Next Article in Journal
Mechanisms of Heavy Metal Tolerance in Bacteria: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Ecological Restoration and Zonal Management of Degraded Grassland Based on Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Case Study in Qinghai, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 24
10.3390/su162411126
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Global Threats to Sustainability: Evolving Perspectives of Latvian Students (2016–2022)

by
Ireta Čekse
1,* and
Reinis Alksnis
2
1
Faculty of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Latvia, LV-1083 Riga, Latvia
2
Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Latvia, LV-1004 Riga, Latvia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 11126; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411126
Submission received: 29 September 2024 / Revised: 7 December 2024 / Accepted: 16 December 2024 / Published: 18 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In an increasingly interconnected world facing global challenges such as climate change and social inequality, citizenship education plays a critical role in preparing young people for responsible democratic participation and sustainability. This study aims to develop a model to explain factors influencing Latvian students’ perceptions of global threats, comparing data from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)’s International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) cycles in 2016 and 2022, to assess how these opinions have evolved and their implications for promoting sustainability through civic education. Confirmatory factor analysis is used to test the latent factor structure modeling the students’ perceptions of environmental and economic threats to the world’s future. A multi-group structural equation model is constructed and used with the corresponding descriptive statistics to analyze various background factor effects on students’ sustainability concerns. The results of the study indicate that citizenship knowledge, as well as various student-level background factors, have an impact on environmental and economic sustainability concerns among 13-year-old students. In some instances, these effects are mediated by students’ civic knowledge level, while in other instances, they are directly attributed to the background factors. The findings show that there may have been some shift in students’ perceptions of sustainability threats, and the role of civic education may have changed in this respect. Furthermore, the varying levels of knowledge across various levels of background factors may suggest that content in lessons must be differentiated according to the needs of groups to support their understanding of the importance of sustainability.

1. Introduction

This paper evaluates how Latvian students’ opinions changed between 2016 and 2022 and identifies the factors that have influenced students’ opinions about a sustainable world. The study presents the perspectives of 13–14-year-old Latvian students on global threats to sustainability. In Latvia, as in many other countries, 13 years old is the age when a child’s social status changes to youth [1]. It is also the age of students one year before the end of primary school (Grade 8). Therefore, it is imperative that 13-year-olds start thinking and acting independently to become responsible citizens who act sustainably. The views of students have a long-term impact on sustainable global development [2]. However, in Latvia, compulsory education ends at the lower secondary level (ISCED 2) [3], which puts these young people at risk of low levels of education, unemployment, income, and, consequently, well-being and opportunity [4,5,6]. These aspects have the potential to impact Latvian citizenship and economic well-being, cause the loss of democratic values, and increase willingness to engage in illegal activities and trust in fake news. In light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and Russia’s geographical and economic presence in Latvia, it is crucial to understand the decision-making processes of 13-year-olds in crises, particularly in the context of individual and global sustainability [7]. Understanding students’ views on the threats to global sustainability, their values, and their level of civic education is crucial, as these factors will undoubtedly influence their future choices [8,9].

1.1. Sustainability

The concept of sustainability is multifaceted, encompassing a range of interconnected dimensions, including environmental preservation, economic stability, and social equity. These elements collectively aim to ensure a viable future for humanity. The United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) developed education for sustainable development (ESD) with 17 Sustainable Education Goals (SEGs), promoting a critical and contextualized understanding of SEGs and mobilizing action toward the achievement of SDGs [10]. Moreover, these papers align closely with SDG 4.7, which emphasizes the promotion of ESD and global citizenship [11]. This allows for an investigation of the attitudes of Latvian students toward sustainable development, taking into account their individual background factors and level of citizenship knowledge.

1.2. Citizenship Education

Citizenship education plays a vital role in fostering societal well-being, promoting democratic values, cultivating responsible citizenship, and advancing sustainability. As early as the 18th century, J.J. Rousseau [12] conceptualized the meaning of education, emphasizing that citizenship education is a process through which individuals are prepared to contribute to the common good while preserving their personal liberty. J. Dewey [13] placed significant emphasis on the importance of experiential learning and critical thinking as fundamental to the preparation of individuals for active democratic participation. He viewed education as a means of establishing a connection between personal development and the principles of democracy. Similarly, T.H. Marshall [14] positioned citizenship education as a tool for fostering an understanding of civil, political, and social rights, thereby equipping individuals to engage actively in democratic structures. Other authors further expanded this definition by emphasizing the importance of integrating knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are essential for global civic engagement [15]. J. Westheimer and J. Kahne put forth a framework that classifies citizens as personally responsible, participatory, or justice-oriented, emphasizing the diverse roles that education can facilitate [16]. D. Kerr [17] further developed these concepts, proposing citizenship education as a systematic approach to preparing individuals for active engagement with societal issues, grounded in the acquisition of civic knowledge, skills, and attitudes. G.J. Biesta introduced a more expansive perspective, emphasizing the role of education in fostering democratic agency and ethical responsibility [18]. These scholars collectively underscore the multidimensional nature of citizenship education, addressing the interplay between knowledge, skills, values, and societal engagement.
However, there is a growing need for knowledgeable and engaged citizens in today’s complex and interconnected world [19,20] who understand the significance of the relationship between democracy and sustainability [21,22,23] and between sustainability and education [24]. Citizenship education serves as a foundation for equipping young people with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for democratic participation and responsible global citizenship [25,26]. This is particularly crucial given the pressing global challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and the depletion of natural resources. Therefore, in order to prevent global threats to the sustainability of education, the focus must be on the factors that will ensure that future generations are able to address these challenges through sustainable and informed actions [19,27,28].

1.3. Students’ Attitudes as a Potential Predictor of Future Actions

The educational curriculum and environment influence students’ attitudes, behavior, and future actions [29,30,31,32,33]. Environmental education policies in schools and the development of socially competent behavior during school years significantly shape long-term pro-environmental attitudes and cooperative behaviors in adulthood [34,35]. Young people’s views and opinions influence their actions on conservation issues [36] and choice of future profession, showing the need for early and relevant educational interventions [37]. Moreover, there is a strong relationship between the perception of sustainable lifestyles and sustainable consumption practices [38]. It seems reasonable to suggest that developing an understanding of social systems and sustainability concepts in school-age children is crucial for shaping their future choices and behaviors regarding sustainability issues.

