From Knowledge to Action: Investigating Sustainability Awareness, Behavior, and Attitude Among Engineering Students at Shaqra University

Abstract

Sustainability is vital to engineering education, requiring future engineers to integrate technological advancements with environmental responsibility. This study explores the relationship between sustainability awareness, pro-environmental behavior, and environmental attitudes among engineering students at Shaqra University, Saudi Arabia. The findings indicate that, while students possess moderate sustainability awareness, their engagement in eco-friendly actions remains limited, despite expressing positive environmental attitudes. Civil Engineering students and those in later academic years show higher awareness, emphasizing the role of departmental focus and academic progression. Correlation analysis reveals a strong link between awareness and behavior (r = 0.628 and p < 0.001), yet multiple regression suggests that neither academic year nor department uniquely predicts sustainable actions once awareness is accounted for. Moreover, while pro-environmental attitudes correlate with behavior in bivariate analysis, their impact diminishes in regression, suggesting that positive environmental values do not necessarily translate into consistent green habits. ANOVA results confirm higher awareness among Civil Engineering students, though differences in sustainable behavior are subtle. These findings highlight the need for curricular reforms that integrate sustainability through experiential learning, bridging the gap between awareness and real-world actions. This study supports Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 by promoting environmental awareness and aligning education with labor market needs. It offers tools to help stakeholders and policymakers develop competitive, future-ready generations.

1. Introduction

Sustainability has become a central focus of global discourse, driven by pressing environmental challenges and the recognition that current resource consumption patterns may threaten the well-being of future generations [1,2]. Engineering disciplines, in particular, have been identified as playing a pivotal role in designing technological solutions that reconcile economic development with ecological stewardship [3]. As calls for integrating sustainable development principles into higher education intensify, engineering programs worldwide have begun embedding sustainability concepts into their curricula [4,5,6,7].

Universities play a pivotal role in promoting sustainable development, not only through cutting-edge research but also by integrating sustainability into curricula, campus operations, and community engagement initiatives [8]. Higher education institutions are increasingly recognized as incubators for sustainable practices, producing graduates who are aware of environmental challenges and capable of enacting change [9,10,11]. Since the 1970s, universities worldwide have embraced sustainability by signing international declarations and adopting policies prioritizing environmental stewardship. These commitments have driven institutions to incorporate sustainability into various aspects of campus life. For instance, many universities now offer interdisciplinary programs and courses designed to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of sustainability’s ecological, social, and economic dimensions [11].

Integrating sustainability into academic programs is often accompanied by transformative changes in campus operations. Universities are investing in green buildings, renewable energy sources, and waste reduction initiatives that serve as living laboratories for sustainable practices. These operational changes reduce the institutions’ environmental footprint and provide dynamic learning environments where students can witness sustainable practices in action [12,13]. Many campuses have established sustainability centers or hubs that foster collaboration among students, faculty, and external partners. This model reinforces the university’s role as a living example of sustainable development, ensuring sustainability is embedded in theory and everyday practice [10].

Despite these advances, integrating sustainability in higher education is challenging [2,13,14,15]. Historically, sustainability has often been treated as a peripheral subject, confined to environmental science departments rather than woven into the fabric of all academic disciplines. Such compartmentalization limits the potential for a truly interdisciplinary approach that embeds sustainability across the curriculum [11]. Moreover, the pace of institutional change varies significantly; while some universities have rapidly embraced sustainability through innovative policies and practices, others struggle with bureaucratic inertia and limited resources [8,16,17]. Addressing these challenges requires policy reforms and a fundamental shift in mindset among educators and administrators, who must view sustainability as a core element of higher education rather than an optional add-on [5,9,11].

In engineering education, researchers have observed that students often express favorable attitudes toward sustainable practices without always adopting corresponding actions, a phenomenon commonly described as the “attitude–behavior gap” [18]. This discrepancy may stem from various factors, including limited contextual knowledge, differing departmental cultures, and constraints on students’ daily routines [19]. Incorporating sustainability modules in coursework is undoubtedly essential. Still, the impact on real-world sustainability outcomes may remain marginal if awareness does not evolve into a genuine commitment and habit change.

From this background, the present study investigates how awareness of sustainability issues among engineering students correlates with their pro-environmental behaviors and environmental attitudes at the College of Engineering in Shaqra University, KSA. It further explores whether these relationships differ across academic departments (such as General Engineering (GE), Electrical Engineering (EE), Mechanical Engineering (ME), and Civil Engineering (CE)) and academic levels (ranging from first year through advanced undergraduate standing). By focusing on a cohort of engineering undergraduates, this research aims to determine the most influential drivers of behavioral change, offering insights that could inform curricular enhancements and targeted interventions. The findings may deepen the understanding of how knowledge of sustainable development translates into real-world action and highlight pathways to foster a new generation of engineers equipped to tackle pressing global challenges.

Drawing on the gaps highlighted above, this study makes three specific contributions: (1) It offers an empirical evidence from a Saudi Arabian engineering college on how sustainability awareness, pro-environmental behavior, and environmental attitudes interact across departments and academic years; (2) it isolates the unique predictive power of awareness, controlling for attitudes, department, and year, thereby clarifying where curricular interventions should focus; and (3) it provides actionable guidance for Vision 2030 of Saudi Arabia by translating the findings into curriculum reforms and experiential-learning recommendations. Two integrated research questions capture these aims: (1) How do engineering students’ sustainability awareness, attitudes, and behaviors vary by department and academic year? (2) Which factors most strongly predict sustainable behavior once their intercorrelations are considered? The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 1.1 reviews the literature and theoretical framing; Section 2 details the survey design, sample, and statistical methods; Section 3 presents and discusses the results; and Section 4 concludes with implications, limitations, and future research directions.

1.1. Literature Review

1.1.1. Sustainability in Higher Education

Since 2000, numerous publications have explored integrating sustainable development into engineering education, reflecting a growing global emphasis on preparing engineers for sustainability challenges. Early studies, such as Mulder [20], emphasized the need for cultural transformation in engineering institutions. Azapagic et al. [16] highlighted significant knowledge gaps among engineering students, prompting calls for curricular reform. In recent years, Narong [21] proposed a systems-based framework to align engineering education with sustainability competencies. Svanström et al. [22] evaluated Swedish curricula, finding a partial integration of sustainability learning outcomes. The UNESCO 2021 report underscored engineering’s central role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [23]. These studies collectively call for embedding sustainability across curricula through policy, pedagogy, and cross-disciplinary collaboration, highlighting the evolving role of engineering education in global sustainable development [21,24].

