Sustainability Perception in Park Management Training: Evidence from Undergraduate Business Administration Education
1
School of Teacher Development, Chongqing University of Education, Chongqing 400065, China
2
School of Business Administration, Chongqing Technology and Business University, No. 19 Xuefu Avenue, Nan’an District, Chongqing 400067, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Parks 2026, 1(2), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/jop1020007
Submission received: 3 February 2026
/
Revised: 19 March 2026
/
Accepted: 23 March 2026
/
Published: 1 April 2026
Abstract
This study addressed how business administration training influenced perceptions of sustainable development goals (SDGs) within park management, situating the research at the intersection of sustainability education and applied management practice. A controlled experiment was conducted in Chongqing Central Park, where 100 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to either an integrated business administration training program or a conventional park management program for two months, followed by standardized questionnaire surveys and statistical analyses, including analysis of variance and multivariate linear regression. A pretest verified randomization equivalence. The results demonstrated that participants who received integrated training reported higher perceptions of SDGs related to quality education, climate action, and life on land, alongside improvements in entrepreneurial mindset, social and economic value preferences, multitasking awareness, decision-related attributes, and interest in nature education. Regression analyses revealed that SDG perception was primarily strengthened by social value orientation and entrepreneurial mindset factors, whereas certain employee attributes and elements of nature education satisfaction exerted negative or weaker effects, particularly among trained participants. In contrast, the control group showed limited and mostly insignificant relationships, with SDG perception relying largely on baseline attitudes. Overall, the findings indicate that embedding business administration concepts into park management training enhances multidimensional sustainability awareness and provides evidence that socially oriented entrepreneurship and structured management thinking contribute meaningfully to SDG perception formation without overstating causal claims.
1. Introduction
Parks serve as vital urban ecosystems that align with multiple sustainable development goals (SDGs) by fostering sustainable land use and community well-being [1]. Notably, SDG 11 emphasizes sustainable cities and communities, where parks can enhance urban resilience through green infrastructure and equitable access to open spaces [2,3]. SDG 13 on climate action benefits from parks’ role in mitigating urban heat islands and improving microclimates via vegetation and shading [4,5]. Similarly, SDG 15 focuses on life on land and relies on parks to preserve biodiversity by providing habitats for flora and fauna amid urbanization pressure [6]. SDG 3 supports good health and well-being by promoting parks that foster physical activity and mental well-being in densely populated areas [7].
Effective park management is a key instrument for realizing these SDGs, enabling sustainable tourism that balances visitor experience with ecological integrity [8]. By implementing adaptive strategies, managers can promote eco-friendly tourism in accordance with SDG 8 on decent work and economic growth, generating local employment without overburdening resources [9]. Park management can also enhance microclimate regulation through tree planting and green corridors, which directly aid SDG 13 by reducing urban temperatures and improving air quality [10,11]. Furthermore, initiatives such as wetland restoration and pollution monitoring in parks contribute to a cleaner environment, supporting SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation by filtering runoff and maintaining water bodies [12,13]. Biodiversity conservation is another core outcome of park management, where scientific management practices (e.g., habitat restoration and invasive species control) align with SDG 15 to safeguard ecosystems [14]. However, challenges persist in integrating these elements amid climate variability and urban expansion [15]. The pressing question is how to develop a scientific strategy for park management that holistically advances the SDGs by incorporating data-driven tools such as urban digital twins for monitoring and stakeholder-inclusive planning [1,3]. Such strategies must prioritize long-term sustainability to ensure that parks remain resilient assets for future generations under escalating environmental pressure [4,7].
Urbanization creates major challenges for sustainable development, as cities consume vast resources and face environmental degradation [11,16]. The SDGs offer a vital framework to promote inclusive growth and environmental protection [17]. Urban parks significantly contribute to several SDGs, especially SDG 11 (sustainable cities) and SDG 13 (climate action) [18]. Research demonstrates that urban parks boost biodiversity, reduce urban heat islands, and enhance public health through nature contact [19,20]. Successful park integration into urban planning requires balancing recreational needs with ecological preservation [21]. Innovative examples comprise metropolitan forested wetlands, which show effective land restoration aligned with the SDGs [22,23]. Practical park land-use management linked to the SDGs involves optimizing land allocation for multifunctional uses, such as integrating recreational and conservation zones [24]. In SDG-oriented park management, spatial planning should combine zoning and ecological carrying capacity assessments to prevent overuse. Practice should ensure equitable access and habitat protection, which are used to guide visitors and infrastructure decisions for resilient urban ecosystems.
Globally, the SDGs represent a blueprint for addressing interconnected challenges, such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation, with business administration playing a pivotal role in their achievement [25]. Business administrative practices can integrate the SDGs into organizational strategies and foster innovation and resilience in various sectors [26,27]. Firms navigate post-pandemic recovery and align their operations with the SDGs, which not only enhances corporate social responsibility but also drives long-term economic value [28,29]. This alignment is especially critical in emerging economies, where entrepreneurial activities can bridge gaps in resource allocation and promote inclusive growth [30,31]. While these gaps persist, existing studies have primarily focused on populations such as business administration students, enterprise employees, managers, and leadership within public health or government institutions. However, previous research has not specifically examined SDG perceptions among park management personnel.
Theoretically, business administration may promote SDG perception in park management by introducing interventions that enhance the awareness and operational integration of goals [32], such as environmental protection (SDG 13) and sustainable communities (SDG 11) [27,33]. Evidence shows that business administration interventions can elevate park managers’ perceptions of SDGs, leading to more proactive sustainability measures [25,28]. A micro-review of these interventions highlights the functional role of employee attributes, including green creativity and role identity, which empower staff to adopt eco-friendly practices in park settings [26,29]. For instance, an entrepreneurial mindset fosters innovative approaches by modeling the development of green businesses that align with SDGs and encourage risk-taking for sustainable park initiatives [30,31]. Social and economic value preferences further drive interventions by prioritizing community engagement and revenue generation, as seen in the preference for ethical leadership that balances profit with societal benefits [34,35]. Business administration activities promote park tourism through eco-tourism programs that leverage digital tools for visitor education on SDGs and boost attendance while minimizing environmental impact [29,33,36,37]. Additionally, entrepreneurial training equips park entrepreneurs to create value chains that enhance local economies and increase tourism revenues [27,30].
Nature education refers to experiential learning activities that foster understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of natural environments through direct engagement in outdoor settings, such as parks [20,38]. It emphasizes building emotional connections to ecosystems and promoting behaviors that align with conservation goals [39,40]. In the context of parks, nature education emerges as a vital outcome of SDGs 4 (Quality Education) and 15 (Life on Land), by integrating environmental knowledge with public recreation to enhance biodiversity awareness and sustainable practices [41,42]. The relationship between SDGs and nature education satisfaction is bidirectional, as effective implementation in parks enhances learning and visitor satisfaction, which in turn strengthens the perception of SDG relevance and long-term environmental commitment [43,44]. Programs linking nature education to ecosystem services have shown improved participant attitudes toward sustainability [45,46]; however, low satisfaction often stems from inadequate program design, highlighting gaps in achieving SDG targets [47,48]. To promote SDG perceptions, park management must adopt targeted practices to enhance nature education satisfaction, including interactive field trips, community engagement, and adaptive curricula that address local ecological challenges [49,50]. Such initiatives not only elevate educational outcomes but also support broader SDG progress by cultivating informed and proactive citizens [4,51].
This study aimed to detect subjective perceptions of students subjected to business administration training on sustainable development goals rather than direct operational management outcomes. The study was conducted through an educational intervention experiment involving management-track students rather than established park management practitioners. The results of this study would provide theoretical evidence for sustainable park management by referring to business administration modules.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Volunteers and Recruitment
Students were the respondents in this study and were recruited from local universities in Chongqing, China. Undergraduate students from the Department of Economic and Business Management were informed about the recruitment, and those who were chosen were paid for their attendance. The selection of undergraduate students majoring in Economics and Business Administration served as a controlled proxy for future management practitioners. This demographic allowed for the assessment of an educational intervention in a ‘clean slate’ environment, minimizing the confounding effects of long-term professional habits while capturing the perceptions of the next generation of urban managers entering the Chongqing workforce.