1.4. Background Aspects and Citizenship Knowledge

Although previous research has established the importance of civic education in shaping students’ perceptions of sustainability [24,28,29,30], there remains a lack of focused investigation into how specific factors, such as gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and migration background, mediate these perceptions. Furthermore, the existing literature lacks comparative analyses across different time periods [39,40], which impedes our understanding of how students’ views evolve in response to changing educational frameworks and societal contexts.
The extant literature demonstrates that gender is a significant determinant of individuals’ perceptions of and engagement with sustainability issues. Women tend to demonstrate a greater proclivity for environmental concerns compared to men, frequently prioritizing sustainability in both their personal and professional decisions [41]. This discrepancy is evident across various sectors, with studies indicating that women are more inclined to engage in sustainable consumer behaviors and support policies aimed at environmental protection [42]. In the context of corporate settings, the presence of women in leadership roles is associated with a heightened likelihood of companies adopting sustainability initiatives. However, gender differences extend beyond behavior to attitudes, with women generally viewing global sustainability challenges, such as climate change and resource depletion, as more immediate threats than men do. These differences suggest that gendered approaches to sustainability education and policy could prove beneficial in addressing disparities in how sustainability is perceived and acted upon across different social groups [43,44].
However, family migration plays a critical role in shaping students’ attitudes toward sustainability. Migration often exposes families to new socioeconomic and environmental conditions that can affect children’s educational and sustainability perspectives. Research suggests that migrant families’ experiences of resource scarcity and environmental change can raise students’ awareness of sustainability issues such as environmental degradation and social justice [45]. In addition, the symbolic and economic capital brought by migrant families, as well as adjustments in school choice and educational aspirations, can profoundly influence students’ understanding of sustainability [46]. The importance of family cohesion and the challenges of separation during migration also contribute to students’ perspectives on sustainability as they learn to navigate new cultural and environmental landscapes [47]. The migration experience is therefore a critical factor in shaping young people’s views on sustainability and their engagement with related global issues.
Another widely recognized factor forming a key determinant of students’ knowledge, attitudes, and opinions about sustainability is SES. According to research, students from higher SES backgrounds often have greater access to environmental education and resources, which shapes their pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [48]. These students tend to have a broader understanding of sustainability that includes intergenerational equity and environmental stewardship [49]. Conversely, students from lower SES backgrounds may prioritize immediate economic concerns over long-term sustainability issues due to the economic pressures they face in their daily lives. Studies have shown that students’ engagement with sustainability is strongly influenced by the socioeconomic context of their schools and communities, where limited access to sustainability education and resources can hinder their awareness and pro-environmental behavior [37]. This highlights the importance of addressing SES disparities in sustainability education to ensure that all students, regardless of background, are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to engage in sustainable practices [43].

1.5. Study Purpose and Hypotheses

The aim of this study was to develop a model that identifies the factors shaping Latvian students’ perceptions of global threats to the future of the world. A comparative analysis used datasets from the ICCS conducted by the IEA in 2016 and 2022. The two main objectives (O) of this study are as follows:
O1. 
To explore the factors influencing students’ attitudes toward global threats to sustainability.
O2. 
To explore how Latvian students’ opinions have changed between 2016 and 2022.
The findings of this study will contribute to the ongoing discourse on the role of civic education in promoting sustainability and may inform future educational policies aimed at fostering global citizenship and sustainability awareness.
The following hypotheses (H) were tested in the course of this study:
H1. 
Female students are more likely than male students to express concern about sustainability issues.
H2. 
Students’ socioeconomic status (SES) directly influences students’ sustainability concerns.
H3. 
Parents’ interest in political and social issues directly affects students’ opinions about threats to sustainability.
H4. 
The immigration status of students in the first two generations has an impact on views on sustainability issues.
H5. 
The level of civic and citizenship knowledge among students directly influences their perceptions of global threats.

2. Materials and Methods

The ICCS provides a unique opportunity to assess how education systems around the world are preparing young people for active citizenship. The ICCS 2016 and ICCS 2022 studies measure civic knowledge, attitudes, and participation among students aged 13 to 14, offering valuable insights into how civic education has evolved over time [29,30]. Moreover, these studies align closely with UN SDG 4.7, which emphasizes the promotion of education for sustainable development and global citizenship [11,24,50].
This study specifically analyzed ICCS data collected from Latvian students. The ICCS 2016 cycle included 3224 Latvian students, and the ICCS 2022 cycle included 2876 Latvian students. Due to its two-stage stratified cluster sampling, the ICCS ensures that the samples are nationally representative of the target population, allowing for a reliable estimation of students’ views on the issues covered by the study. The civic knowledge test included as part of the ICCS in each cycle measures students’ civic knowledge levels. Each student receives only a subset of the questions; hence, five plausible values (PV1CIV–PV5CIV) are available as indicators of their knowledge level [51,52]. Additionally, students are given a questionnaire to provide information about various background factors as well as their attitudes, opinions, and behaviors [53,54]. One of the questions in this questionnaire that we focused on in this paper was, “To what extent do you think the following issues are a threat to the world’s future?” Various possible threats, such as pollution, crime, and poverty, were given, and students were asked to express their thoughts about the extent to which the corresponding issue is a threat to the world’s future. Answers were given on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all to a large extent. Custom latent constructs were developed to address the objectives of this paper. The first one, environmental sustainability, was modeled using responses to pollution, climate change, and water shortages questions, while the economic sustainability construct was modeled using responses to poverty, global financial crises, and unemployment items. Additionally, several student-level background factors were used in this study. The national index of students’ socioeconomic background (S_NISB in the ICCS database) was constructed from three indices: highest occupational status of parents (S_HISEI), highest educational level of parents (S_HISEI), and the number of books at home (S_HOMLIT). An index of the parents’ highest interest in political and social issues (S_HINT) was constructed as the maximum value of the mother’s interest (S_MINT) and the father’s interest (S_FINT). S_MINT and S_FINT responses were given the following values: not interested at all (0), not very interested (1), quite interested (2), and very interested (3). The variables S_GENDER and S_IMMIG were used as factors indicating a student’s gender and immigration status. The student’s civic knowledge level was calculated by using five plausible values, ranging from PV1CIV to PV5CIV [51,52].
This study is fully replicable as the ICCS data are freely available on the official ICCS website (https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/iccs, accessed on 27 September 2024), and the analysis was conducted using R v.4.2.2 [55], which is a free and open-source software. The analysis utilized the lavaan (v0.6.18) [56], survey (v4.4.2) [57], and lavaan.survey (v1.1.3.1) [58] packages for structural equation modeling and handling the complex survey design. All R code used in the study is available upon request from the authors.
Generative AI tool OpenArt.ai was used to create a title image for this manuscript.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Figure 1 presents the SEM model constructed for this study. This model represents the relationships between civic knowledge (measured by five plausible values), the aforementioned sustainability constructs (environmental and economic sustainability, together with their corresponding indicators), and background factors (gender, immigration status, SES, and parental interest in political and social issues).
Next, we provide the descriptive statistics for the variables used in this model. In Table 1, we can observe several associations that we will refer to below. First of all, girls show significantly higher civic knowledge levels on average in both 2016 and 2022. There is a moderate positive correlation between civic knowledge level and students’ SES. There is a monotonic positive association between parental interest in political and social issues (S_HINT) and students’ civic knowledge level. Finally, immigrant students’ civic knowledge level is lower on average compared to native students.
Table 2 shows the association between civic knowledge and the six threat items used to model latent sustainability constructs. We can observe a monotonic relationship between the pollution, climate change, and global financial crises items in 2016. In 2022, the association is strictly positive for all items except unemployment. This indicates that more knowledgeable students tend to be more concerned about these issues and that this association became stronger in 2022 compared to the previous cycle in 2016.