Figure 1 illustrates a number of publications from 2000 to 2024 by searching on Scopus (Sustainable AND Development AND Engineering AND Education) and finding 4119 documents showing a clear upward trend over time, with notable peaks in 2014 and especially in 2023, which had the highest output, with nearly 600 publications. The period from 2000 to 2009 reflects relatively low research activity, suggesting the topic was still emerging. A steady increase begins around 2010, possibly due to growing academic interest or supportive policies and funding. The sharp rise in 2023 may be attributed to a post-pandemic surge in research or institutional initiatives, while the drop in 2024 is likely due to incomplete indexing for the current year. Moreover, Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of publications by country (Top 5 Contributors), highlighting the significant contribution of the United States, which dominates with 2484 publications, accounting for 64% of the total. The United Kingdom follows distantly with 438 publications (11%), while Spain contributes 375 (10%), Germany 310 (8%), and China 287 (7%). The chart shows that the United States leads substantially, indicating a strong research presence and likely better investment or academic emphasis in the relevant field. The contributions from the other countries, though notable, are considerably smaller, collectively making up just over one-third of the total output.

Co-occurrence analysis was conducted for sustainable development in engineering education (Figure 3); it identified seven clusters, each representing a distinct theme and ordered by the number of documents they contain, with cluster 1 having the largest share. The most frequently observed results by cluster are as follows: cluster 1 focuses on education, economic and social effects, and engineering; cluster 2 addresses engineering education, sustainability, and planning; cluster 3 covers society, sustainable development, e-learning, and learning systems; cluster 4 centers on students, curricula, and teaching; cluster 5 focuses on environmental technology, energy efficiency, and renewable energy; cluster 6 deals with project management, architecture design, and sustainable design; and cluster 7 addresses product design, life cycle, and eco-design.

Despite a two-decade surge in sustainability-oriented engineering curricula, three blind spots persist. First, most mapping studies prioritize European or North American programs, leaving Gulf region institutions empirically underrepresented. Second, assessments rarely track behavioral transfer, focusing instead on credit hours or learning outcome statements that may not translate into practice. Third, the environmental pillar dominates, while the social and economic dimensions of sustainability receive cursory treatment, even in recent UNESCO guidance. Consequently, there remains a lack of empirical evidence on how curricular exposure in non-Western contexts influences students’ real-world behaviors across the three pillars of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic. The present study responds by offering a Saudi Arabian dataset that links curricular stage (year/department) to measured awareness and self-reported behavior, thereby testing whether the curricular infusion observed elsewhere holds in a Vision 2030 context.

1.1.2. Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Theoretical Frameworks

Understanding the factors that drive pro-environmental behaviors among students is essential for designing effective sustainability initiatives. Researchers have employed several theoretical frameworks to explain why individuals adopt sustainable practices. Among the most influential models are the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Norm Activation Theory (NAT), and Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory [25,26,27].

The TPB posits that an individual’s behavior is primarily determined by their intention to perform that behavior, which is influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [28,29]. In the context of sustainability, a student’s positive attitude toward environmental practices and the perception that significant others (such as peers and family) support these behaviors create a firm intention to act sustainably. Additionally, when students believe they have the necessary resources and capabilities to engage in these behaviors, their likelihood of translating intentions into actions increases. Empirical studies consistently show that students with favorable attitudes and robust subjective norms are more inclined to participate in sustainable activities such as recycling, energy conservation, and using greener modes of transportation [28,29]. TPB thus offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how individual beliefs and social influences shape sustainable behaviors.

Complementing TPB and NAT emphasizes the role of personal moral norms in motivating pro-environmental behavior. According to NAT, individuals are prompted to act sustainably when they are aware of the adverse consequences of environmental degradation and feel personally responsible for mitigating these effects [19,25,30]. For example, when a student realizes that excessive waste contributes to environmental pollution and feels a personal obligation to reduce that waste, this moral norm drives behavior such as diligent recycling or resource conservation. Empirical evidence supports the assertion that personal moral norms are significant predictors of pro-environmental behavior and can enhance the predictive power of models like TPB [19].

The VBN theory further extends this perspective by linking deeply held value orientations to specific environmental actions. VBN theory argues that individuals who hold altruistic or biospheric values are more likely to develop a strong ecological worldview, which fosters a personal norm to act in environmentally responsible ways [31,32]. In practice, students prioritizing values such as social justice and care for nature tend to internalize sustainability principles, leading them to engage in sustainable practices consistently. Studies have demonstrated that a robust ecological worldview is closely associated with higher levels of pro-environmental behavior, suggesting that underlying values and beliefs play a crucial role in shaping actions [31,32]. Collectively, these frameworks illustrate that, while positive attitudes, supportive social norms, and perceived control are key drivers of sustainable behavior, moral obligations and underlying values critically influence whether individuals put their intentions into practice.

The TPB, NAT, and VBN frameworks collectively explain 40–60% of the variance in eco-behavior. Yet, their predictive power falls sharply in discipline-specific samples such as engineering majors, where technical efficacy beliefs overshadow moral norms. Moreover, Middle-Eastern cohorts are virtually absent from TPB meta-analyses. Methodologically, most studies rely on intention scales without parallel behavior measures, inflating fit indices through common method bias. Finally, few models have incorporated departmental culture or academic seniority as contextual moderators. This leaves an open question: Does sustainability awareness still outperform attitudes when structural factors are constant? Our study fills this gap by embedding department and year into a TPB-informed regression, isolating the unique contribution of awareness.

Integrating the three theories with our study design: in translating TPB, NAT, and VBN into measurable constructs, sustainability awareness has been treated as the “problem–awareness/consequence–belief” element stressed in NAT and VBN and, simultaneously, as the informational foundation of perceived behavioral control in TPB. Environmental attitudes operationalize TPB’s attitudinal precursor, while pro-environmental behavior is the observable outcome common for all three frameworks. Department and academic year serve as contextual moderators, functioning as proxies for subjective norms and structural opportunity in extended TPB models. On this basis, two working propositions have been advanced: first, that higher awareness will predict more frequent sustainable actions after controlling for attitudes, department, and year; second, that the bivariate attitude–behavior link will contract once awareness enters the model, thereby exposing the well-known attitude–behavior gap. The forthcoming methodology and results sections demonstrate how the survey items and regression tests were configured to evaluate these expectations.

1.1.3. Attitude–Behavior Gap

Although many students express strong pro-environmental attitudes, a consistent gap often exists between these attitudes and actual behavior—a phenomenon known as the attitude–behavior gap. This gap is evident when students who are theoretically committed to sustainability fail to engage consistently in sustainable practices.