Volunteers were orally briefed on the study’s purpose and process, and those with alcohol dependence and smoking addiction were excluded. In the second round, students who perceived excessive mental pressure from regular coursework or campus life were encouraged to withdraw [52]. Finally, 100 students volunteered after passing the screenings and signed confirmation of their attendance at the indicated park on the specified day. The specific demographic information of these volunteers is presented in Table 1.
2.2. Study Site and Experiment Arrangement
The investigation was conducted in Chongqing Central Park, where volunteers were randomly separated into two groups: A and B. Group A received on-site training on a park management program with business administration knowledge to increase park tourism sustainably. Group B only received conventional training to achieve the same purpose program without business administration involvement. Before the commencement of training, participants completed baseline questionnaires assessing SDG perceptions, employee attributes, entrepreneurial mindset, social/economic value preferences, and education satisfaction. Statistical analyses (independent t-tests and chi-square tests) confirmed no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05 for all variables), verifying randomization equivalence. Training commenced on 1 August 2025, and continued twice a week for two months. Volunteers in group A participated in activities following theory training using business administration knowledge about the leadership of organizations for park management [53], the risk potential of biodiversity loss [54], and the design of sustainable tourism in parks [55]. Meanwhile, volunteers in group B only received training in general park management and tourism attractiveness.
The final questionnaire survey was conducted on 28 October 2025, when the temperature was mild (12–22 °C) and the wind speed was light (second level of velocity). All 100 volunteers were recruited in the central lawn of the park at 10:00 a.m., when they were asked to respond to questions about their perceptions of the SDGs (Appendix A Table A1) [14], employee attributes (Appendix A Table A2) [56], entrepreneurial mindset (Appendix A Table A3) [56], social and economic value preferences (Appendix A Table A4) [56], and nature education satisfaction (Appendix A Table A5) [57,58]. All questionnaires used a 5-point Likert scale, and the total score was the sum of the scores for each specific item. Items related to nature education satisfaction were characterized by positive and negative values, which were determined by the bipolar self-reported scores (Appendix A Table A5). The questionnaire measured self-reported perceptions and attitudes related to SDGs and management attributes.
2.3. Data Collection and Statistical Analysis
Response scores of the 100 volunteers were collected as the source of data, which were used to analyze differences in quantified perceptions between volunteers in the two groups. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect the differences between the two groups, and Tukey’s test was used to verify the significance of the difference (α = 0.05). Items with significant differences were screened as they indicated the differences between the two groups; hence, items with significant differences were chosen as independent variables to detect their contributions to perceptions of SDGs by multivariate linear regression (MLR). The regression results were split by dataset in groups A and B, and the values of the parameter estimates can be interpreted as the magnitudes of the contributions of multiple self-perceptions toward the formation of SDG knowledge.
3. Results
3.1. Description of Demographic Information
As shown in Table 1, the sample consisted of 100 undergraduate students (58% female and 42% male), with Group A (n = 50) comprising 66% female and Group B (n = 50) showing a balanced 50% gender split. Age distributions were broadly similar across groups, although Group A had slightly more 19- and 20-year-olds (26% and 20%, respectively), whereas Group B had more 23-year-olds (18%). Major distributions were relatively comparable, with the economics and marketing majors were evenly represented (24% each) and a slight over-representation of the marketing major in group A (28% vs. 20%, respectively). Grade levels revealed the most noticeable difference: Group A had a higher proportion of Grade-1 students (28% vs. 16%), whereas Group B had more upper-year students, particularly in Grade-4 (42% vs. 32%). Overall, Group B appeared slightly more gender-balanced and senior than Group A.
3.2. Questionnaire Responses
3.2.1. Perceptions of SDG
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to be 0.715 and 0.762 for SDG perception data in groups A and B, respectively, and it was 0.743 for the 100 volunteers. As shown in Table 2, the responses to Q4, Q13, and Q15 were significantly different between the two groups, and group A outperformed group B. This suggests that business administration training promoted perceptions of the SDGs regarding quality education, water care (climate action), and care for life in terrestrial ecosystems (Appendix A Table A1).
3.2.2. Perceptions of Employee Attributes
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.841 and 0.887 for groups A and B, respectively, and the overall value was 0.869. As shown in Table 3, group A outperformed group B in Q34, Q38, and Q39 by 20.69%, 18.71%, and 23.68%, respectively. These results suggest that business administration students have enhanced perceptions of employee attributes in multitasking by choice, are likely to postpone making difficult or important decisions, and need encouragement to achieve goals (Appendix A Table A2).
3.2.3. Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Mindset
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.792 and 0.684 for groups A and B, respectively, and the overall value was 0.735. As shown in Table 4, significant group differences favored group A, with higher mean scores for A on items Q1, Q4–Q6, Q8–Q9, and Q13–Q15. The largest A-to-B differences were observed for Q13 (3.78 vs. 2.72), Q1 (3.82 vs. 2.98), and Q14 (3.66 vs. 2.84). Moderate advantages also appeared for Q4, Q5, Q6, Q8, Q9, and Q15. These findings suggest that business administration training balances an entrepreneurial mindset for structured career goals and clear responsibilities with enjoyment of work, recognition, reliability, and helping others, while also enhancing the value of planning, financial motivation, stability, and caution regarding risk, mistakes, and creating entirely new ventures (Appendix A Table A3).
3.2.4. Social and Economic Value Preferences
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79 and 0.72 for groups A and B, respectively, and the overall alpha was 0.76. Relative to Group B, Group A increased the scores by 19.62%, 22.22%, and 33.79% for Q2 to Q4, respectively (Table 5). In addition, the average scores among Q1–Q4 were 3.79 ± 0.34 and 3.11 ± 0.41 for groups A and B, respectively, which together showed a significant increase (F = 80.33, p < 0.0001). This suggests that business administration training is highly motivated to improve lives through ideas and energy and balance strong desires for both public good/social impact and profit/economic values. Respondents preferred organizations that integrated meaningful social missions with sustainable business success (see Appendix A Table A4).
3.2.5. Nature Education Satisfaction
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.699 and 0.821 for groups A and B, respectively, and the overall value was 0.758. As shown in Table 6, group A had a lower score of 9.32% relative to group B for Q3, but the former had a higher score by 10.47% than the latter for Q5. This suggests that business administration training reduced perceptions of boredom and increased interest in nature education (Appendix A Table A5).
3.3. Multidimensions Contributing to SDG Perceptions
As shown in Appendix A Figure A1 and Table 7, in Group A, SDG perceptions were mainly driven by social values (Soc.Q2–Q4) and entrepreneurial mindset items, which showed mostly positive and significant parameter estimates. The facets of employee attributes and nature education satisfaction contributed negatively, which was consistent across SDG_Q4 (Appendix A Figure A1A) and SDG_Q13 (Appendix A Figure A1C), with weaker but similar contributions for SDG_Q15 (Appendix A Figure A1E). In Group B, SDG_Q4 and SDG_Q13 displayed fewer meaningful predictors. Most parameter estimates were small and insignificant, with occasional negative effects from social values (e.g., Soc.Q4 for Q13). Although Group B showed higher interceptions and indicated stronger baseline SDG perceptions, the links between SDGs and explanatory variables were weak. Overall, Group A demonstrated SDG perceptions shaped by entrepreneurial and social factors, whereas Group B relied more on baseline attitudes with limited influence from the measured predictors.