3.2. Model Construction

As a first step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models for the 2016 and 2022 cycles were tested to see whether the latent constructs environmental sustainability and economic sustainability could be modeled with the items provided by ICCS datasets as options to the question “To what extent do you think the following issues are a threat to the world’s future?”. Pollution, climate change, and water shortages were chosen as items manifesting students’ concerns about environmental challenges in the future. Poverty, global financial crises, and unemployment were chosen as items indicating students’ concerns about economic challenges in the future.
In CFA models, we assume both latent constructs to be correlated. After an initial estimation of the models, the corresponding fit measures turned out to be slightly below the generally accepted thresholds. After investigating the modification indices, we decided to allow poverty to be correlated with unemployment and global financial crises. This modification was reasonable from a theoretical point of view, and it also improved the fit indices. Thus, the obtained models showed the following fit measures: CFI = 0.982, TLI = 0.956, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.019 (estimated with data from the 2016 cycle) and CFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.081, and SRMR = 0.020 (estimated with data from the 2022 cycle). RMSEA is a little higher than is usually suggested in the SEM literature [35]; however, the rest of the measures were more than acceptable according to generally accepted guidelines [35,37]. Hence, it was concluded that this two-factor model could be used to model students’ sustainability concerns.
The next step was to construct the SEM. We were interested in assessing the effects that various student-level background factors have on students’ sustainability concerns. Initial descriptive statistics revealed that students with higher levels of civic knowledge tend to have higher concerns about the world’s future. Therefore, it was suspected that background factors may have indirect effects on concerns through civic knowledge. For instance, on average, students from a higher socioeconomic background show a higher level of civic knowledge, and as they are more knowledgeable, they also tend to be more concerned. Civic knowledge itself may be viewed as a student-level factor whose effect on sustainability concerns may be an interesting issue for further study. Thus, we decided to include civic knowledge as a mediating factor, allowing us to estimate the direct and indirect effects of the chosen background factors. Civic knowledge as a latent construct was modeled with five plausible values (PV1CIV–PV5CIV). Measurement of fit indices for this latent construct unsurprisingly showed an excellent fit since, by definition, they estimate the same construct. Hence, these indices are not reported here.
After these considerations, the SEM was constructed (Figure 1). The next step was to assess the measurement invariance across the two cycles [36]. Measurement invariance ensures that the constructs being measured are interpreted in the same way across the two cycles, allowing valid comparisons of students’ perceptions over time. The first task was to assess whether the configural invariance holds, i.e., whether the same model holds a multi-group SEM, for both cycles. This showed excellent fit indices with CFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.985, RMSEA = 0.033, and SRMR = 0.025. Then, the metric invariance was tested by assessing whether model fit significantly decreases by imposing equality constraints on factor loadings. At this stage, the decrease turned out to be significant; thus, metric invariance was not reached. However, partial metric invariance was obtained by allowing global financial crises loading to be freely estimated across the two cycles. The next step was to test partial scalar invariance by assessing whether the fit significantly decreases further by imposing additional equality constraints on intercepts. At this stage, partial scalar invariance was reached by allowing intercepts for climate change and poverty to be freely estimated. Finally, partial strict invariance was reached only after allowing variances of unemployment, pollution, global financial crises, and climate change residuals to be estimated freely. Although strict invariance may be an unnecessarily strong requirement [36], only partial scalar and metric invariance was reached. This should be taken into account when comparing the results across the cycles. The standardized factor loadings for the items demonstrate the reliability of these constructs. For environmental sustainability, the factor loadings were 0.550 in the 2016 cycle and 0.719 in the 2022 cycle for pollution, 0.489 in 2016 and 0.738 in 2022 for climate change, and 0.536 in 2016 and 0.668 in 2022 for water shortages. For economic sustainability, the factor loadings were 0.733 in 2016 and 0.768 in 2022 for poverty, 0.493 in 2016 and 0.744 in 2022 for global financial crises, and 0.671 in 2016 and 0.744 in 2022 for unemployment. The loadings indicate an increase in the strength of the relationship between the items and the sustainability constructs defined in this study over the two ICCS study cycles.

3.3. Model Results

The results of the multi-group SEM constructed above are shown in Table 3 as standardized path coefficients in the final estimated model. For each student background factor, the direct, indirect, and total effect, which is the sum of the two, are reported. By indirect effect, we mean the effect of background factors on the corresponding sustainability construct through the level of civic knowledge. As mentioned above, it is suspected that civic knowledge could mediate the effects of background factors at some level. By direct effect, we mean the effect of background factors on the sustainability construct controlled for civic knowledge level. The total effect of civic knowledge on sustainability constructs is also reported.
Table 3 reports the effects for each year as well as the difference between the effects in 2022 and 2016. We use the conventional notation regarding statistical significance by denoting (*) as significant at a 5% significance level, (**) as significant at a 1% significance level, and (***) as significant at a 0.1% significance level. We say an effect has statistically increased between cycles if the effect is larger in 2022 than in 2016 at a significance level of at least 5%.
Before going into the analysis of the estimated effects, we note that there was a strong correlation between the environmental sustainability and economic sustainability constructs, with r = 0.670 (p < 0.001) in 2016 and 0.790 (p < 0.001) in 2022. Also, as mentioned above, poverty correlated with the global financial crises and unemployment items in the model. In both cycles, poverty is weakly positively correlated with unemployment, with r = 0.187 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.283 (p < 0.001) in 2022, but negatively correlated with global financial crises, with r = −0.101 (p = 0.017) in 2016 and r = −0.315 (p < 0.001) in 2022.

3.3.1. Gender

For the gender variable, a value of 0 was assigned to males and a value of 1 was assigned to females. It can be seen that girls are, in general, more concerned about a sustainable future, as the significant coefficients are positive. With regard to concerns about environmental sustainability, the total effects in both cycles are comparable (0.277 and 0.289). However, this difference is not statistically significant (Table 3). Furthermore, it can be observed that a considerable proportion of this effect is attributable to civic knowledge as an indirect effect. In other words, on average, girls demonstrate a higher level of civic knowledge, and students with a higher level of civic knowledge exhibit greater concern about various threats to the world’s future. The direct effect, which can be attributed to gender differences and other gender-specific factors not contained in the civic knowledge factor, is higher than the indirect effect. The difference in indirect effect is slight but statistically significant (0.031 *). With regard to the economic sustainability scale, girls continue to demonstrate heightened concerns compared to boys. This effect diminished in 2022 relative to the preceding cycle, yet this decline is not statistically significant. In this instance, the majority of the effect for both cycles is direct. Only in 2022 is there a statistically significant indirect effect, which contributes to a notable increase in the indirect effect compared to the previous cycle. In conclusion, we can state that H1 is supported by the data.