Several factors contribute to this gap. On a psychological level, internal barriers such as optimism bias, conflicting priorities, and established habits can prevent the translation of positive attitudes into concrete actions [33,34,35]. For instance, a student may fully understand and care about the detrimental impacts of high-energy consumption but may continue to use inefficient practices due to habitual behaviors or a belief that their individual contribution is too insignificant to make a difference. Additionally, uncertainty about the most effective ways to implement sustainable practices may result in inaction, despite strong positive attitudes [33,34,35].

External situational and structural barriers further exacerbate the gap. Even if a student is motivated to adopt sustainable behaviors, the absence of supportive infrastructure—such as conveniently located recycling bins or accessible public transportation—can hinder action [36,37]. When campus facilities are not designed to support sustainable practices, or when policies do not incentivize green behavior, even the most committed students may find it difficult to put their values into practice. Structural constraints like these underscore the need for institutions to align their physical and policy environments with their sustainability goals [36,37].

Another dimension of the gap is the discrepancy between intention and action. Behavioral research suggests that forming an intention to act sustainably does not automatically lead to behavior change. Factors such as procrastination, competing immediate needs, and the pull of long-standing habits can all interfere with the execution of good intentions [33,37]. Some interventions, including commitment devices and real-time feedback mechanisms, have shown promise in helping individuals follow through on their sustainability intentions. Nevertheless, the challenge remains significant, as bridging the gap between intention and consistent action requires addressing personal and systemic barriers [36,37].

The overall implication is clear: while positive attitudes toward sustainability are a necessary foundation, they are insufficient to ensure sustainable behavior. To narrow the attitude–behavior gap effectively, educational institutions must couple awareness-raising efforts with structural and policy changes that facilitate and reinforce sustainable actions. By doing so, they can help ensure that high levels of environmental concern translate into habitual, long-term sustainable practices [33,34,36,37].

Research routinely documents a 30-point shortfall between stated concern and actual practice, but explanations remain piecemeal. Micro-level accounts stress psychological barriers (e.g., optimism bias), whereas macro studies highlight infrastructural deficits; surprisingly, few works model both simultaneously. Equally problematic, engineering students are often aggregated with broader Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) samples, masking discipline-specific pressures such as cost-optimization mindsets that may widen the gap. Therefore, empirical clarity on whether enhancing domain knowledge can narrow this gap within engineering populations is limited. By quantifying how awareness mediates the attitude–behavior relationship, while controlling for department and academic year, our study offers a sharper diagnosis of which lever (knowledge, values, or context) most effectively bridges intention and action.

1.1.4. Gaps in Engineering Education

Engineering students are a critical subgroup within higher education, as they are poised to become the future innovators and decision-makers who will shape technological and infrastructural development. Despite the growing recognition of sustainability’s importance in engineering, there remains a significant gap in research on how engineering students engage with sustainability concepts, especially when considering differences across academic years and various engineering disciplines.

A central research gap concerns the evolution of sustainability attitudes throughout an engineering program. Preliminary evidence suggests that early-year engineering students often begin their studies with broad and idealistic views of sustainability. However, as students’ progress into more specialized and technically demanding courses, there is evidence that their perspectives on sustainability may narrow, sometimes focusing primarily on technical feasibility rather than a holistic understanding of environmental, social, and economic sustainability [6,17,24]. This trend raises important questions: Do current educational practices inadvertently restrict the scope of sustainability awareness as students advance? Or might the engineering curriculum fail to reinforce the broad sustainability values initially held by incoming students? Addressing these questions requires longitudinal studies that track changes in sustainability attitudes and behaviors throughout the engineering curriculum [6,17,24].

Differences across engineering disciplines also warrant further investigation. Engineering is a diverse field, and sustainability integration varies widely among sub-disciplines. For example, environmental engineering programs tend to incorporate sustainability more comprehensively into their curricula compared to fields such as EE or ME [5,18]. Some studies indicate that environmental engineering students exhibit higher levels of sustainability awareness and engage more readily in pro-environmental behaviors than their peers in other disciplines. However, the current literature is limited by a focus on single institutions or regions, and there is a need for broader comparative studies that examine these differences systematically [5,18]. Such research would help identify discipline-specific gaps in sustainability education and inform targeted curricular reforms.

Another critical gap is the integration of all dimensions of sustainability into engineering education. Many engineering programs predominantly emphasize environmental sustainability, focusing on energy efficiency, resource management, and pollution control while focusing less on sustainable development’s social and economic dimensions [38,39,40]. This narrow focus can leave students with an incomplete understanding of sustainability, reducing their ability to address complex, real-world challenges that require a balanced consideration of environmental, social, and economic factors. Future research should explore innovative approaches to integrate these dimensions into the engineering curriculum, ensuring that graduates are well equipped to design solutions that are technically sound, socially equitable, and economically viable [38,39,40].

In addition to curricular content, the pedagogical methods used in engineering education represent another area needing further exploration. Traditional lecture-based approaches may not be sufficient to instill the deep, lasting commitment to sustainability required in today’s complex world. Experiential learning opportunities—such as hands-on projects, internships, and sustainability competitions—have shown promise in enhancing students’ practical sustainability skills and reinforcing theoretical knowledge [15,41,42]. Despite these promising results, systematic evaluations of experiential learning methods in engineering remain scarce. Expanding research in this area could yield valuable insights into the best pedagogical strategies for embedding sustainability into the engineering curriculum, ultimately narrowing the gap between awareness and practical application [15,41,42].

Finally, global and cultural differences in engineering education also present an essential research frontier. Much of the existing literature originates from North America and Europe, leaving a gap in our understanding of how engineering students in developing regions engage with sustainability. In many parts of the world, engineering education is still evolving in its approach to sustainability, and students’ baseline awareness and engagement levels may differ due to cultural, economic, and infrastructural factors [43]. Comparative studies across different regions would provide important insights into how local contexts influence sustainability education and help identify best practices that can be adapted across diverse educational settings [43].

Existing scholarships underscore the need for longitudinal, multidisciplinary evidence, yet deliver mostly single-site, discipline-isolated snapshots. No prior study has simultaneously (i) compared multiple engineering departments, (ii) spanned the whole academic arc from first to fifth year, and (iii) modeled behavioral outcomes alongside awareness and attitudes inside a rapidly developing Arab economy. Addressing all three dimensions positions the present work to move the debate from descriptive curriculum audits to actionable behavioral diagnostics, thus supplying empirical guidance for Vision 2030-aligned curricular reform.

2. Methodology

This study was conducted at the College of Engineering, Shaqra University, KSA, where undergraduate students begin their first year under a GE track before specializing in EE, ME, or CE in subsequent years. The research investigated how sustainability awareness, environmental attitudes, and pro-environmental behaviors interrelate among students at various stages of their engineering education and whether these relationships differ across first-year students (GE) and those who have progressed into one of the three specialized departments.