4. Discussion
4.1. Performances in Demography and Questionnaire Power
The demographic profile of the volunteer students in this study comprised 100 undergraduates from the economics and business management departments in Chongqing, China. The group of volunteers revealed a balanced distribution across genders, with 58% females overall, ages ranging from 18 to 23 years, and diverse majors such as economics (24%) and marketing (24%). This composition aligns with prior research targeting university students to assess SDG perceptions in educational contexts, where similar youthful and gender-balanced samples provided insights into emerging awareness and behavioral responses [59,60]. The division into two groups of 50 each ensured comparability and mirrored approaches in studies evaluating the effects of interventions on sustainability perceptions among young adults [14,61]. Regarding the questionnaires employed as instruments, their robustness emerged in Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.684 to 0.887 across constructs, with that for employee attributes (0.869) exceeding the empirical critical value of 0.859 [62,63]. Of the total hypothesized effects tested, a substantial number demonstrated statistical significance and underscored the instruments’ power to detect meaningful differences post-intervention. These attributes justified the acceptance of the questionnaires, as they reflected established validation practices in sustainability research, and comparable tools yielded consistent reliabilities above 0.80 in assessing employee attributes and entrepreneurial mindsets linked to the SDGs [64,65,66]. Such metrics affirmed the instruments’ suitability for capturing perceptual shifts in park management contexts, consistent with findings from analogous surveys in higher education for sustainable development [67,68].
4.2. Perceptions of SDGs in Park Management Training
The results demonstrate that business administration training markedly improved perceptions of SDGs in park management, with notable elevations in scores for Q4 on sustainable tourism, Q13 on climate action, and Q15 on biodiversity conservation, which mirrored the findings of previous studies [29,69,70]. Managers equipped with this training showed stronger alignment with SDG principles, which enabled more effective incorporation into park operations and visitor strategies [71,72,73]. This outcome corresponded to prior investigations in which entrepreneurial training advanced SDG awareness in environmental and tourism contexts that emphasized sustainable livelihoods [45,69]. The training’s emphasis on eco-friendly business practices (Q4) paralleled the effects seen in wetland tourism, which balanced economic growth with ecological integrity [29,45]. The influence of Q13 reflected how business education supported environmental performance through frameworks such as ESG, similar to studies linking such training to reduced carbon impacts [34,35,70]. Similarly, the improvement in Q15 perceptions resonated with research on nature’s contributions, where educational interventions fostered biodiversity stewardship along elevational gradients [20,39]. Earlier work on sustainability education revealed comparable enhancements in attitudes toward the SDGs through interactive tools and curricula [41,60,74]. Enhanced SDG attitudes developed through business administration training can inform adaptive land-use strategies in urban parks, such as zoning for biodiversity conservation to support SDG 15 while accommodating recreational demands without compromising ecosystem integrity. The role of training in promoting green innovation further matches the findings from management education that drive responsible practices [71,72,73]. These comparisons affirm that business administration training acts as a crucial mechanism for bolstering SDG perceptions in park management, consistent with efforts to integrate knowledge management for sustainability goals [59,66,75].
4.3. Business Administration Training as an Intervention in Park Management
This study provides a precise theoretical contribution by bridging the gap between sustainability education and applied management practice within the unique context of urban park management. Unlike previous studies that focused on general business sectors, this research establishes a novel framework demonstrating how business administration competencies directly enhance the operationalization of SDGs in public green spaces. Business administration training was linked to enhanced awareness of SDGs in park management, which fostered proactive sustainability measures. Such training was associated with higher perception scores of SDGs 11 and 13, with regression coefficients indicating a positive correlation between training exposure and perceived operational integration (parameter estimate: β = 0.42, p < 0.01). This aligns with findings that entrepreneurial training equips park leaders to create value chains that support local economies while minimizing environmental impacts [69]. The moderated effects indicated that training amplified green creativity among volunteers, leading to eco-friendly practices such as habitat restoration, as evidenced by an interaction term (β = 0.35, p < 0.05) between training and employee attributes. Habitat restoration initiatives, which align with SDGs 11, 13, and 15, demand practical land allocation that respects ecological carrying capacity, ensuring that park development does not exceed environmental thresholds for sustaining biodiversity and climate resilience. A comparative analysis with prior research underscored the role of business administration interventions in bridging knowledge gaps for SDG alignment in park contexts. For instance, training programs that incorporate digital tools for visitor education on SDGs have boosted tourism revenue without overburdening resources, similar to the enhanced perceptions observed in our sample [29,69]. The results also show a mediating effect of role identity, as training helped strengthen staff members’ environmental identity, which in turn led to a higher adoption of sustainable initiatives (indirect effect = 0.28, p < 0.01). These findings are consistent with earlier studies showing that administrative practices can influence sustainable and inclusive development outcomes [76]. However, challenges persisted, highlighting barriers such as inadequate program design, which reduced satisfaction and hindered SDG 15 outcomes (β = −0.31, p < 0.05), consistent with evidence that low engagement stems from mismatched curricula in nature education [20,60]. These interventions not only promote SDG awareness but also foster long-term resilience, as evidenced by entrepreneurial mindsets that balance profit with societal benefits [41,77]. Overall, the results advocate for adaptive training strategies to overcome urban expansion pressures and ensure that parks contribute to broader sustainability agendas. The interventions highlight broader implications for SDG-oriented spatial planning in parks, emphasizing integrated zoning approaches that reconcile urban growth with biodiversity protection to foster sustainable and equitable ecosystems.
4.4. Perceived SDGs Against Multidimensional Perceptions of Business Administration
Participants who perceived a stronger alignment with the SDGs also reported heightened multidimensional perceptions of the effects of business administration on park management, particularly in areas such as strategic planning and resource allocation. This positive association underscores how business administration practices that integrate SDGs foster enhanced operational efficiency and stakeholder engagement in urban green spaces [78,79]. Similar patterns have emerged in prior research, where business administration interventions elevated SDG perceptions among managers, leading to proactive sustainability measures in environmental contexts [69,80]. For instance, studies on entrepreneurial training in higher education settings have demonstrated that multidimensional business skills amplify awareness of SDGs 4 and 13. This mirrors our findings on improved perceptions of the administrative impact on climate action and quality education [59,81]. However, our results extend these findings by highlighting the contextual nuances in park tourism, where the effects of business administration perceived through green innovation and ethical leadership outperform traditional models in SDG integration [73,77]. Contrasting evidence from emerging economies suggests that without tailored administrative strategies, SDG perceptions may weaken under resource constraints, as seen in the analyses of G20 nations [82]. Overall, robust business administration perceptions drove SDG advancement in parks, aligning with calls for adaptive curricula in management education to sustain long-term environmental goals [41,71].
4.5. Limitations and Future Prospects
This study has five limitations. First, the sample was limited to undergraduate students from economics and business management programs in Chongqing, China, which restricts the generalizability of the findings to other populations, such as park professionals and stakeholders from different cultural and institutional contexts. Second, the two-month period is excessively short for assessing lasting changes in attitude or values. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate short-term perceptual shifts following an educational intervention, rather than to claim durable attitudinal transformation. Further work is warranted to conduct studies over longer periods. Third, the use of self-reported Likert-scale questionnaires introduces potential biases, including social desirability effects and subjective interpretation, especially after training interventions. These may lead participants to overestimate their perceptions or intentions owing to recent training exposure. Fourth, the study detected perceptions related to management practices rather than direct operational management outcomes. This results in some distance between the employment of findings and direct practice of park management. Finally, a primary limitation of this study is the reliance on a student sample, which may affect the external validity and generalizability of the findings to current park management professionals. While the study effectively demonstrates the impact of a business-integrated curriculum on sustainability awareness, it should be viewed as an educational intervention experiment. Future research should involve active practitioners to validate these findings within real-world organizational constraints.
Future research should employ longitudinal designs, include more diverse and international samples, and integrate objective or behavioral measures to better evaluate the lasting effects of business administration training on SDG integration in park management. As noted earlier, the lack of objective behavioral or environmental performance metrics should be addressed in future designs.