3.3.2. Socioeconomic Status (SES)

The results show that SES has a positive total effect on students’ sustainability concerns, meaning students from higher SES levels are more environmentally concerned. This effect decreased a little in 2022 compared to the 2016 cycle; however, the decrease is not significant. In this case, only the indirect effect through civic knowledge is significant in both years, with a significant increase in 2022 compared to the previous cycle. Hence, higher levels of SES can be associated with higher environmental concerns only through these students’ higher knowledge levels. Although the difference in direct effect appears to be statistically significant, this may have no real meaning, since the effect itself is small and insignificant in both cycles.
Regarding the economic sustainability scale, it is interesting to see that the total SES effect is negative in 2016 and positive in 2022. Both are statistically significant, and the results also show a significant increase when comparing 2022 to the previous cycle. This indicates a shift in perceptions of the economic threats to the world’s future between the two cycles. Both direct and indirect effects significantly increased in 2022 compared to 2016; however, only a negative direct effect was significant in 2016, and only a positive indirect effect was significant in 2022. Thus, the negative SES effect in 2016 is mostly explained by differences in SES levels other than their different civic knowledge levels.
Due to some other factors, students from lower socioeconomic levels were more concerned about economic threats. Since two of the items on this scale were poverty and unemployment, this seems reasonable since their concerns may be attributed to their personal experience. However, we can see that this effect disappeared in 2022, when the positive indirect effect mainly characterized the impact of SES on economic sustainability concerns. This means that civic knowledge now plays the main role. Greater concerns are attributed to higher levels of knowledge, which, on average, are associated with students from higher SES levels.
In conclusion, H2 is not supported by the data, as the SES effect is mostly mediated by students’ level of civic knowledge.

3.3.3. Parental Interest in Political and Social Issues (S_HINT)

Although part of the parents’ influence can be explained through their socioeconomic background, parental interest in political and social issues (S_HINT) was not included as an indicator for SES and is therefore considered separately here. The effects are smaller compared to the effects of SES; however, the total effect of parental interest on sustainability concerns is still statistically significant in both cycles. The effect is positive, meaning higher parental interest in various social topics generally leads to higher environmental awareness and, hence, is among the concerns of their offspring. The effect is similar in both cycles with no significant differences. When looking at the composition of the total effect, we can see that only indirect effects are statistically significant, meaning that higher parental interest leads to more knowledgeable children, who are thus more aware of and more concerned about the environmental threats to the world’s future. We can also notice that indirect effects have significantly increased in 2022 compared to the previous cycle.
Regarding the economic sustainability scale, only in 2016 is the total effect significant, which mostly concerns direct effects other than civic knowledge. Higher parental interest is directly associated with higher economic concerns, perhaps as a result of discussions in the family about related issues. We could also relate this to the effect of SES discussed previously. We could speculate that students from financially less secure families experience more financial challenges within their families, leading to more discussions with their parents about the various topics related to their financial situation. This, in turn, may be perceived as higher parental interest. Hence, it could be that in 2016, students from these less secure families were more concerned about economic threats, thus showing a positive direct association between parental interest and economic concerns. Finally, aligning with the above-discussed case of SES effects, direct parental interest effects disappear in 2022; however, a significant indirect effect emerges. This again indicates that civic knowledge may have a larger role in shaping students’ views on economic sustainability.
In conclusion, we can say that H3 is not supported, or at best partially supported, by the data, as the direct effect on economic sustainability concerns is only significant in 2016, and even then, it is rather weak.

3.3.4. Immigration Status

Although related to the SES and parental interest factors discussed above, immigration status is another background dimension that potentially shapes students’ views on sustainability concerns. Here, we distinguish between being a first-generation immigrant, meaning that a student as well as both his/her parents were born in another country, and a second-generation immigrant, meaning the student was born in the host country but both his/her parents were born abroad.
Regarding the environmental sustainability scale, the total effect for first-generation immigrants is significant only in 2022. This effect is negative, and since only indirect effects are significant, this can be attributed mainly to civic knowledge. First-generation students on average have lower levels of civic knowledge, leading to fewer environmental concerns. Looking at the economic sustainability scale, we can see that the total effect is significant only in 2022. The effect is negative, and in this case, both direct and indirect effects are significant and negative. Thus, the negative effect can be partially attributed to lower levels of civic knowledge for this scale as well, but the lower concerns are primarily attributed directly to their immigrant status. It is harder to speculate about the specific reasons here because the data do not reveal the cause of immigration, i.e., whether the immigrants are war refugees, economic refugees, etc. Still, we can note that significant effects emerge here only in 2022, with a significant increase in the negative direction.
Regarding the second-generation immigrants’ concerns about environmental threats, we see a significant negative effect in both 2016 and 2022, and although the effect became larger in 2022, the difference is not significant. Regarding the economic sustainability scale, there is only a significant negative indirect effect in 2022, perhaps once more indicating the higher role of civic knowledge in shaping economic awareness in 2022 compared to 2016.
In conclusion, we find that H4 is only partially supported by the data, as it depends on the year and the type of immigrants they are, and even then, a large part of the effect can be explained by their level of civic knowledge.

3.3.5. Civic Knowledge

Civic knowledge is a crucial determinant in shaping students’ perceptions of global threats, including sustainability and economic issues. As discussed above, students’ level of civic knowledge is an important mediator of various background factors. Civic knowledge had a significant positive effect on environmental concerns in both 2016 and 2022, suggesting that educational interventions aimed at enhancing civic understanding have been effective. For instance, students with higher civic knowledge were more likely to recognize the interconnectedness of economic stability and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the effect increased significantly between the cycles. Regarding the economic sustainability scale, there was no significant effect in 2016, but a positive significant effect emerged in 2022. This explains the lack of indirect effects in 2016 in the above discussions of background factor effects and implies that the role of civic knowledge in this aspect increased in 2022.
Although the coefficient is not significant for economic sustainability in 2016, we find that H5 is supported by the data, as the effect is quite large compared to other factors, and the effects of background factors were also explained to some extent by the level of civic knowledge.