2.1. Survey Design and Participants

A quantitative, cross-sectional survey design was employed to concurrently assess students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to sustainability. The sample comprised 81 undergraduate engineering students from Shaqra University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including GE students and those in their second year or higher in EE, ME, and CE programs. The survey was disseminated via QR code, which was made available to all students during classroom sessions and through their university email accounts. Approximately 60% of the total enrolled students in the College of Engineering responded to the survey. This response rate is partly attributed to students’ hesitancy in disclosing personal practices and a general lack of interest, particularly since this was the first survey about sustainability conducted at the university. Additionally, some students expressed concern about the potential identifiability of their sustainability practices. Nevertheless, future iterations of the study are expected to yield higher response rates due to incorporating student feedback, the gradual development of trust, and reduced apprehension in expressing personal views. Notably, the lower response rates were predominantly observed among first-year students. The current findings provide a preliminary snapshot for examining potential variations in sustainability engagement by year and department affiliation. Data were gathered using a structured questionnaire developed from previously published and validated instruments focusing on sustainability awareness and behavior in higher education contexts [8,11]. Items were modified slightly to align with Saudi engineering students’ cultural and academic contexts. A pre-test was conducted with 10 participants to assess clarity and completion time, leading to minor revisions. The questionnaire focused on three core constructs—sustainability awareness, pro-environmental behavior, and environmental attitudes/intentions—alongside demographic questions that identified whether respondents were in their first year (GE) or had progressed to EE, ME, or CE. Each construct’s items were rated on a five-point scale: 1 (“Never”), 2 (“Rarely”), 3 (“Sometimes”), 4 (“Usually”), and 5 (“Always”), allowing participants to indicate the frequency or consistency of their sustainability-related knowledge, practices, or attitudes. The three-item blocks thus map cleanly onto the theorized sequence: awareness items capture NAT/VBN problem awareness and the informational basis of TPB perceived control, attitude items embody the TPB attitudinal component, and behavior items record the ultimate action outcome. Sample items addressed familiarity with sustainable development concepts, personal energy-saving actions, and willingness to adopt eco-friendly products or support stricter environmental policies. The five awareness items capture self-assessed conceptual familiarity rather than technical fact recall, asking whether students recognize the notion of sustainable development, know the UN Sustainable Development Goals, have attended sustainability workshops or courses, and actively notice sustainability signage on campus, thereby gauging the perceived understanding of both global principles and local initiatives.

2.2. Data Collection Procedure

Recruitment was carried out through in-class announcements and electronic postings on university platforms. Interested students were provided with a link to an online survey, where they were briefed on the purpose of the research and assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Completion of the questionnaire generally took 10–15 min, and participants were free to withdraw at any point without penalty. Data collection remained open for two weeks—at the end of which, 81 valid responses were obtained and securely compiled.

The responses were categorized according to sustainability awareness, pro-environmental behavior, and environmental attitudes/intentions. To assess the reliability of each construct, Cronbach’s alpha was computed, yielding values of 0.77 for sustainability awareness, 0.71 for pro-environmental behavior, and 0.54 for environmental attitudes/intentions. Although an alpha of 0.54 indicates relatively low internal consistency for attitudes/intentions, the items were retained to allow exploratory analysis. For each participant, the items within a construct were averaged to produce a composite score, with higher scores indicating stronger awareness, more frequent pro-environmental behaviors, or more positive attitudes, respectively. Department and academic year were recorded to examine contextual influences akin to subjective norms and structural facilitators in TPB extensions alongside the core psychological constructs.

2.3. Statistical Techniques

The statistical analysis was done using MS Excel and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0). All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software (SPSS 22.0). Initially, descriptive statistics (minimum, maximum, mean (M), and standard deviation (SD)) were generated for the three composite scores. These descriptive measures provided a general overview of the student sample’s sustainability-related tendencies. Moreover, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to examine bivariate relationships among awareness, behavior, and attitudes. The significance level was set at p < 0.05, and the magnitude and direction of each correlation were noted to determine whether higher awareness aligned with stronger pro-environmental behaviors and attitudes. Subsequently, a multiple linear regression model was implemented with pro-environmental behavior as the dependent variable. Independent variables included awareness, attitudes, and demographic factors (year/department). The model’s overall fit was evaluated using R² and the F-statistic, while individual predictors were assessed via t-tests and standardized beta coefficients. This regression analysis determined which factors uniquely predicted behavior once intercorrelations among variables were considered.

Finally, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to test differences in each composite score—awareness, behavior, and attitudes—across the GE group and the three specialized departments. Where the ANOVA indicated significant group effects, Tukey’s post hoc tests were employed to identify which departments or year levels differed. In addition, effect sizes (partial η² or Cohen’s d) were reported to gauge the practical significance of any observed differences.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Institutional Committee of Research Ethics at Shaqra University (HAPO01-R-128) (Reference number ERC_SU_S_202500012). Each participant provided informed consent online before beginning the survey, acknowledging that their responses would remain anonymous and be used solely for research to enhance sustainability practices within the College of Engineering. The study followed institutional ethical guidelines; no personally identifying information was collected. Participation was entirely voluntary, with no penalties for withdrawal at any stage. In summary, the methodology brought together a purpose-built survey instrument; thorough data processing; a reliability assessment of key constructs; and a range of statistical techniques (descriptive statistics, correlation, regression, and ANOVA). By adopting this approach, the study offers a comprehensive perspective on how engineering students at Shaqra University, whether in their foundational year or specializing in EE, ME, or CE, vary in sustainability awareness, attitudes, and behaviors and which factors most strongly predict the adoption of pro-environmental practices.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

A total of 81 participants were enrolled, representing a blend of the GE students and those specializing in EE, ME, or CE at varying academic levels beyond the first year. Most participants were distributed across their second, third, fourth, and even fifth (or more advanced) years within their respective departments, reflecting the institution’s engineering education structure. This distribution provides a meaningful snapshot of how students’ sustainability-related knowledge, practices, and perspectives may evolve from their foundational year through more advanced study.

Table 1. Number of participants by department and academic year (N = 81).

Department	1st Year	2nd Year	3rd Year	4th Year	5th Year	Total
GE	23	0	0	0	0	23
EE	0	3	4	2	2	11
ME	0	3	6	8	3	20
CE	0	6	4	8	9	27
Total	23	12	14	18	14	81

summarizes the number of participants by department and academic year. As shown, 23 students were enrolled in GE only, while EE, ME, and CE each had multiple students spread across the second to fifth years. This pattern underscores how engineering students typically begin under a generalized track and then move into a specialized department in subsequent years.