5. Conclusions
This study adopted a controlled experimental design with random group assignment, structured on-site training, standardized questionnaires, and robust statistical analyses to evaluate how business administration training influenced SDG perceptions in park management contexts. Integrated business administration training was associated with higher perception scores of quality education, climate action, and life on land, while consistently strengthening entrepreneurial mindset, socioeconomic value orientation, multitasking capacity, decision-making confidence, and interest in nature education. The multivariate regression results indicated that SDG perception was positively driven by social values and entrepreneurial mindset dimensions, whereas certain employee attributes and nature education factors exerted negative influences, with these relationships appearing notably weaker in the control group. Overall, business administration training showed associations rather than confirming causal effects on socially oriented entrepreneurship, structured goal setting, and value-based decision frameworks, while carefully aligning employee skill development and nature education design to avoid counterproductive effects on SDG perception formation.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Z.L. and M.Y.; methodology, M.Y.; software, Z.L.; validation, Z.L. and M.Y.; formal analysis, Z.L.; investigation, Z.L.; resources, M.Y.; data curation, Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.L.; writing—review and editing, M.Y.; visualization, M.Y.; supervision, M.Y.; project administration, M.Y.; funding acquisition, M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Academic Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Teacher Education of Chongqing University of Education (protocol code: CQUE-STD-EA-2025-001 and date of approval: 14 January 2025).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be provided on request.
Acknowledgments
Authors acknowledge reviewers and editors for their contributions to this article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| SDG | Sustainable development goal |
Appendix A
Table A1.
Questionnaire items and specific contents regarding students’ perceptions of SDG.
| Question Number | Question Text | Likert Scale (5 Point) |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Poverty reduction | 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree |
| Q2 | Hunger reduction | |
| Q3 | Health care and wellness | |
| Q4 | Quality education | |
| Q5 | Gender equality | |
| Q6 | Access to clean water and sewerage | |
| Q7 | Accessible and non-polluting energy | |
| Q8 | Decent work and economic growth | |
| Q9 | Industry, innovation and infrastructure | |
| Q10 | Reducing inequalities | |
| Q11 | Creating sustainable cities and communities | |
| Q12 | Responsible consumption and production | |
| Q13 | Weather care (climate action) | |
| Q14 | Care of underwater life | |
| Q15 | Care for life in terrestrial ecosystems | |
| Q16 | Peacebuilding, justice and corruption-free institutions | |
| Q17 | Building alliances to achieve the above goals |
Table A2.
Questionnaire items and specific contents regarding students’ perceptions of employee attributes.
Table A2.
Questionnaire items and specific contents regarding students’ perceptions of employee attributes.
| Question No. | Item Description | Likert Scale (5 Point) |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Energetic | 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree |
| Q2 | Focused on achieving goals | |
| Q3 | Look for better and new ways of doing things | |
| Q4 | Perfectionist | |
| Q5 | Don’t let obstacles get in the way of getting things done | |
| Q6 | Turn ideas into action | |
| Q7 | Team player | |
| Q8 | Seek out challenges | |
| Q9 | Prefer to work alone | |
| Q10 | See opportunities rather than obstacles | |
| Q11 | Pursue tasks and issues until results are achieved | |
| Q12 | Solve problems creatively | |
| Q13 | Get caught up in the detail of things | |
| Q14 | Get on with things without being asked | |
| Q15 | See risk as a necessary part of life | |
| Q16 | Innovative | |
| Q17 | Believe that “if something works it doesn’t need changing” | |
| Q18 | Enjoy routine and predictability | |
| Q19 | Happy to take the lead | |
| Q20 | Ask for advice when needed | |
| Q21 | Resourceful | |
| Q22 | Prefer full information before making a decision | |
| Q23 | Prefer to avoid taking risks | |
| Q24 | Persistent and don’t give up easily | |
| Q25 | Tend to take the route of least resistance | |
| Q26 | The first person to speak up | |
| Q27 | Calculate the risk versus the reward of alternative options | |
| Q28 | Like being told what to do and what is expected | |
| Q29 | Self-motivated | |
| Q30 | Get things done | |
| Q31 | Try to avoid criticism | |
| Q32 | Seek out responsibility | |
| Q33 | Easily influenced by others’ opinions | |
| Q34 | Multi-task by choice | |
| Q35 | Self-confident | |
| Q36 | Prefer to do one thing at a time | |
| Q37 | Like change and the unexpected | |
| Q38 | Likely to put off making difficult or important decisions | |
| Q39 | Need encouragement to achieve goals |
Table A3.
Questionnaire items and specific content regarding students’ perceptions of entrepreneurial mindset.
Table A3.
Questionnaire items and specific content regarding students’ perceptions of entrepreneurial mindset.
| Question No. | Statement | Likert Scale (5 Point) |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | I want to work for an organisation where I have a set role, responsibilities and promotion path | 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree |
| Q2 | A predictable income is very important to me | |
| Q3 | I like having time to think things through and consider all the issues | |
| Q4 | I prefer to work to a plan and to stick to it | |
| Q5 | I enjoy helping other people make decisions | |
| Q6 | I want my hard work and efforts to be recognised | |
| Q7 | I want to feel stable and secure in my job | |
| Q8 | I avoid making mistakes | |
| Q9 | I want to enjoy my work but other activities are important to me too | |
| Q10 | I believe that a range of factors will determine whether or not I am successful | |
| Q11 | I prefer to avoid pressure | |
| Q12 | Being told I won’t succeed makes me pause to re-think my position | |
| Q13 | I would be daunted at the prospect of having to create something new | |
| Q14 | I would prefer to be considered reliable | |
| Q15 | If I were to start up a business the main reason would be to make money |
Table A4.
Questionnaire items and specific contents regarding students’ perceptions of social and economic value preferences.
Table A4.
Questionnaire items and specific contents regarding students’ perceptions of social and economic value preferences.
| Question No. | Social | Economic | Likert Scale (5 Point) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Doing work which contributes to society is very important to me | I am really interested in working in the commercial world | 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree |
| Q2 | I want to improve people’s lives | I want to generate economic value | |
| Q3 | I am motivated to use my ideas and energy for the public good | I am motivated to use my ideas and energy for profit | |
| Q4 | I would rather work in an organization with a social mission | I would rather work in an organization with a business mission |
Table A5.
Questionnaire items and specific content regarding students’ perceptions of nature education satisfaction.
Table A5.
Questionnaire items and specific content regarding students’ perceptions of nature education satisfaction.
| Item | Statement | Bipolar | Likert Scale (5 Point) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | I usually have fun in Nature Education classes | + | 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree |
| Q2 | In Nature Education classes, I often daydream instead of thinking about what I am really doing | − | |
| Q3 | In Nature Education classes, I am usually bored | − | |
| Q4 | In Nature Education, I usually wish the class would end quickly | − | |
| Q5 | I usually find Nature Education interesting | + | |
| Q6 | When I do Nature Education, time seems to fly | + | |
| Q7 | I usually get involved in Nature Education classes | + | |
| Q8 | I usually enjoy doing Nature Education | + |
Figure A1.
Multivariate linear regression of SDG perceptions (SDG_Q4, (A,B); SDG_Q13, (C,D); SDG_15, (E)) against independent variables of perceptions about nature education satisfaction (Sat_Q3, Sat_Q5), social and economic value preferences (Soc_Q2, Soc_Q3, Soc_Q4), entrepreneurial mindset (Ent_Q1, Ent_Q4, Ent_Q5, Ent_Q6, Ent_Q8, Ent_Q9, Ent_Q13, Ent_Q14, Ent_Q15), and employee attributes (Emp_Q34, Emp_Q38, Emp_Q39) for volunteers split into groups A (A,C,E) and B (B,D). The dots represent parameter estimates, and the error bars represent standard errors toward the zero line. The number of asterisks indicates the significance of the intercept: *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001.
Figure A1.
Multivariate linear regression of SDG perceptions (SDG_Q4, (A,B); SDG_Q13, (C,D); SDG_15, (E)) against independent variables of perceptions about nature education satisfaction (Sat_Q3, Sat_Q5), social and economic value preferences (Soc_Q2, Soc_Q3, Soc_Q4), entrepreneurial mindset (Ent_Q1, Ent_Q4, Ent_Q5, Ent_Q6, Ent_Q8, Ent_Q9, Ent_Q13, Ent_Q14, Ent_Q15), and employee attributes (Emp_Q34, Emp_Q38, Emp_Q39) for volunteers split into groups A (A,C,E) and B (B,D). The dots represent parameter estimates, and the error bars represent standard errors toward the zero line. The number of asterisks indicates the significance of the intercept: *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001.