4. Discussion

This study examined the evolving perceptions of Latvian students aged 13–14 toward global threats to sustainability, comparing data from the IEA ICCS 2016 and IEA ICCS 2022 studies [29].
The findings show that students’ views have a long-term impact on sustainable global development [2,10]. Moreover, students’ present attitudes shape their future choices and behaviors [35,36,37,38]. This finding aligns with previous studies highlighting the role of civic education in fostering critical thinking and global awareness [15,20,39]. It is essential to further explore how specific aspects of civic education, such as curriculum content and teaching strategies, contribute to this enhanced understanding among students. The education system and its content are of great importance to the future of sustainability, the maintenance of democratic values, and the preservation of security.
The findings indicate that female students demonstrated a greater proclivity toward sustainability concerns, which was found to be mediated by their higher levels of civic knowledge. Higher SES was associated with greater awareness of global threats, which, in turn, was facilitated by better access to civic education. Civic knowledge served as a pivotal mediator, exhibiting a correlation with augmented concern for sustainability. Furthermore, the study identified shifts in perceptions from 2016 to 2022, reflecting changes in the educational and societal contexts. These findings illustrate the complex interplay between civic knowledge, background factors, and students’ sustainability perceptions.
Gender plays a critical role, with female students consistently demonstrating higher levels of sustainability consciousness and engagement with environmental issues. Research indicates that female students exhibit greater systems and future thinking and are more likely to engage in sustainability-related activities, emphasizing the role of gender in shaping sustainability-related behaviors [59]. Additionally, scholars have shown that female students display a stronger commitment to sustainability, while male students focus more on consuming ecological content, reinforcing gendered differences in sustainability attitudes [60]. Between 2016 and 2022, the direct effects of gender on perceptions decreased while the indirect effects through civic knowledge increased, suggesting that educational efforts to improve civic understanding may play a stronger role in shaping students’ attitudes over time. This aligns with findings that female students exhibit stronger environmental awareness than male students, and this gender gap widens with age. Moreover, schools oriented toward education for ESD amplify these gender-specific differences, suggesting a need for targeted interventions [61].
The importance of collaborative learning environments in shaping sustainability values is also evident. School–university partnerships promote collective values and enhance environmental awareness among students, creating platforms for active engagement and knowledge sharing [62]. Scholars have previously found that students self-assessed their civic competences as low [7]; accordingly, their civic competence continues be low at university if they have low citizenship knowledge in school [63]. Furthermore, broader social and educational contexts influence students’ perceptions. Education plays a vital role in shaping students’ sustainability awareness and engagement, emphasizing their self-perception as active participants in sustainable development, even as superficial understanding sometimes persists [64,65]. Consequently, it is imperative to prioritize the development of sustainable thinking among male students and enhance their financial literacy, environmental understanding, and citizenship literacy. Moreover, international comparative studies find differences between male and female students’ attitudes and achievements in reading literacy and mathematics [29,30,66,67]. These gender differences suggest that educational strategies should account for the varying levels of engagement and concern among students to foster a more balanced approach to sustainability education. The implications of this finding are significant, as it suggests that gender-specific educational strategies may be necessary to facilitate greater engagement with sustainability issues among male students, which has previously been investigated in reading and literacy studies [68].
The findings of this study align with earlier research indicating that SES influenced individuals’ concern for global issues, often mediated through civic knowledge. Individuals with higher SES have been found to have better access to resources and educational opportunities, which enhanced civic understanding and engagement with global challenges.
Sustainability and economic issues are increasingly perceived as interrelated [69], particularly in educational contexts where global citizenship and environmental awareness are emphasized [25,26]. Moreover, looking at the results from a broader perspective, Latvian students with high scores on civic knowledge were more likely to perceive economic issues such as poverty and unemployment as significant threats to the future of the global community. At the macro level, these findings contribute to the broader discourse on the role of civic education in promoting sustainable development for Latvian students in the future [7]. The findings show that civic identity formation, facilitated by knowledge and participation, mediated the impact of socioeconomic factors on engagement with global concerns, emphasizing the importance of educational interventions to build social trust and awareness [70]. Moreover, the role of political knowledge in enhancing confidence and clarity in addressing global challenges has been noted, particularly in contexts where education fosters critical engagement with pressing international issues [71]. These findings collectively emphasized the need to address SES disparities in educational access to promote equitable concern and action on global issues.
Parental interest in political and social issues also plays a role in shaping students’ views on sustainability, although this effect was found to be mostly indirect. In this study, parental interest had a positive effect on students’ sustainability concerns, but this was mediated by the students’ civic knowledge. Previous studies have shown that parental attitudes can significantly influence students’ civic engagement and environmental consciousness [20,30]. Parents’ civic beliefs and participation shape their children’s civic engagement, social responsibility, and values, emphasizing the parental role in fostering civic knowledge and sustainability awareness [72]. Furthermore, parental involvement in community activities and educational support enhances children’s civic interests, creating a strong link between parental engagement and the development of sustainability concerns [73]. This underscores the importance of not only fostering civic knowledge in schools but also engaging parents in the educational process, particularly around sustainability issues.
The findings also highlight significant differences in how native students and first- and second-generation immigrants perceive global threats. Immigrant students were less likely to view sustainability issues as major threats, with this effect largely attributed to lower levels of civic knowledge. In this study, the fact that the direct effect of immigration status on perceptions of economic threats was significant only for first-generation immigrants suggests that integration policies and educational support for immigrants need to be strengthened to ensure that these students are equally prepared to engage with global sustainability challenges. At the same time, the results suggest that although more people left Latvia than entered it in 2022 (negative migration balance [72]), greater attention must be devoted to the needs of Latvian immigrants and their children, who are disproportionately at risk of exhibiting civic passivity and deficiencies in civic education. A Latvian study has shown that immigrants in Latvia and their children are less active in civic life and less educated about civic matters [74,75]. Moreover, a European Commission analysis and scholars revealed that immigrants in Latvia are generally less active in civic activities than native-born citizens [76,77]. Similarly, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emphasized that while obtaining host-country nationality is a significant step toward active civic participation, the complexity of Latvia’s naturalization process discourages some immigrants from obtaining citizenship and fully engaging in civic responsibilities [78]. These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive policies aimed at facilitating the integration of Latvian immigrants and their children into civic life. Such policies should focus on improving access to information, providing language support, and creating inclusive platforms for civic participation to foster a more engaged and cohesive society.
The findings highlight the necessity of integrating sustainability content into civic education curricula. While traditional civic education has focused on democratic participation and political engagement, the increasing urgency of global sustainability challenges requires a broader approach that includes environmental education. Future research should investigate the potential for adapting civic education programs to more effectively address sustainability issues, particularly in the context of socioeconomic and immigration disparities. Additionally, the observed gender gap in perceptions of global threats indicates that future educational efforts should adjusted to better engage boys in sustainability education.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the factors influencing Latvian students’ perceptions of global threats, with a focus on sustainability and economic issues. By analyzing data from the IEA ICCS 2016 and ICCS 2022 studies [29], gender, SES, and migration were found to play significant roles in shaping students’ views on global challenges. Female students demonstrated higher levels of concern for both environmental and economic sustainability, and this difference was partly mediated by their civic knowledge. Meanwhile, students from higher SES backgrounds were more likely to engage with sustainability issues due to greater access to educational resources, while first-generation immigrant students showed lower concern for both economic and environmental sustainability.
This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the role of civic education in promoting sustainability. Examining the Latvian context provides a valuable case study for understanding how education systems can evolve to prepare future generations for the complex global challenges ahead. The findings highlight the need for differentiated civic education strategies that address the unique needs of various student groups, particularly in terms of gender, SES, and migration background. Enhancing civic knowledge across these groups could improve engagement with sustainability issues, thereby fostering more informed and active global citizens.
While the findings of this research offer valuable insights, it is also important to acknowledge the study’s limitations. Firstly, it should be noted that the study is based on self-reported data from the IEA ICCS 2016 and ICCS 2022 surveys. As with any survey-based study, there is a possibility of response bias, including social desirability and recall biases. Secondly, the analysis is limited to a sample of Latvian students, which may restrict the applicability of the findings to other cultural or educational contexts. Furthermore, while the study has examined the impact of SES, gender, and migration background on students’ perceptions of sustainability, it did not account for other potential influencing factors, such as extracurricular activities or school-specific environmental programs. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the data precludes the possibility of drawing causal inferences about the relationships between civic knowledge and sustainability perceptions over time. It would be advantageous to conduct future longitudinal studies in order to gain insight into how these perceptions evolve and the long-term impact of civic education on students’ engagement with sustainability issues.
Future research should explore how civic education curricula can better integrate sustainability content and engage students from diverse backgrounds to prepare them for the challenges of a rapidly changing world. Such studies may be conducted with a broader research scope and a greater number of countries to obtain a more nuanced understanding of students’ opinions about sustainability in contexts with different political, cultural, and economic backgrounds. This would also facilitate the identification of future voters’ perspectives, which could inform the development of strategies for creating a sustainable world that is safe and conducive to living and development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.Č. and R.A.; Methodology, I.Č. and R.A.; Software, R.A.; Validation, I.Č. and R.A.; Formal analysis, R.A.; Investigation, I.Č. and R.A.; Data curation, R.A.; Writing—original draft, I.Č. and R.A.; Visualization, R.A.; Supervision, I.Č.; Project administration, I.Č.; Funding acquisition, I.Č. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Faculty of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Latvia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