Each student completed questions associated with three core constructs: sustainability awareness, pro-environmental behavior, and environmental attitudes/intentions. Analysis of individual responses revealed considerable diversity in how often students engaged with sustainability concepts or acted upon environmental concerns. For instance, some GE respondents reported minimal familiarity with sustainability awareness ≈ 1.0 and seldom adopted eco-friendly routine behavior ≈ 2.0. In contrast, others in CE claimed consistently high awareness and moderate-to-high engagement in environmentally friendly actions. This divergence underscores that, even within the same institution, personal interest, curriculum focus, and prior experiences can significantly shape students’ outlooks and behaviors [44,45].

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the composite scores (N = 81).

Composite Score	Minimum	Maximum	M	±SD
Sustainability awareness	1.00	4.60	2.47	0.85
Pro-Environmental behavior	1.87	4.20	2.66	0.47
Environmental attitudes	1.00	4.57	3.17	0.69

shows the descriptive analysis for the sustainability awareness, pro-environmental behavior, and environmental attitudes scores, including their minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation.

Inspection of these aggregates shows that awareness averaged about 2.47 (SD = ±0.85), implying that many students recognized some sustainable development principles or occasionally read about eco-friendly initiatives. Still, substantial gaps in more profound knowledge remain. The behavior mean hovered around 2.66 (SD = ±0.47), indicating that respondents typically engaged in sustainable practices “rarely” or “sometimes”. Meanwhile, attitudes/intentions reached a higher mean of about 3.17 (SD = ±0.69), suggesting that, although participants generally appear favorably disposed toward pro-environmental ideals, their actual implementation of green routines lags—a well-documented discrepancy in environmental psychology often termed the “attitude–behavior gap”.

3.2. Department-Level Differences

Table 3. Mean composite scores by department (N = 81).

Department	N	Awareness (M ± SD)	Behavior (M ± SD)	Attitude (M ± SD)
GE	23	1.97 ± 0.69	2.46 ± 0.36	3.07 ± 0.72
EE	11	2.36 ± 0.92	2.73 ± 0.56	3.42 ± 0.74
ME	20	2.39 ± 0.76	2.60 ± 0.41	3.11 ± 0.81
CE	27	3.01 ± 0.73	2.83 ± 0.51	3.21 ± 0.55

shows the mean score by different departments. A notable difference emerged; the CE students reported the highest awareness mean (3.01) and ranked above the other groups in behavior scores (2.83), hinting that CE’s curriculum or departmental emphasis may provide more immediate, practical exposure to sustainability topics. In contrast, while displaying a somewhat lower awareness mean (2.36), EE students showed the highest average attitudes/intentions (3.42), implying that they theoretically endorse environmental measures more strongly but do not always act on them as consistently. ME and GE participants occupied an intermediate range on behavior and attitudes, though GE had a distinctly lower average awareness (1.97), presumably reflecting their earlier stage in the program.

Figure 4 visualizes the comparison of awareness, behavior, and attitude/intentions toward sustainability among students in different departments. The CE is the leader in both awareness and behavior, while EE stands out in attitudes.

Despite these departmental patterns, the data also underscore a substantial within-group range. For example, in EE, the behavior scores ranged from about 1.87 to 3.73, illustrating that not all students conformed to the departmental mean. Similarly, the GE students showed wide variability in awareness (1.00 to approximately 4.00), confirming that, even at this early stage, some individuals possess higher baseline familiarity with sustainability issues, whereas others remain relatively uninformed.

3.3. Reliability and Internal Consistency

Regarding reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, the composites for awareness (0.77) and behavior (0.71) surpassed the 0.70 threshold, indicating satisfactory internal consistency. By comparison, the attitudes/intentions scale posted an alpha of 0.54. The relatively low reliability (α = 0.54) of the attitude/intentions scale reflects possible heterogeneity in students’ interpretations of attitudinal statements. Similar findings are reported in attitude research, where construct complexity or social desirability may reduce internal consistency [46,47]. Therefore, further studies are necessary to enhance reliability and confidence in the findings. Still, the scale was retained to capture broad sentiments toward environmental responsibility, and many participants indicated moderately high attitudes overall. That means the level of concern for environmental matters is not always matched by practical actions [48,49,50].

Altogether, these descriptive data paint a nuanced portrait of how Shaqra University engineering students relate to sustainability. Overall, they appear moderately aware of ecological issues and sporadically convert that awareness into pro-environmental actions, yet they maintain generally favorable attitudes toward environmental stewardship. Some departments (notably CE) show more substantial knowledge and slightly higher behavioral involvement, possibly reflecting program-specific course content or culture emphasizing sustainable design; however, even within CE, variation persists, reinforcing the interplay of personal motivation, extracurricular interests, and specific educational experiences.

3.4. Correlation and Regression Findings

Correlational analyses were performed first to determine whether the key constructs—sustainability awareness, pro-environmental behavior, and environmental attitudes/intentions—were associated. As shown in Figure 5 (see below), the awareness score correlated positively with both behavior score (r = 0.628, p < 0.001) and attitude score (r = 0.419, p < 0.001), indicating that students who reported more excellent knowledge of sustainability concepts tended to engage more frequently in pro-environmental actions and express more favorable attitudes toward environmental protection. The behavior–attitude correlation was also significant (r = 0.375, p < 0.001), despite a notable gap between endorsing and implementing eco-friendly ideals. Students with stronger attitudes enacted more frequent sustainable behaviors on average, which is corroborated by findings from similar research [49,51,52].

In addition to these three core constructs, the correlation matrix included two demographic factors—department and year in the college. Department was coded nominally, resulting in partial correlation patterns, while year was coded in ascending numeric order from the first year (GE) onward. The behavior score showed modest positive correlations with department (r = 0.270) and year (r = 0.310), though these do not necessarily reflect a simple numeric progression because of the nominal nature of the department. Awareness score, meanwhile, displayed moderate associations with both department (r = 0.467) and year (r = 0.388), hinting that students further along in their studies, especially in specific departments, may have developed more robust sustainability knowledge (see Figure 6).

A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify which variables uniquely predict pro-environmental behavior while accounting for their overlap, with the behavior score as the dependent variable. The independent variables included awareness score, attitude/intentions score, department, and year in college. As shown in the model summary (

Table 4. Multiple linear regression for pro-environmental behavior (N = 81).