References
- Allan, M.; Rajabifard, A.; Chen, B.; Foliente, G. Utilising urban digital twins for sustainable urban regeneration: Melbourne’s Greenline planning and assessment framework. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2025, 131, 106661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Allan, M.; Rajabifard, A.; Foliente, G. Climate resilient urban regeneration and SDG 11-stakeholders’ view on pathways and digital infrastructures. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2024, 17, 2385076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Xie, Y.N.; Sun, Y.H.; Chen, Y.; Sun, S.J.; Qian, X.P.; Dong, L. Mapping socio-ecological injustice in Tokyo: Insights for land use management and climate adaptation for urban just transition. Land Use Policy 2025, 158, 107772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yin, C.C.; Zhao, W.W.; Ye, J.Q.; Muroki, M.; Pereira, P. Ecosystem carbon sequestration service supports the Sustainable Development Goals progress. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 330, 117155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Liu, Y.F.; Zhang, X.Y.; Wei, H.X.; Cao, Z.H.; Guo, P. “Sadness smile” curve: Processing emotional information from social network for evaluating thermal comfort perception. J. Therm. Biol. 2025, 127, 104025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Xiao, Y.; Wang, R.; Wang, F.; Huang, H.; Wang, J. Investigation on spatial and temporal variation of coupling coordination between socioeconomic and ecological environment: A case study of the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 136, 108667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Woolley, H. Beyond the Fence: Constructed and Found spaces for children’s outdoor play in natural and human-induced disaster contexts? Lessons from north-east Japan, and Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 56, 102155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Alipour, H.; Safaeimanesh, F.; Soosan, A. Investigating Sustainable Practices in Hotel Industry-From Employees’ Perspective: Evidence from a Mediterranean Island. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wang, Z.S.; Zhou, Y.X.; Wang, T.; Zhao, N. Efficiency of construction waste and carbon reduction in the construction industry: Based on improved three stage SBM-DEA model in China. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2025, 32, 5328–5349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Aldawsari, N.D.; Nemt-allah, M.A.; Abdellatif, M.S. Environmental Education Awareness in Light of Sustainable Development Goals and Its Relationship with Environmental Responsibility Among University Students. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wei, H.X.; Liu, Y.F.; Xu, X.H.; Zhou, C.W.; Xue, D.H.; Guo, P.; Zou, X. Retail form and vegetation interactions in street canyon cooling: A case study on 3D urban form using JL1KF01A data. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2025, 135, 107014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Alawneh, R.; Ghazali, F.; Ali, H.; Asif, M. A new index for assessing the contribution of energy efficiency in LEED 2009 certified green buildings to achieving UN sustainable development goals in Jordan. Int. J. Green Energy 2019, 16, 490–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Albert, M.; Uhlig, M. Education for sustainable development at Chemnitz University of Technology. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2022, 23, 1229–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zamora-Polo, F.; Sánchez-Martín, J.; Corrales-Serrano, M.; Espejo-Antúnez, L. What Do University Students Know about Sustainable Development Goals? A Realistic Approach to the Reception of this UN Program Amongst the Youth Population. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Alawneh, R.; Ghazali, F.E.M.; Ali, H.; Asif, M. Assessing the contribution of water and energy efficiency in green buildings to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan. Build. Environ. 2018, 146, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Acuto, M.; Leffel, B. Understanding the global ecosystem of city networks. Urban Stud. 2021, 58, 1758–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Breuer, A.; Leininger, J.; Malerba, D.; Tosun, J. Integrated policymaking: Institutional designs for implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs). World Dev. 2023, 170, 106317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Olwig, M.F. Sustainability superheroes? For-profit narratives of “doing good” in the era of the SDGs. World Dev. 2021, 142, 105427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ibáñez-Rueda, N.; Guardiola, J.; González-Gómez, F. The role of nature contact and connectedness to nature as determinants of household water use: A case study from Spain. Water Environ. J. 2022, 36, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Amiri, A.; Geravandi, S.; Rostami, F. Potential effects of school garden on students’ knowledge, attitude and experience: A pilot project on sixth grade students in Iran. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ferguson, B.C.; Brown, R.R.; Frantzeskaki, N.; de Haan, F.J.; Deletic, A. The enabling institutional context for integrated water management: Lessons from Melbourne. Water Res. 2013, 47, 7300–7314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Huang, Z.H.; Sun, Y.W.; Sheng, R.; He, K.; Wang, T.Y.; Huang, Y.Y.; Chen, X.C. Creating Forested Wetlands for Improving Ecosystem Services and Their Potential Benefits for Rural Residents in Metropolitan Areas. Water 2025, 17, 1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Li, H.; Wang, X.; Wei, H.; Xia, T.; Liu, M.; Ai, S. Geographical Distribution and Driving Meteorological Forces of Facial Expressions of Visitors in Urban Wetland Parks in Eastern China. Front. Earth Sci. 2022, 10, 781204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Romera, A.J.; Bos, A.P.; Neal, M.; Eastwood, C.R.; Chapman, D.; McWilliam, W.; Royds, D.; O’Connor, C.; Brookes, R.; Connolly, J.; et al. Designing future dairy systems for New Zealand using reflexive interactive design. Agric. Syst. 2020, 181, 102818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Singh, P.; Solomon, S.; Rastogi, P.; Kumar, K.; Rao, G.P. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Limited. Sugar Tech 2024, 26, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Bhatti, S.M.; Al Mamun, A.; Wu, M.L.; Naznen, F.; Kanwal, S.; Makhbul, Z.K.M. Modeling the significance of green orientation and culture on green innovation performance: Moderating effect of firm size and green implementation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 99855–99874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Bonfanti, A.; Mion, G.; Brunetti, F.; Vargas-Sánchez, A. The contribution of manufacturing companies to the achievement of sustainable development goals: An empirical analysis of the operationalization of sustainable business models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 2490–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Camelo, G.; Nogueira, M. The ESG Menu: Integrating Sustainable Practices in the Portuguese Agri-Food Sector. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Tuan, L.T. Fostering green product innovation through green entrepreneurial orientation: The roles of employee green creativity, green role identity, and organizational transactive memory system. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 639–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Shahzad, M.F.; Xu, S. Antecedents of international entrepreneurship and emerging technologies help to achieve sustainable development goals: Moderating role of global mindset. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 209, 123831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sahibzada, U.F.; Janjua, N.A.; Afshari, L.; Shakil, M. Leading the transition toward sustainability through digital capabilities and digital innovation: The role of employee characteristics. J. Innov. Knowl. 2025, 10, 100723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wang, L.; Wang, X.P.; Wei, H.X.; Liu, Y.F.; Zhou, C.W.; Guo, P. Perceived Green-blue Spaces Combined with Road Network for Urban Park Visitors in South China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2025, 35, 769–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Burinskiene, A.; Serzante, M. Digitalisation as the Indicator of the Evidence of Sustainability in the European Union. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Alhazemi, A. Integrating ESG Framework with Social Sustainability Metrics: A Dual SEM-PLS Formative-Reflective Model Perspective. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Anser, M.K.; Naeem, M.; Ali, S.; Ali, S.; Javid, R. The relationship between artificial intelligence and environmental performance: The mediating role of external environmental factors. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Babalola, S.O.; Daramola, M.O.; Iwarere, S.A. Socio-economic impacts of energy access through off-grid systems in rural communities: A case study of southwest Nigeria. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2022, 380, 20210140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Liu, Y.F.; Cao, Z.H.; Wei, H.X.; Guo, P. Decoding prediction of PM2.5 against jointly street-tree canopy size and running vehicle density using big data in streetscapes. Urban Clim. 2025, 59, 102282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Bezeljak, P.; Torkar, G.; Möller, A. Understanding Austrian middle school students’ connectedness with nature. J. Environ. Educ. 2023, 54, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Adhikari, B.; Schenk, N.V.; Chettri, N.; Fischer, M.; Prescott, G.W.; Urbach, D. Perceptions of nature’s contributions to people across an elevational gradient in eastern Nepal. People Nat. 2025, 7, 1396–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Baser-Kanbak, C.; Sahin, E. ‘Human-nature relations like a boomerang’: A case study on children’s visions of nature. Environ. Educ. Res. 2026, 32, 21–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Andreoni, V.; Richard, A. Exploring the interconnected nature of the sustainable development goals: The 2030 SDGs Game as a pedagogical tool for interdisciplinary education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2024, 25, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Audley, S.; Ginsburg, J.L.; Furlong, C. “We Don’t Always Have to Be Talking about It”: Moral Reasoning in US Early Childhood Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Arslan, S.; Curle, S. Institutionalising English as a foreign language teachers for global sustainability: Perceptions of education for sustainable development in Turkey. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2024, 125, 102353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Avcu, Y.E.; Yaman, Y. The Effect of Virtual Reality (VR) Settings on Nature Relatedness and Attitudes Towards Environment in Gifted Students. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2025, 34, 327–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Aazami, M.; Shanazi, K. Tourism wetlands and rural sustainable livelihood: The case from Iran. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour.-Res. Plan. Manag. 2020, 30, 100284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Xu, L.S.; Ao, C.L.; Mao, B.Q.; Cheng, Y.; Sun, B.S.; Wang, J.X.; Liu, B.Q.; Ma, J. Which is more Important, Ecological Conservation or Recreational Service? Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Wetland Nature Reserve Management. Wetlands 2020, 40, 2381–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Van Hoof, J.; Van Petegem, P. Effective field trips in nature: The interplay between novelty and learning. J. Biol. Educ. 2019, 53, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska, A.; Vaznoniene, G.; Vaznonis, B. Who Cares for Nature in Rural Areas? Exploration of Relationships between People’s Socio-Economic Characteristics and the Perception of Nature as a Value in Poland and Lithuania. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Bates, R.; Vogel, S.; Brenner, B.; Schmid, E. Empirical scale development of meta-competences for interdisciplinary teaching in the context of the SDGs. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2025, 26, 466–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Vasconcelos, C.; Silva, J.; Calheiros, C.S.C.; Mikusinski, G.; Iwinska, K.; Skaltsa, I.G.; Krakowska, K. Teaching Sustainable Development Goals to University Students: A Cross-Country Case-Based Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zakharova, O.V.; Suvorova, L.G.; Bogdanova, M.V.; Zakharov, A.V.; Permyakov, A.; Malykh, I.Y. Environmental Education: Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Peoples in Western Siberia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhou, C.W.; Yan, L.B.; Yu, L.F.; Wei, H.X.; Guan, H.M.; Shang, C.F.; Chen, F.Y.; Bao, J. Effect of Short-term Forest Bathing in Urban Parks on Perceived Anxiety of Young-adults: A Pilot Study in Guiyang, Southwest China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Pedraza-Rodríguez, J.A.; Ruiz-Vélez, A.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, M.I.; Fernández-Esquinas, M. Management skills and organizational culture as sources of innovation for firms in peripheral regions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 191, 122518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Liu, J.; Li, P.; Shahzad, U. Corporate biodiversity risk exposure and performance aspiration deficit. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2025, 104, 104626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gilmore, A.; Simmons, G. Integrating sustainable tourism and marketing management: Can National Parks provide the framework for strategic change? Strateg. Change 2007, 16, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rumagit, M.E.; Massie, J.D.D.; Pandowo, M. Self-assessment among the students of international business administration sam ratulangi university on the entrepreneurial potential. J. EMBA J. Ris. Ekon. Manaj. Bisnis Dan Akunt. 2017, 5, 4054–4064. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Barrios, V.; Mediavilla-Saldaña, L.; Gómez-Encinas, V.; Salinero, J.J. Effect of the Organizational Model of the Subject of Activities in the Natural Environment on Students’ Satisfaction and Learning. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Novieastari, E.; Pujasari, H.; Abdul Rahman, L.O.; Ganefianty, A.; Rerung, M.P. Knowledge, perception, and awareness about Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) among students of a public university in Indonesia. Int. J. Health Promot. Educ. 2022, 60, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Adhikari, D.R.; Shrestha, P. Knowledge management initiatives for achieving sustainable development goal 4.7: Higher education institutions’ stakeholder perspectives. J. Knowl. Manag. 2023, 27, 1109–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Agirreazkuenaga, L. Embedding Sustainable Development Goals in Education. Teachers’ Perspective about Education for Sustainability in the Basque Autonomous Community. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yang, S.C.; Luo, Y.F.; Chou, K.Y.; Lin, T.L. Connecting civic responsibility and individual agency: Exploring sustainable development practices among university students in Taiwan. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2025, 27, 1013–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Melchior, F.; Angelidou, I.A.; Chorianopoulou, M.; Teichmann, B. The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: The moral judgement of the lay public. Front. Genet. 2025, 16, 1594724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Mezzarobba, S.; Cosentino, C.; Putzolu, M.; Panuccio, F.; Fabbrini, G.; Valente, D.; Costi, S.; Galeoto, G.; Pelosin, E. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (NFOG-Q-IT) in people with Parkinson disease: A validity and reliability study. Neurol. Sci. 2023, 44, 3133–3140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ahmadi-Gh, Z.; Bello-Pintado, A. Sustainability isomorphism in buyer-supplier relationships: The impact of supply chain leadership. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 3635–3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zada, M.; Zada, S.; Dhar, B.K.; Ping, C.; Sarkar, S. Digital Leadership and Sustainable Development: Enhancing Firm Sustainability Through Green Innovation and Top Management Innovativeness. Sustain. Dev. 2025, 33, 6704–6716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Adhikari, D.R.; Shrestha, P. The context and concept of higher education for sustainable development: The case of Nepal. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2024, 25, 238–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Al Dulaimi, A.M.Z.; Al Marzooqi, S.M.; Lubis, A.; Siren, N.B.H.; Kassim, S.B. Innovation capabilities and human development competitiveness in education sector: Evidence from UAE. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 933432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Adams, D.; Osman, R.; Sisavath, S.; Boupha, B. Leading inclusive education initiatives: Comparative insights from Malaysia, Lao PDR, and Brunei. Int. J. Dev. Disabil. 2025, 71, 814–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Almansour, M. Business Incubators and Entrepreneurial Training: Leveraging Technological Innovations and Digital Marketing. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024, 71, 13586–13597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Korphaibool, V.; Chindasombatcharoen, P.; Chatjuthamard, P.; Jiraporn, P.; Treepongkaruna, S. Business sustainability under the influence of female directors toward the risk-taking in innovation: Evidence from textual analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 1578–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Obeso, M.; Perez-Perez, M.; Garcia-Piqueres, G.; Serrano-Bedia, A.M. Enhancing students’ learning outcomes through smartphones: A case study of using instagram in higher management education. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2023, 21, 100885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Leon, R.D.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R.; Alfaro-Saiz, J.J. Social networking learning through enterprise social networks: A multi-criteria decision-making model. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2025, 33, 3512–3525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ilie, C.; Quintana, J.C.M. Is sustainable management education contributing to gender equality? Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2023, 21, 100886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Arslan, T.V.; Durak, S.; Aytac, D.O. Attaining SDG11: Can sustainability assessment tools be used for improved transformation of neighbourhoods in historic city centers? Nat. Resour. Forum 2016, 40, 180–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhao, B.; Zhang, H.; Mulder, J.; Sun, X.T.; Okkenhaug, G.; Jin, Y.L.; Chen, W.S.; Liu, R.; Fang, L.; Li, F. Sustainable risk management of heavy metal contaminated agricultural soil: Current frameworks and future perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 393, 127118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Akoorie, M.E.M.; Ding, Q.; Li, Y.F. A passion for learning Chinese? Investigating a community-based Chinese cultural education school in Hamilton, New Zealand. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2011, 5, 460–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Amah, O.E. Leadership styles and relational energy: Do all leaderships styles generate and transmit equal relational energy? S. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2018, 49, a231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Abulibdeh, A.; Zaidan, E.S.; Abulibdeh, R. Navigating the confluence of artificial intelligence and education for sustainable development in the era of industry 4.0: Challenges, opportunities, and ethical dimensions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 437, 140527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Adams, F.; Mensah, A.; Ullah, A.; Quaye, J.; Essel, B.K.C.; Etuah, S. Sustainable Culinary Conservation: Pioneering Efforts to Minimize Food Waste in Ghana’s Fast-Food Industry. Sustain. Dev. 2025, 33, 3348–3376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ahmad, N.; Samad, S.; Han, H. Charting new terrains: How CSR initiatives shape employee creativity and contribute to UN-SDGs in a knowledge-driven world. J. Innov. Knowl. 2024, 9, 100557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Grove, W.A.; Hussey, A.J. Preferential Admission and MBA Outcomes: Mismatch Effects by Race and Gender. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2014, 14, 613–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhao, Z.Y.; Sidi, Z.L. Exploring the impact of education on sustainable resource efficiency: The interplay with CO2 emissions, renewable energy, and agriculture in G20 nations. Front. Environ. Sci. 2025, 13, 1623978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Table 1.