IEA ICCS materials and data-related reviewed to ensure compliance with EU regulations.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Databases for the ICCS 2016 and ICCS 2022 studies are available online https://www.iea.nl/data-tools/repository/iccs (accessed on 27 September 2024).

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used OpenArt.ai for the purposes of image generation and ChatGpt 4.0 for the purposes of generate ideas for content. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. United Nations. Youth. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/youth?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 3 December 2024).
  2. Olsson, D.; Gericke, N.; Boeve-de Pauw, J. Students’ Action Competence for Sustainability and the Effectiveness of Sustainability Education. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2022, 2, 14011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. LIKUMI.LV. Latvijas Republikas Satversme. Available online: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/57980-the-constitution-of-the-republic-of-latvia (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  4. Europa.eu. Organisation of the Education System and of Its Structure. Available online: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/latvia/organisation-education-system-and-its-structure (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  5. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. 2022 Youth Study Baltic Countries; Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.: Bonn, Germany, 2022; Available online: https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/19168-20220509.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  6. Hjūza, D.; Boržs Borbējs, T. Jauniešu Bezdarbs: Mūslaiku Krīze. Mūžilga Karjeras Atbalsta Rīcībpolitiks Nozīme Darba Piedāvājuma un Pieprasījuma Jomā. Eiropas Mūžilga Karjeras Atbalsta Politikas Tīkls (EMKAPT). Available online: https://euroguidance.viaa.gov.lv/mod/book/view.php?id=53&chapterid=360 (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  7. Medne, D.; Lastovska, A.; Lāma, G.; Grava, J. The Development of Civic Competence in Higher Education to Support a Sustainable Society: The Case of Latvian Higher Education. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kleespies, M.; Dierkes, P. The Importance of the Sustainable Development Goals to Students of Environmental and Sustainability Studies—A Global Survey in 41 Countries. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zinchenko, V. Global Institutional Transformations and Modern Educational and Scientific Strategies for the Paradigm of Sustainable Development of Society. Skhid 2022, 3, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802 (accessed on 27 September 2024).
  11. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rousseau, J.-J. The Social Contract; Dutton: New York, NY, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dewey, J. Democracy and Education; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1916. [Google Scholar]
  14. Marshall, T.H. Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  15. Torney-Purta, J.; Schwille, J.; Amadeo, J.-A. Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-Four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project; IEA: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  16. Westheimer, J.; Kahne, J. What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2004, 41, 237–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kerr, D. Citizenship Education in Comparative Context. In International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS); Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 9–29. [Google Scholar]
  18. Biesta, G.J.J. Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future; Paradigm Publishers: Boulder, CO, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. Schulz, W.; Ainley, J.; Fraillon, J.; Losito, B.; Agrusti, G.; Damiani, V.; Friedman, T. Education for Citizenship in Times of Global Challenge; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  20. Schulz, W.; Ainley, J.; Fraillon, J.; Losito, B.; Agrusti, G.; Friedman, T. Becoming Citizens in a Changing World: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 International Report; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ștefanachi, B.; Grecu, S.-P.; Chiriac, H.C. Mapping Sustainability across the World: Signs, Challenges and Opportunities for Democratic Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. United Nations. Sustainable Development Report 2021. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2021.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2024).
  23. Pickering, J.; Hickmann, T.; Bäckstrand, K.; Kalfagianni, A.; Bloomfield, M.; Mert, A.; Ransan-Cooper, H.; Lo, A.Y. Democratising Sustainability Transformations: Assessing the Transformative Potential of Democratic Practices in Environmental Governance. Earth Syst. Gov. 2022, 11, 100131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Global Education Monitoring Report Team. Global Education Monitoring Report. Leadership in Education: Lead for Learning. 2024. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391406 (accessed on 2 December 2024).
  25. Haduong, P.; Jeffries, J.; Pao, A.; Webb, W.; Allen, D.K.; Kidd, D. Who am I and what do I care about? Supporting civic identity development in civic education. Educ. Philos. Theory 2023, 19, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kals, E.; Müller, M. Education for sustainability. In Handbook of Moral and Character Education Sustainability Education; Nucci, L., Krettenauer, T., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Poeck, K.; Vandenabeele, J. Learning from sustainable development: Education in the light of public issues. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Araneda, E.Z.; Palavecino, A.C.; Menzel, S. Acerca de las creencias, actitudes y visión ecológica del mundo en estudiantes chilenos. Summa Psicol. 2013, 3, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. ICCS|IEA.nl. Available online: https://www.iea.nl/data-tools/repository/iccs (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  30. Schulz, W.; Carstens, R.; Losito, B.; Fraillon, J.; Eichhorn, C.; Serrano, L.; Isac, M.M.; Ainley, J. ICCS 2022 International Report: Citizenship Education in an Age of Uncertainty; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: Amsterdam, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  31. OECD. Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges? OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. OECD. Embedding Values and Attitudes in Curriculum: Shaping a Better Future; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. OECD. PISA 2018 Results (Volume VI): Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World? OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Olsson, D.; Gericke, N. The Adolescent Dip in Students’ Sustainability Consciousness—Implications for Education for Sustainable Development. J. Environ. Educ. 2015, 47, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Klein, S.; Watted, S.; Zion, M. Contribution of an Intergenerational Sustainability Leadership Project to the Development of Students’ Environmental Literacy. Environ. Educ. Res. 2021, 27, 1723–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Balundė, A.; Perlaviciute, G.; Truskauskaitė-Kunevičienė, I. Sustainability in Youth: Environmental Considerations in Adolescence and Their Relationship to Pro-Environmental Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 582920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sundermann, A.; Fischer, D. How Does Sustainability Become Professionally Relevant? Exploring the Role of Sustainability Conceptions in First Year Students. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zakaria, N.F.; Rahim, H.A.; Paim, L.; Zakaria, N.F. The Mediating Effect of Sustainable Consumption Attitude on Association between Perception of Sustainable Lifestyle and Sustainable Consumption Practice. Asian Soc. Sci. 2019, 15, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ainley, J.; Schulz, W.; Friedman, T. ICCS 2009 Encyclopedia: Approaches to Civic and Citizenship Education Around the World; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cheah, S.; Huang, L. Environmental citizenship in a Nordic civic and citizenship education context. Nordic J. Comp. Int. Educ. 2019, 3, 38–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ozanne, L.K.; Humphrey, C.; Smith, P.M. Gender, environmentalism, and interest in forest certification: Mohai’s Paradox revisited. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12, 455–467. [Google Scholar]