Statistic			Value
R			0.654
R2			0.428
Adjusted R2			0.398
Std. Error of the Estimate			0.36601
F (4, 76)			14.216
p-value (Overall Model)			<0.001
ANOVA Details
Source	SS	df	MS	F	p
Regression	7.617	4	1.904	14.216	<0.001
Residual	10.181	76	0.134	-	-
Total	17.799	80	-	-	-
Coefficients
Predictor	B	SE (B)	β (Beta)	t	p
(Constant)	1.532	0.210	-	7.308	<0.001
Department	−0.053	0.051	−0.137	−1.043	0.300
Year in the College	0.062	0.040	0.197	1.552	0.125
Awareness Score	0.307	0.062	0.552	4.988	<0.001
Attitude Score	0.103	0.066	0.152	1.555	0.124

Notes: Dependent variable = behavior score. Department and year in the college were numeric/nominal predictors in this model. R² = 0.428 indicates that these predictors collectively explain about 42.8% of the variance in behavior. Awareness score is the only uniquely significant predictor (p < 0.001), while department, year, and attitude are not significant at p < 0.05.

), the regression model achieved an R of 0.654 and an R² of 0.428, implying that these predictors collectively explained about 42.80% of the variance in pro-environmental behavior. Table 4 confirmed that the overall model was statistically significant (f (4, 76) = 14.216, p < 0.001).

Figure 7 illustrates the detailed regression coefficients between awareness and behavior scores. The finding that awareness is the sole uniquely significant predictor once attitude, department, and year are controlled (B = 0.307, p < 0.001, β = 0.552) is precisely what TPB, NAT, and VBN would anticipate; adequate knowledge of consequences and perceived control are prerequisites for translating favorable attitudes into consistent action, thereby illuminating the residual attitude–behavior gap. Awareness alone accounted for a substantial portion of students’ pro-environmental actions when controlling for department, year, and attitudes. Although the attitude score correlated with behavior at the bivariate level (r = 0.375), its effect was no longer significant (p = 0.124) after awareness was included in the model. Similarly, neither department (p = 0.300) nor year in the college (p = 0.125) produced a statistically significant unique effect on behavior once awareness was considered, indicating that belonging to a particular department or advancing to later years did not significantly predict behavior over and above the influence of how informed a student was [48,49,51,52].

Interestingly, despite EE students showing relatively strong attitude means in the descriptive data, once placed in the regression model, attitude did not appear to exert a unique predictive effect on actual behaviors. One possible explanation is the shared variance between awareness and attitudes; as the correlation matrix showed, these constructs are moderately correlated (r = 0.419). Indeed, higher attitude often co-occurs with higher awareness, so once awareness is in the model, attitude provides little added predictive power. Meanwhile, department and year may shape or coincide with students’ exposure to sustainability, but these variations are captured by the direct measure of awareness itself [8,51,52].

In summary, the correlation results confirm robust interconnections among awareness, behavior, and attitudes, reinforcing that more knowledgeable students also report more frequent pro-environmental actions and more positive environmental intentions or beliefs. However, awareness is the key driver of students’ behavior in the multiple regression context. In contrast, attitudes, department, and year lose their independent significance once awareness is considered. This finding implies that enhancing students’ sustainability knowledge or awareness may be more critical than encouraging pro-environmental sentiments or relying on departmental or academic year distinctions to stimulate tangible environmental actions. Thus, the stage is set for subsequent group comparisons (step 6.3) to confirm whether specific departments or year levels differ meaningfully in their composite scores, even if these factors do not uniquely predict behavior.

Despite the model’s respectable R² of 0.428, more than half of the variance in pro-environmental behavior remains unexplained. Factors not captured here, such as peer norms, instructor role modeling, availability of recycling bins, or ease of using public transport on campus, are well-known drivers of sustainable actions and may account for part of the residual. Once awareness is entered, the disappearance of department and year suggests that these structural variables exert their influence primarily by raising students’ knowledge base. When awareness is statistically held constant, their independent paths to behavior collapse, a pattern consistent with partial mediation. A formal mediation test was not pursued, because the modest sample (N = 81) would yield unstable indirect-effect estimates, yet the coefficients align with that interpretation. Future work that combines larger samples, campus infrastructure audits, and focus group insights could unpack how social and physical contexts interact with individual awareness to produce consistent green habits.

The optional open-ended prompt generated 53 responses (≈ 65% of the sample). Content coding revealed three dominant themes. Awareness and training accounted for about half of all remarks, with students calling to “spread awareness about this topic”, “create workshops on sustainable development”, and “offer continuous courses that raise awareness”. Roughly 40% of comments focused on recycling infrastructure, urging “recycle bins”, “separating the bins in the college”, and “clearly labeled waste-sorting stations”. A third recurring theme, highlighted in about 30% of responses, concerned campus layout and resource gaps, with students requesting “more access to bicycles so the car use can be reduced”, “run the electricity on solar power”, “green the campus with more trees”, and “provide healthier cafeteria meals”. A rapid walkthrough audit by the authors corroborated these perceptions: only two out of seven engineering buildings had visible recycling points, no bicycle racks were observed, and shaded pedestrian routes were scarce. Such infrastructural gaps and transport habits plausibly explain part of the unexplained variance in behavior, reinforcing the view that structural barriers, rather than weak pro-environmental sentiment, widen the attitude–behavior gap. Although a full mixed-methods study lay beyond this paper’s scope, future research combining systematic observations with focus group interviews could examine these constraints in greater detail.

3.5. Group Comparisons (ANOVA)

After establishing the relationships among awareness, behavior, and attitudes/intentions through correlation and regression, one-way ANOVA tests were conducted to explore whether departmental or academic year differences exist in these three composite scores. The analyses considered two main grouping variables: (1) department (GE, EE, ME, and CE) and (2) year in the college (first, second, third, fourth, and fifth year).

For awareness, the ANOVA is significant at p < 0.001, and post hoc tests show CE significantly exceeds GE and ME in mean awareness. Behavior differences approach significance (p = 0.052), with CE outscoring GE (p < 0.05), while attitudes do not differ significantly across departments (see

Table 5. One-way ANOVA results comparing mean awareness, behavior, and attitudes across departments (N = 81).

Score	Department (M ± SD)	F (3, 77)	p	η2 (Effect Size)
Awareness	GE: 1.97 ± 0.69 EE: 2.36 ± 0.92 ME: 2.39 ± 0.67 CE: 3.01 ± 0.73	8.010	<0.001	0.238
Behavior	GE: 2.47 ± 0.36 EE: 2.73 ± 0.55 ME: 2.60 ± 0.41 CE: 2.83 ± 0.51	2.687	0.052	0.095
Attitudes	GE: 3.07 ± 0.72 EE: 3.42 ± 0.74 ME: 3.11 ± 0.81 CE: 3.21 ± 0.55	0.70	0.555	0.027

η²: values indicate the proportion of variance that the department explains in each score.

).