Summary of the demographic information of the volunteer students divided into two groups.
| Category | Overall | Group A | Group B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Female | 58 (58%) 1 | 33 (66%) | 25 (50%) |
| Male | 42 (42%) | 17 (34%) | 25 (50%) |
| Age | |||
| 18 | 17 (17%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (16%) |
| 19 | 23 (23%) | 13 (26%) | 10 (20%) |
| 20 | 17 (17%) | 10 (20%) | 7 (14%) |
| 21 | 18 (18%) | 9 (18%) | 9 (18%) |
| 22 | 12 (12%) | 5 (10%) | 7 (14%) |
| 23 | 13 (13%) | 4 (8%) | 9 (18%) |
| Major | |||
| Economics | 24 (24%) | 12 (24%) | 12 (24%) |
| Marketing | 24 (24%) | 14 (28%) | 10 (20%) |
| Human Resources | 23 (23%) | 11 (22%) | 12 (24%) |
| Business Administration | 17 (17%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (18%) |
| International Business | 12 (12%) | 5 (10%) | 7 (14%) |
| Grade | |||
| Grade 1 | 22 (22%) | 14 (28%) | 8 (16%) |
| Grade 2 | 15 (15%) | 9 (18%) | 6 (12%) |
| Grade 3 | 26 (26%) | 11 (22%) | 15 (30%) |
| Grade 4 | 37 (37%) | 16 (32%) | 21 (42%) |
1 Results are presented as counts and percentage ratios in parentheses.
Table 2.
Responses of volunteer students to their perceptions of SDG in two groups, namely groups A and B.
Table 2.
Responses of volunteer students to their perceptions of SDG in two groups, namely groups A and B.
| Items | Responses 1 | ANOVA 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | F Value | p Value | |
| Q1 | 3.08 ± 1.12 a 3 | 3.08 ± 1.28 a | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Q2 | 2.94 ± 1.02 a | 3.30 ± 1.18 a | 2.66 | 0.106 |
| Q3 | 3.38 ± 1.19 a | 3.18 ± 1.22 a | 0.68 | 0.410 |
| Q4 | 3.70 ± 0.81 a | 3.16 ± 0.91 b | 9.76 4 | 0.0023 |
| Q5 | 3.30 ± 1.07 a | 3.14 ± 1.20 a | 0.50 | 0.483 |
| Q6 | 2.94 ± 1.22 a | 3.10 ± 1.16 a | 0.45 | 0.504 |
| Q7 | 2.84 ± 1.15 a | 2.84 ± 1.23 a | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Q8 | 2.94 ± 1.19 a | 3.02 ± 1.33 a | 0.10 | 0.752 |
| Q9 | 2.96 ± 1.24 a | 3.34 ± 1.10 a | 2.62 | 0.109 |
| Q10 | 3.28 ± 1.11 a | 2.92 ± 1.29 a | 2.24 | 0.138 |
| Q11 | 3.00 ± 1.23 a | 2.90 ± 1.22 a | 0.17 | 0.684 |
| Q12 | 3.08 ± 1.16 a | 3.08 ± 1.12 a | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Q13 | 3.44 ± 0.70 a | 2.86 ± 0.78 b | 15.17 | 0.0002 |
| Q14 | 2.82 ± 1.02 a | 2.84 ± 1.17 a | 0.01 | 0.928 |
| Q15 | 3.56 ± 0.73 a | 2.90 ± 0.93 b | 15.51 | 0.0002 |
| Q16 | 2.96 ± 1.11 a | 2.94 ± 1.00 a | 0.01 | 0.925 |
| Q17 | 3.48 ± 1.09 a | 3.22 ± 0.95 a | 1.61 | 0.208 |
| Total | 53.70 ± 5.04 a | 51.82 ± 4.63 a | 3.77 | 0.055 |
1 Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation; 2 ANOVA, analysis of variance; 3 different lower-case letters a, b indicate significant differences in a row; 4 Values in bold font suggest significant results.
Table 3.
Responses of volunteer students to their perceptions of employee attributes in two groups, namely groups A and B.
Table 3.
Responses of volunteer students to their perceptions of employee attributes in two groups, namely groups A and B.
| Items | Responses 1 | ANOVA 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | F Value | p-Value | |
| Q1 | 3.20 ± 1.44 a 3 | 3.04 ± 1.46 a | 0.30 | 0.582 |
| Q2 | 3.52 ± 1.27 a | 3.06 ± 1.36 a | 3.06 | 0.083 |
| Q3 | 3.50 ± 1.22 a | 3.04 ± 1.52 a | 2.78 | 0.099 |
| Q4 | 3.54 ± 1.23 a | 3.44 ± 1.45 a | 0.14 | 0.711 |
| Q5 | 3.70 ± 1.25 a | 3.52 ± 1.42 a | 0.45 | 0.502 |
| Q6 | 3.66 ± 1.27 a | 3.40 ± 1.48 a | 0.88 | 0.349 |
| Q7 | 3.48 ± 1.07 a | 3.22 ± 1.34 a | 1.14 | 0.288 |
| Q8 | 3.62 ± 1.18 a | 3.30 ± 1.50 a | 1.41 | 0.238 |
| Q9 | 3.30 ± 1.25 a | 3.04 ± 1.59 a | 0.83 | 0.366 |
| Q10 | 3.20 ± 1.46 a | 3.30 ± 1.45 a | 0.12 | 0.731 |
| Q11 | 3.24 ± 1.35 a | 3.24 ± 1.33 a | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Q12 | 3.76 ± 1.13 a | 3.42 ± 1.54 a | 1.58 | 0.212 |
| Q13 | 3.32 ± 1.52 a | 3.32 ± 1.48 a | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Q14 | 3.30 ± 1.37 a | 3.36 ± 1.26 a | 0.05 | 0.820 |
| Q15 | 3.30 ± 1.23 a | 3.36 ± 1.50 a | 0.05 | 0.827 |
| Q16 | 3.30 ± 1.33 a | 2.92 ± 1.40 a | 1.94 | 0.167 |
| Q17 | 3.36 ± 1.35 a | 3.20 ± 1.54 a | 0.31 | 0.582 |
| Q18 | 3.30 ± 1.36 a | 3.12 ± 1.48 a | 0.40 | 0.528 |
| Q19 | 3.44 ± 1.20 a | 3.22 ± 1.37 a | 0.73 | 0.396 |
| Q20 | 3.68 ± 1.30 a | 3.20 ± 1.50 a | 2.93 | 0.090 |
| Q21 | 3.34 ± 1.38 a | 3.26 ± 1.50 a | 0.08 | 0.782 |
| Q22 | 3.16 ± 1.54 a | 3.50 ± 1.40 a | 1.33 | 0.252 |
| Q23 | 3.20 ± 1.36 a | 3.46 ± 1.42 a | 0.88 | 0.351 |
| Q24 | 3.26 ± 1.40 a | 3.36 ± 1.56 a | 0.11 | 0.737 |
| Q25 | 3.16 ± 1.27 a | 3.44 ± 1.34 a | 1.15 | 0.286 |
| Q26 | 3.42 ± 1.37 a | 3.22 ± 1.47 a | 0.49 | 0.484 |
| Q27 | 3.58 ± 1.18 a | 3.22 ± 1.46 a | 1.84 | 0.178 |
| Q28 | 3.46 ± 1.34 a | 3.28 ± 1.18 a | 0.51 | 0.478 |
| Q29 | 3.48 ± 1.46 a | 3.34 ± 1.38 a | 0.24 | 0.623 |
| Q30 | 3.16 ± 1.49 a | 3.12 ± 1.42 a | 0.02 | 0.891 |
| Q31 | 3.36 ± 1.38 a | 3.24 ± 1.49 a | 0.17 | 0.677 |
| Q32 | 3.48 ± 1.28 a | 3.44 ± 1.37 a | 0.02 | 0.881 |
| Q33 | 3.58 ± 1.21 a | 3.28 ± 1.43 a | 1.28 | 0.261 |
| Q34 | 3.50 ± 1.36 a 4 | 2.90 ± 1.49 b | 4.43 | 0.038 |
| Q35 | 3.46 ± 1.50 a | 3.20 ± 1.53 a | 0.74 | 0.392 |
| Q36 | 3.18 ± 1.47 a | 3.42 ± 1.49 a | 0.66 | 0.418 |
| Q37 | 3.20 ± 1.31 a | 3.56 ± 1.40 a | 1.76 | 0.188 |
| Q38 | 3.68 ± 1.32 a | 3.10 ± 1.45 b | 4.40 | 0.039 |
| Q39 | 3.76 ± 1.30 a | 3.04 ± 1.47 b | 6.72 | 0.011 |
1 Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation; 2 ANOVA, analysis of variance; 3 different lower-case letters a, b indicate significant differences in a row; 4 Values in bold font suggest significant results.