  42. Odrowąż-Coates, A. Definitions of sustainability in the context of gender. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ben-Amar, W.; Chang, M.; McIlkenny, P. Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 132, 705–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Franz-Balsen, A. Gender and (un)sustainability—Can communication solve a conflict of norms? Sustainability 2014, 6, 1973–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dreby, J.; Stutz, L. Making something of the sacrifice: Gender, migration and Mexican children’s educational aspirations. Child. Soc. 2011, 25, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Forsberg, S. The symbolic gift of education in migrant families and compromises in school choice. Brit. J. Sociol. Educ. 2022, 43, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lam, T.; Ee, M.; Anh, H.L.; Yeoh, B. Securing a better living environment for left-behind children: Implications and challenges for policies. Asia Pac. Migr. J. 2013, 22, 421–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mónus, F. Environmental education policy of schools and socioeconomic background affect environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior of secondary school students. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 196–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Reid, A.; Petocz, P.; Taylor, P. Business students’ conceptions of sustainability. Sustainability 2009, 1, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dzalbs, A. Common Agricultural Policy in Latvia: Sustainability Assessment. RTU Constr. Sci. 2023, 24, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schulz, W.; Losito, B.; Carstens, R.; Fraillon, J. ICCS 2016 Technical Report. IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: Amsterdam, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schulz, W.; Friedman, T.; Fraillon, J. ICCS 2022 Technical Report. IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: Amsterdam, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  53. Afana, Y.; Brese, F.; Kowolik, H.; Cortés, D.; Schulz, W. ICCS 2022 User Guide for the International Database; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: Amsterdam, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  54. Weber, K.H.; Brese, S.; Schulz, F.; Carstens, W.R. ICCS 2016 User Guide for the International Database; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: Amsterdam, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  55. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024; Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  56. Lumley, T. Analysis of Complex Survey Samples. J. Stat. Softw. 2014, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rosseel, R. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Oberski, D. Lavaan. survey: An R package for complex survey analysis of structural equation models. J. Stat. Softw. 2014, 57, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Henderson, T.S.; Michel, J.; Bryan, A.; Canosa, E.; Gamalski, C.; Jones, K.; Moghtader, J. An Exploration of the Relationship between Sustainability-Related Involvement and Learning in Higher Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pulido-Capurro, V.; Olivera-Carhuaz, E.; García-Salazar, G.; Acevedo-Flores, J.; Morillo-Flores, J. Actitud y Comportamiento de los Estudiantes de una Universidad Privada y su Compromiso con la Sostenibilidad Ambiental. J. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 11, e415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Olsson, D.; Gericke, N. The effect of gender on students’ sustainability consciousness: A nationwide Swedish study. J. Environ. Educ. 2017, 48, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dictoro, V.P.; Lourenço, A.B.; Malheiros, T. Práticas de sustentabilidade em uma parceria escola-universidade: Percepções de alunos e professores. Rev. Bras. Educ. Ambient. 2023, 18, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Čekse, I.; Kiris, K.; Alksnis, R.; Geske, A.; Kampmane, K. The New Reference Point for Civic Education in Latvia: First International and Latvian Results from the International Civic Education Study IEA ICCS 2022; LU PPMF Izglītības Pētniecības Institūts: Riga, Latvia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  64. Perrault, E.K.; Clark, S.K. Sustainability in the University Student’s Mind: Are University Endorsements, Financial Support, and Programs Making a Difference? J. Geosci. Educ. 2017, 65, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Huang, R. A corpus-assisted discourse study of Chinese university students’ perceptions of sustainability. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1124909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Mullis, I.V.S.; von Davier, M.; Foy, P.; Fishbein, B.; Reynolds, K.A.; Wry, E. PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading; TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center at Boston College: Chestnut Hill, MA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Von Davier, M.; Kennedy, A.; Reynolds, K.; Fishbein, B.; Khorramdel, L.; Aldrich, C.; Bookbinder, A.; Bezirhan, U.; Yin, L. TIMSS 2023 International Results in Mathematics and Science; TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center at Boston College: Chestnut Hill, MA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wolter, I.; Braun, E.; Hannover, B. Reading is for girls!? The negative impact of preschool teachers’ traditional gender role attitudes on boys’ reading related motivation and skills. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Church, J.M.; Tirrell, A.; Moomaw, W.R.; Ragueneau, O. Sustainability. In Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 217–227. [Google Scholar]
  70. Nazaryan, H.; Mkrtchyan, A.; Tumanyan, G. Information Sphere Challenges in the Processes of Formulation of Armenian Civil Identity. Soc. Bull. Yerevan Univ. 2021, 12, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Serdeczny, O. The Effects of Political Knowledge Use by Developing Country Negotiators in Loss and Damage Negotiations. Glob. Environ. Politics 2023, 23, 12–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. White, E.S.; Mistry, R.S. Parent Civic Beliefs, Civic Participation, Socialization Practices, and Child Civic Engagement. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2015, 20, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pancer, S.M. The Influence of Parents, Families, and Peers on Civic Engagement. In The Psychology of Citizenship and Civic Engagement; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. Population Growth in 2022 Due to Immigration. Available online: https://stat.gov.lv/en/statistics-themes/population/population/press-releases/12338-number-population-latvia-2022 (accessed on 3 September 2024).
