.05–1.25) **||1.07 (0.99–1.16)||0.99 (0.92–1.07)||1.1 (1.02–1.19) *|
|hedonism||0.94 (0.84–1.05)||0.98 (0.89–1.09)||0.97 (0.88–1.08)||0.94 (0.85–1.04)|
|security||0.95 (0.84–1.08)||1.09 (0.97–1.23)||1 (0.88–1.12)||1.06 (0.94–1.19)|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Zvěřinová, I.; Máca, V.; Ščasný, M.; Strube, R.; Marques, S.; Dubová, D.; Kryl, M.; Craveiro, D.; Taylor, T.; Chiabai, A.; García de Jalón, S. How to Achieve a Healthier and More Sustainable Europe by 2040 According to the Public? Results of a Five-Country Questionnaire Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6071. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176071
Zvěřinová I, Máca V, Ščasný M, Strube R, Marques S, Dubová D, Kryl M, Craveiro D, Taylor T, Chiabai A, García de Jalón S. How to Achieve a Healthier and More Sustainable Europe by 2040 According to the Public? Results of a Five-Country Questionnaire Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(17):6071. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176071Chicago/Turabian Style
Zvěřinová, Iva, Vojtěch Máca, Milan Ščasný, Rosa Strube, Sibila Marques, Diana Dubová, Martin Kryl, Daniela Craveiro, Timothy Taylor, Aline Chiabai, and Silvestre García de Jalón. 2020. "How to Achieve a Healthier and More Sustainable Europe by 2040 According to the Public? Results of a Five-Country Questionnaire Survey" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 17: 6071. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176071