3.6. Impact of the Academic Department

Figure 8 illustrates the mean of the awareness scores for all departments. The awareness scores, as shown in the descriptive statistics (

Table 6. One-way ANOVA for pro-environmental behavior by department (N = 81).

Department	N	Behavior (M ± SD)
GE	23	2.47 ± 0.36
EE	11	2.73 ± 0.55
ME	20	2.60 ± 0.41
CE	27	2.83 ± 0.51
ANOVA	F (3, 77)	p	Partial η2
Between departments	2.687	0.052	0.095

Notes: Although the ANOVA approached significance (p = 0.052), post hoc tests identified a single significant difference between CE and GE, with CE exhibiting higher mean behavior (p < 0.05). Other departmental comparisons did not reach significance, suggesting that the difference in behavior scores is modest and driven mainly by CE vs. GE.

), varied significantly across the four departments (F (3, 77) = 8.01, p < 0.001). CE reported the highest mean awareness (M = 3.01), whereas GE had the lowest (M = 1.97). The post hoc tests (using Tukey’s HSD or Games–Howell) confirmed that CE’s mean awareness was significantly higher than both GE (mean difference = 1.03, p < 0.001) and ME (mean difference = 0.62, p < 0.05). EE did not significantly differ from CE, though the p-value hovered near a trend level (p = 0.089 in one test). This pattern suggests that, while many GE students and some ME students exhibit only moderate familiarity with sustainability concepts, CE students, on average, display substantially greater awareness. The effect size for this departmental difference, as measured (η² = 0.238), indicates a moderate-to-enormous practical impact.

In the behavior score, the descriptive means indicated that CE (M = 2.83) and EE (M = 2.73) led slightly in behavior; the overall ANOVA for behavior by department was marginally non-significant (F (3, 77) = 2.687, p = 0.052). A post hoc Tukey test revealed only one statistically significant pairwise difference: CE vs. GE (mean difference = 0.36, p < 0.05). However, the Games–Howell test also confirmed that CE significantly outscored GE (p < 0.05), but none of the other pairs (EE–ME, ME–GE, EE–CE, etc.) reached significance. The effect size (η² = 0.095) was smaller, suggesting that, while CE students might engage in slightly more frequent pro-environmental actions than their GE peers, the overall departmental differences in behavior are less pronounced than for awareness, which is supported by similar studies [51,52].

Figure 9 shows the attitudes/intentions score for all departments. Unlike awareness, the attitudes/intentions score showed no statistically significant difference among departments for attitudes/intentions (F (3, 77) = 0.70, p = 0.555). Although the descriptive statistics showed EE with the highest mean attitude (M = 3.42) and GE with the lowest (M = 3.07), the differences did not reach significance in the post hoc comparisons. The η² was relatively small (0.027), confirming that departmental affiliation does not account for meaningful variance in how students view or intend to support environmental initiatives [51,52].

3.7. Impact of the Academic Year

Moving beyond departmental grouping, additional ANOVA tests examined whether first-year vs. upper-year students differed in their awareness, behavior, or attitudes. Students were categorized as first, second, third, fourth, or fifth year (in specialized departments).

The mean awareness score for different years is shown in Figure 10; a significant effect emerged for year in the college (F (4, 76) = 5.016, p = 0.001), with first-year students averaging the lowest awareness (M = 1.97) and fifth-year students reporting the highest (M = 3.07). Post hoc tests showed that first-year students differed significantly from fifth-year students (p = 0.001), and the effect size (η² = 0.209) was moderate. Notably, the second-year and fourth-year means fell in between, although specific comparisons (e.g., first vs. second year) approached significance but did not meet the strict p < 0.05 threshold. The homogeneous subsets from Tukey’s HSD indicate that first-year and third-year are grouped, while fifth-year forms a separate subset on the higher end.

The behavior score, while the overall means suggested a potential upward trend from first-year (M = 2.47) to fifth-year (M = 2.92), the ANOVA result just missed significance (F (4, 76) = 2.218, p = 0.075). Post hoc tests did, however, reveal that first-year vs. fifth-year was significant in some comparisons (e.g., p = 0.037 with Tukey’s HSD). Because the overall F was borderline non-significant, caution is warranted when interpreting the year effect. Nevertheless, the pairwise results imply that more advanced students, particularly fifth-year students, might adopt pro-environmental behaviors more often than first-year students. The effect size (η² = 0.105) remains modest.

Attitudes/Intentions Score. The ANOVA by academic year showed no statistically significant difference in attitudes (F (4, 76) = 1.355, p = 0.257). First-year students scored around 3.07, while second-year, third-year, and fifth-year students ranged from about 3.24 to 3.48, with fourth-year slightly lower at 2.95. None of these slight differences reached significance in the post hoc tests, and the effect size was minimal (η² = 0.067). Thus, the level of environmental concern or stated pro-environmental intentions does not consistently shift from the first to the fifth year of college [19,52].

Overall, the ANOVA results confirm several key points. First, departmental differences are particularly notable for sustainability awareness, with CE students significantly outscoring both GE and ME students. This aligns with the descriptive finding that CE’s coursework or departmental culture may foster higher sustainability awareness. CE also shows a moderate advantage in behavior over GE, though that effect is more modest and near the significance threshold. Meanwhile, attitudes do not vary significantly among departments.

Regarding the academic year, awareness increases from the first to the fifth year, pointing toward gradually acquiring sustainability knowledge over time. In contrast, behavior trends upward from first-year to fifth-year but does not yield a fully significant overall ANOVA result. However, pairwise comparisons suggest first-year vs. fifth-year differences. Attitudes remain stable across years, reinforcing that supportive beliefs about environmental protection are fairly widespread among students, regardless of academic progression.

In conjunction with earlier regression findings, these ANOVA results suggest that being further along in one’s engineering program or belonging to a specific department may correlate with higher awareness. However, once awareness is accounted for in a regression model, neither department nor year contributes additional predictive power for behavior. These findings underscore the value of systematically enhancing the sustainability content across all years and departments, rather than assuming that mere progression or departmental selection will automatically instill robust knowledge or daily green practices.

These findings align with prior research documenting an “attitude–behavior gap” in pro-environmental engagement, where individuals endorse sustainability values yet do not always act accordingly [4]. In theoretical frameworks such as the TPB and VPN, knowledge (or awareness) often underpins the motivation to convert pro-environmental attitudes into consistent behaviors [28,29]. The present results—especially the strong role of sustainability awareness in predicting behavior—support this notion, suggesting that deeper, more specific sustainability knowledge is essential for eliciting tangible eco-friendly actions. Notably, the comparatively higher awareness among CE students echoes previous findings that integrating sustainability thoroughly within engineering curricula leads to stronger engagement [11,18]. The variation observed across departments and academic levels also reflects patterns reported in multi-institutional studies, emphasizing how institutional structures, program contents, and individual motivation collectively shape students’ environmental behaviors [40].

3.8. Implications for Engineering Education

From a pedagogical standpoint, the evident correlation between awareness and behavior suggests that curriculum developers should focus on weaving sustainability across the entire engineering program rather than confining it to a handful of elective modules. Incorporating real-world projects; case studies; and practical applications such as energy audits, water conservation initiatives, and climate adaptation designs can deepen students’ sustainability knowledge. This approach appears particularly beneficial for GE and ME cohorts, who show relatively modest awareness scores. CE, in contrast, may serve as a model department, demonstrating how specialized courses and faculty emphasis on sustainable infrastructures elevate students’ understanding [16,45,52,53].

Faculty engagement emerges as another critical factor. In many contexts, students respond positively when faculty routinely highlight engineering solutions’ ethical and societal dimensions [25]. Encouraging instructors across all departments to address sustainability in design projects, labs, and research opportunities could help bridge the observed gaps in behavior. Providing incentives or professional development for faculty to learn best practices in teaching sustainability might further align departmental cultures with environmental stewardship [52,53].

For instance, to operationalize Vision 2030 within the curriculum, Shaqra University could (i) launch a one-credit “living lab” studio in which second-year teams design and install an off-grid photovoltaic canopy that powers and shades an outdoor study space; (ii) set a fourth-year capstone in which civil and mechanical majors audit an existing campus building and propose a retrofit package (daylighting, smart HVAC, and greywater reuse) that meets Saudi Building Code SBEC-701 net-zero energy guidelines; and (iii) offer a short elective delivered jointly with NEOM or Red Sea project engineers, letting students optimize modular solar desalination units for remote communities. These project-based experiences embed hands-on sustainability skills; directly advance Vision 2030’s Renewable Energy, Water Security, and Human Capability Development pillars; and turn the campus into a living demonstration of the concepts taught.

3.9. Study Limitations and Future Perspectives

The limitations that should be considered for future studies are as follows: First, though informative, the sample of 81 students restricts statistical power and generalizability. Larger samples across multiple institutions would show how departmental cultures and academic progression affect sustainability engagement. Second, the study relied on self-reported data, which can introduce biases such as social desirability and recall errors. Direct resource use or observational data measures could corroborate whether reported behaviors align with actual practices. Third, the relatively low Cronbach’s alpha (0.54) for the attitude/intentions scale underscores the need to interpret that variable cautiously. Finally, focusing on a single institution limits the external validity of the results. Universities with different curricular structures or cultural norms might show alternative patterns in how awareness translates into behavior. Additionally, the study offers several recommendations. First, future research should consider using longitudinal designs to track changes in sustainability awareness, attitudes, and behaviors throughout students’ academic journeys. Second, increasing the sample size and involving multiple educational institutions could improve the generalizability of the results. Third, there is a need to explore the underlying causes of the attitude–behavior gap in greater depth, which could guide the development of more targeted and effective interventions. Fourth, creating more robust and reliable tools for measuring environmental attitudes and intentions would enhance the validity of future investigations. Lastly, the study encourages curricular reforms that embed sustainability through experiential learning; providing specific examples of such reforms would increase their practical relevance and ease of implementation.

A logical next step would be a longitudinal study tracing engineering students from their first to their final year, capturing changes in awareness, attitudes, and behaviors at key academic milestones. Such a design could illuminate how particular experiences—capstone projects, internships, or specific coursework—spark substantial increases in sustainability engagement. Additionally, collaborative, multi-institutional research could compare how different engineering programs structure sustainability training, exploring whether consistent exposure across all years yields stronger behavioral outcomes than occasional or elective-based coverage. Intervention studies introducing commitment devices, real-time energy tracking, or group challenges for sustainable living on campus could also clarify how best to close the attitude–behavior gap, particularly for those who already hold positive attitudes but lag in action. Finally, incorporating a qualitative dimension, such as focus groups or in-depth interviews, would offer richer perspectives on students’ motivations, contextual constraints, and perceptions of departmental cultures. By blending quantitative and qualitative approaches, researchers can discern how deeply rooted beliefs intersect with curricular structures and peer influences, informing more holistic strategies to advance sustainability within engineering education.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the relationship between sustainability awareness, attitudes, and pro-environmental behaviors among Shaqra University, KSA engineering students. The analysis of responses from 81 participants revealed a moderate level of awareness (mean = 3.38) and positive attitudes (mean = 3.76), yet actual behavior lagged (mean = 3.05), confirming the persistence of the attitude–behavior gap. Civil Engineering students demonstrated significantly higher awareness (mean = 3.61) than their peers in the other departments. Fifth-year students also showed higher sustainability knowledge (mean = 3.56) than first-year students; however, given the study’s cross-sectional design, this difference should not be interpreted as evidence of academic maturation over time. A strong positive correlation was found between awareness and behavior (r = 0.628, p < 0.001), while regression analysis indicated that, once awareness is accounted for, neither academic year nor department significantly predicted behavior. These findings emphasize the central role of awareness in driving sustainable actions. The study highlights the need for curricular reforms integrating sustainability through experiential and interdisciplinary learning. Despite limitations, such as a modest sample size and reliance on self-reported data, this research provides valuable insights and recommends longitudinal and multi-institutional studies to explore the long-term impact of sustainability education in engineering contexts.

These patterns are consistent with international evidence: meta-analyses by Bamberg and Möser [36] and curriculum studies by Wiek et al. [41] likewise showed that targeted sustainability knowledge, rather than attitude alone, is the strongest lever for behavior change in higher education settings. The persistence of an attitude–behavior gap among our respondents mirrors the experimental results reported by Farjam et al. [48] and survey work by Redondo and Puelles [49], underscoring that awareness must be coupled with structural support. Finally, our call for experiential “living lab” pedagogy aligns with the competency-based frameworks advocated by Desha et al. [7] and Libertson [42], who emphasized hands-on, problem-centered learning as critical to embedding sustainability in engineering curricula.

These findings advance Vision 2030’s Human Capability Development and Environment Protection pillars by showing that increased sustainability awareness leads to meaningful eco-behavior. To translate evidence into action, policymakers should embed a mandatory sustainability credit in engineering accreditation templates. Administrators can launch a campus-wide green challenge with measurable energy and waste targets. Faculty may convert labs into living lab audits of campus systems, and students can commit to semester-long action plans recorded in e-portfolios to document their impact. Moreover, to support Vision 2030, this study recommends including concrete, context-specific interventions such as project-based courses on renewable energy, net-zero building retrofits, and collaborative graduation projects with sustainable mega projects to embed practical sustainability competencies.