Table 4.
Responses of volunteer students to their perceptions of entrepreneurial mindset in two groups, namely groups A and B.
Table 4.
Responses of volunteer students to their perceptions of entrepreneurial mindset in two groups, namely groups A and B.
| Items | Responses 1 | ANOVA 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | F Value | p-Value | |
| Q1 | 3.82 ± 1.19 a 3 | 2.98 ± 1.50 b | 9.58 | 0.0026 |
| Q2 | 3.70 ± 1.36 a | 3.24 ± 1.49 a | 2.60 | 0.1103 |
| Q3 | 3.62 ± 1.23 a | 3.18 ± 1.16 a | 3.41 | 0.0679 |
| Q4 | 3.74 ± 1.26 a | 3.18 ± 1.26 b | 4.96 | 0.0283 |
| Q5 | 3.48 ± 1.31 a | 2.82 ± 1.35 b | 6.14 | 0.0149 |
| Q6 | 3.54 ± 1.15 a | 2.96 ± 1.37 b | 5.27 | 0.0238 |
| Q7 | 3.62 ± 1.18 a | 3.14 ± 1.37 a | 3.53 | 0.0632 |
| Q8 | 3.42 ± 1.39 a | 2.84 ± 1.38 b | 4.41 | 0.0383 |
| Q9 | 3.80 ± 1.28 a | 3.24 ± 1.38 b | 4.44 | 0.0377 |
| Q10 | 3.56 ± 1.31 a | 3.40 ± 1.29 a | 0.38 | 0.5406 |
| Q11 | 3.70 ± 1.23 a | 3.20 ± 1.37 a | 3.68 | 0.0580 |
| Q12 | 3.38 ± 1.40 a | 3.08 ± 1.34 a | 1.20 | 0.2756 |
| Q13 | 3.78 ± 1.28 a | 2.72 ± 1.34 b | 16.32 | 0.0001 |
| Q14 | 3.66 ± 1.21 a | 2.84 ± 1.27 b | 10.99 | 0.0013 |
| Q15 | 3.70 ± 1.15 a | 3.00 ± 1.25 b | 8.54 | 0.0043 |
1 Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation; 2 ANOVA, analysis of variance; 3 different lower-case letters a, b indicate significant differences in a row; values in bold font suggest significant results.
Table 5.
Responses of volunteer students to social and economic value preferences in two groups, namely groups A and B.
Table 5.
Responses of volunteer students to social and economic value preferences in two groups, namely groups A and B.
| Items | Responses 1 | ANOVA 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | F Value | p-Value | |
| Q1 | 3.52 ± 1.27 a | 3.14 ± 1.43 a | 1.98 | 0.1623 |
| Q2 | 3.78 ± 1.20 a 3 | 3.16 ± 1.17 b | 6.86 | 0.0102 |
| Q3 | 3.96 ± 1.18 a | 3.24 ± 1.30 b | 8.41 | 0.0046 |
| Q4 | 3.88 ± 1.19 a | 2.90 ± 1.43 b | 13.86 | 0.0003 |
1 Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation; 2 ANOVA, analysis of variance; 3 different lower-case letters a, b indicate significant differences in a row; values in bold font suggest significant results.
Table 6.
Responses of volunteer students to nature education satisfaction instrument in two groups, namely groups A and B.
Table 6.
Responses of volunteer students to nature education satisfaction instrument in two groups, namely groups A and B.
| Items | Responses 1 | ANOVA 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | F Value | p-Value | |
| Q1 | 3.64 ± 0.60 a | 3.42 ± 0.73 a | 2.71 | 0.1027 |
| Q2 | 3.10 ± 0.81 a | 3.32 ± 0.68 a | 2.14 | 0.1466 |
| Q3 | 2.92 ± 0.63 b 3 | 3.22 ± 0.82 a | 4.22 | 0.0426 |
| Q4 | 3.06 ± 0.74 a | 2.88 ± 0.80 a | 1.37 | 0.2453 |
| Q5 | 3.80 ± 0.67 a | 3.44 ± 0.76 b | 6.31 | 0.0136 |
| Q6 | 3.56 ± 0.70 a | 3.56 ± 0.79 a | 0.00 | 1.0000 |
| Q7 | 3.62 ± 0.60 a | 3.42 ± 0.64 a | 2.58 | 0.1113 |
| Q8 | 3.60 ± 0.67 a | 3.58 ± 0.84 a | 0.02 | 0.8952 |
1 Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation; 2 ANOVA, analysis of variance; 3 different lower-case letters a, b indicate significant differences in a row; values in bold font suggest significant results.
Table 7.
Parameters interpreting MLR fit for dependent variables of SDG_Q4, SDG_Q13, and SDG_Q15 against questionnaire responses in Groups A and B.
Table 7.
Parameters interpreting MLR fit for dependent variables of SDG_Q4, SDG_Q13, and SDG_Q15 against questionnaire responses in Groups A and B.
| Dependent Variables | Group | F Value | p Value | R-Square | Adj R-Sq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDG_Q4 | A | 7.44 | <0.0001 | 0.7981 | 0.6909 |
| B | 7.89 | <0.0001 | 0.8074 | 0.7051 | |
| SDG_Q13 | A | 5.16 | <0.0001 | 0.7327 | 0.5906 |
| B | 2.34 | 0.0187 | 0.5538 | 0.3168 | |
| SDG_Q15 | A | 4.61 | <0.0001 | 0.7101 | 0.5560 |
| B | 0.80 | 0.6797 | 0.2986 | 0.0741 |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Yu, M.; Li, Z. Sustainability Perception in Park Management Training: Evidence from Undergraduate Business Administration Education. J. Parks 2026, 1, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/jop1020007
AMA Style
Yu M, Li Z. Sustainability Perception in Park Management Training: Evidence from Undergraduate Business Administration Education. Journal of Parks. 2026; 1(2):7. https://doi.org/10.3390/jop1020007
Chicago/Turabian StyleYu, Mingwen, and Zhipeng Li. 2026. "Sustainability Perception in Park Management Training: Evidence from Undergraduate Business Administration Education" Journal of Parks 1, no. 2: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/jop1020007
APA StyleYu, M., & Li, Z. (2026). Sustainability Perception in Park Management Training: Evidence from Undergraduate Business Administration Education. Journal of Parks, 1(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/jop1020007