  75. PROVIDUS. Immigrant Integration in Latvia: Latvian Language Learning and Civic Education; Centre for Public Policy. 2011. Available online: https://providus.lv/petijumi/imigrantu-integracija-latvija-valsts-valodas-apguve-un-pilsoniska-izglitiba (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  76. Vogel, D.; Triandafyllidou, A. Civic Activation of Immigrants–An Introduction to Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Available online: https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2009-01/docl_6946_222021887.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  77. Li, R.; Jones, B.M. Why Do Immigrants Participate in Politics Less than Native-Born Citizens? A Formative Years Explanation. J. Race Ethn. Politics 2019, 5, 62–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. OECD. Settling in 2018 Indicators of Immigrant Integration; Paris Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD): Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 11126 g001
Figure 1. Structural equation model (SEM) depicting the effects of civic knowledge and background factors on environmental and economic sustainability constructs.
Figure 1. Structural equation model (SEM) depicting the effects of civic knowledge and background factors on environmental and economic sustainability constructs.
Sustainability 16 11126 g001
Table 1. Students’ civic knowledge levels across various background factors: average civic knowledge levels (and their standard errors) across various student background factors, including gender, SES, highest parental interest in political and social issues (S_HINT), and immigration status. Civic knowledge scores are further detailed by response categories for each factor. * = Pearson correlation coefficient.
Table 1. Students’ civic knowledge levels across various background factors: average civic knowledge levels (and their standard errors) across various student background factors, including gender, SES, highest parental interest in political and social issues (S_HINT), and immigration status. Civic knowledge scores are further detailed by response categories for each factor. * = Pearson correlation coefficient.
20162022
Civic knowledge492.2 (3.1)490.1 (2.8)
Civic knowledge by gender
   Boys476.3 (3.7)473.8 (3.4)
   Girls506.6 (3.8)506.6 (3.2)
Civic knowledge by SES0.344 * (0.02)0.382 * (0.02)
Civic knowledge by S_HINT
   Not interested at all438.4 (16.9)445.8 (6.8)
   Not very interested476.9 (5.4)471.9 (3.9)
   Quite interested491.5 (3.6)497.5 (3.1)
   Very interested507.8 (3.8)507.8 (4.6)
Civic knowledge by immigration status
   Native494.5 (3.0)495.7 (2.7)
   First Generation Immigrants449.2 (22.8)443.7 (10.8)
   Second Generation Immigrants482.1 (8.1)420.1 (16.3)
Table 2. Civic knowledge levels (with standard errors) by perceived global threat level for pollution, climate change, water shortages, poverty, global financial crises, and unemployment.
Table 2. Civic knowledge levels (with standard errors) by perceived global threat level for pollution, climate change, water shortages, poverty, global financial crises, and unemployment.
20162022
Pollution
  Not at all425.0 (37.0)397.7 (15.4)
  To a small extent455.9 (13.0)415.7 (9.8)
  To a moderate extent470.8 (5.0)460.0 (5.0)
  To a large extent501.4 (2.8)503.5 (2.7)
Climate change
  Not at all447.0 (11.2)396.2 (9.8)
  To a small extent475.3 (5.2)435.6 (6.2)
  To a moderate extent482.6 (3.6)469.4 (3.9)
  To a large extent508.0 (3.6)510.4 (2.8)
Water shortages
  Not at all474.8 (13.6)414.8 (8.6)
  To a small extent470.0 (5.9)460.0 (6.3)
  To a moderate extent479.9 (5.5)468.3 (4.6)
  To a large extent501.6 (3.4)508.4 (2.7)
Poverty
  Not at all477.6 (14.0)405.8 (12.9)
  To a small extent490.2 (6.9)452.6 (5.8)
  To a moderate extent498.1 (4.0)495.3 (3.4)
  To a large extent491.8 (3.6)504.3 (2.9)
Global financial crises
  Not at all451.9 (17.1)411.4 (12.0)
  To a small extent487.4 (6.1)452.9 (7.5)
  To a moderate extent493.9 (3.8)490.2 (3.9)
  To a large extent495.7 (3.7)505.7 (2.7)
Unemployment
  Not at all470.1 (10.4)414.8 (12.2)
  To a small extent501.0 (6.0)459.4 (6.7)
  To a moderate extent503.0 (3.8)501.9 (3.5)
  To a large extent483.0 (3.5)499.2 (2.8)
Table 3. Standardized path coefficients from the multi-group SEM analysis. This table presents the standardized path coefficients estimated in the multi-group SEM for the 2016 and 2022 study cycles. It includes the direct, indirect, and total effects of various student background factors on the latent constructs of environmental and economic sustainability. Statistically significant effects and differences between the two cycles are highlighted in bold and denoted as follows: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Standardized path coefficients from the multi-group SEM analysis. This table presents the standardized path coefficients estimated in the multi-group SEM for the 2016 and 2022 study cycles. It includes the direct, indirect, and total effects of various student background factors on the latent constructs of environmental and economic sustainability. Statistically significant effects and differences between the two cycles are highlighted in bold and denoted as follows: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
EffectEnvironmental Sustainability (X)Economic Sustainability (X)
20162022Difference20162022Difference
Gender → X (Total)0.277 ***0.289 ***0.0120.332 ***0.287 ***−0.045
Gender → X (Direct)0.168 **0.148 ***−0.0200.345 ***0.207 ***−0.138
Gender → X (Indirect)0.110 ***0.141 ***0.031 *−0.0130.080 ***0.093 ***
SES → X (Total)0.152 ***0.126 ***−0.026−0.111 ***0.115 ***0.225 ***
SES → X (Direct)0.048−0.031−0.079−0.098 ***0.0260.124 **
SES → X (Indirect)0.104 ***0.157 ***0.053 ***−0.0130.089 ***0.101 ***
HINT → X (Total)0.103 *0.106 *0.0030.063 *0.054−0.009
HINT → X (Direct)0.0780.049−0.0290.066 *0.022−0.044
HINT → X (Indirect)0.026 *0.057 ***0.031 *−0.0030.032 ***0.035 ***
1st GEN IMMIG → X (Total)0.099−0.967 *−1.0650.197−0.898 *−1.095 *
1st GEN IMMIG → X (Direct)0.275−0.625−0.9010.175−0.706 *−0.881
1st GEN IMMIG → X (Indirect)−0.176−0.341 *−0.1650.022−0.192 *−0.214 **
2nd GEN IMMIG → X (Total)−0.411 *−0.507 **−0.096−0.126−0.237−0.111
2nd GEN IMMIG → X (Direct)−0.370−0.2580.112−0.131−0.0970.034
2nd GEN IMMIG → X (Indirect)−0.042−0.249 **−0.208 **0.005−0.141 ***−0.146 ***
Civic Knowledge → X0.293 ***0.427 ***0.134 ***−0.0050.252 ***0.257 ***
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Čekse, I.; Alksnis, R. Global Threats to Sustainability: Evolving Perspectives of Latvian Students (2016–2022). Sustainability 2024, 16, 11126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411126

AMA Style

Čekse I, Alksnis R. Global Threats to Sustainability: Evolving Perspectives of Latvian Students (2016–2022). Sustainability. 2024; 16(24):11126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411126

Chicago/Turabian Style

Čekse, Ireta, and Reinis Alksnis. 2024. "Global Threats to Sustainability: Evolving Perspectives of Latvian Students (2016–2022)" Sustainability 16, no. 24: 11126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411126

APA Style

Čekse, I., & Alksnis, R. (2024). Global Threats to Sustainability: Evolving Perspectives of Latvian Students (2016–2022). Sustainability, 16(24), 11126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411126

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop