2025: Crisis Management Days Book of Abstracts
Climate and global changes (food, health, waste, environment, and safety)

Ecological security and the new ecological paradigm: Perceptions and challenges

  • Emanuel Klarić,
  • Nives Jovičić
Emanuel Klarić
University of Applied Sciences Velika Gorica
Nives Jovičić
University of Applied Sciences Velika Gorica

Published 2025-05-16

Keywords

  • environmental security,
  • new ecological paradigm,
  • climate change,
  • environmental preservation

How to Cite

Klarić, E., & Jovičić, N. (2025). Ecological security and the new ecological paradigm: Perceptions and challenges. Crisis Management Days. Retrieved from https://ojs.vvg.hr/index.php/DKU/article/view/722

Copyright (c) 2025 Author

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Introduction

In the context of rapid globalization, climate change, and technological advancement, environmental issues have become key challenges for modern societies. Ecological security involves the protection of natural resources and the preservation of the environment from threats, which may be either natural or anthropogenic in nature. At the same time, the new ecological paradigm represents a significant shift in the way we think about nature and humanity’s role within it, emphasizing sustainability, the interconnectedness of all forms of life, and long-term responsibility to future generations.

This paper explores the connection between ecological security and the new ecological paradigm, analyzing how these two concepts shape environmental policies and practices. Ecological security emphasizes the need to protect natural resources, while the new ecological paradigm calls for a change in societal values toward the environment, highlighting sustainability and balance. Integrating these two approaches can help shape a more sustainable society, where economic development and environmental preservation are not opposing goals, but interconnected elements of global security.

The aim of the research was to analyze the perception of sustainability, ecological risks, and human relations with nature, and their impact on support for the new ecological paradigm, with a focus on students as future decision-makers.

 

Methodology

The research was conducted on students from Veleučilište Velika Gorica (N = 95) in the Crisis Management program, through an online survey. The data collection instrument was the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, which measures attitudes toward ecological security and sustainability. Respondents answered 15 statements using a Likert scale (1: Strongly disagree, 5: Strongly agree). The data were analyzed in MS Excel, using frequencies and percentages, and were graphically presented.

 

Results

The results of the research indicate that a large number of respondents express concern about the current state of the environment and the negative impact of human activities on nature. Many respondents agree with the statements that we are approaching the Earth's capacity to support the growing population and that human interventions could have catastrophic consequences. Additionally, most respondents believe that the balance of nature is very fragile and can easily be disrupted, while a smaller number of respondents are divided in their opinion on whether humans have the right to alter the natural environment.

Particularly interesting is that the results point to a high level of ecological awareness among students, who recognize the limitations of resources and potential ecological disasters, while also supporting sustainable practices and policies. Higher ecological awareness correlates with stronger support for sustainable development and less support for human dominance over nature.

The main challenges in implementing the new ecological paradigm, as identified by the respondents, are political and economic barriers, including the reluctance of many countries and companies to adopt sustainable practices due to short-term financial interests. Additionally, the lack of education and public awareness is recognized as a key obstacle to the successful implementation of sustainable practices.

Although there are different political and economic interests, the results show that there is significant potential for a shift in societal values toward the environment, which could lead to global cooperation in preserving natural resources and achieving sustainable development.

References

  1. Buttel, F. H. (1987). New directions in environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 465-488.
  2. Buttel, F. H. (2023). Environmental sociology and the explanation of environmental reform. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 306-344.
  3. Catton, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13(1), 41-49.
  4. Cifrić, I. (1989). Socijalna ekologija. Globus.Zagreb
  5. Cifrić, I. (1992). Zaštita okoline u kontekstu konflikata aktera. Sociologija ekologija, 1(4), 513-534.
  6. Cifrić, I. (2002). Okoliš i održivi razvoj: Ugroženost okoliša i estetika krajolika. Zagreb.
  7. Črnjar, M. (2002). Ekonomika i politika zaštite okoliša. Ekonomski fakultet i Glosa.Rijeka
  8. Čulig, B. (1992). Ekološke orijentacije i informiranost o ekološkoj problematici. Socijalna ekologija, 1(1), 37-50.
  9. Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2015). Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press.
  10. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 19-28.
  11. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
  12. Goodstein, E. S. (2003). Ekonomika i okoliš. Mate, Zagreb.
  13. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford University Press.
  14. Herceg, N. (2013). Okoliš i održivi razvoj. Zagreb. SYNOPSIS
  15. Jambrović, F. (2014). Mjere i postupci zaštite okoliša i obrazovanje o zaštiti okoliša. Zbornik radova Međimurskog veleučilišta u Čakovcu, 5(1), 49-54.
  16. Kalanj, R. (1994). Moderni društvo i izazovi razvoja. Zagreb. Kalanj Rade
  17. Kirn, A. (1992). Od antropocentrične k ekocentričnoj etici. Socijalna ekologija, 1(3), 37-50.
  18. Korenčić K., Kosntanca; M. D. Raguž, B. (2023). Ekonomska i ekološka paradigma – od razlika do zajedničkih rješenja // Što nam donosi leadership četvrte industrijske revolucije (IR4.0)? Ekonomske, društvene i obrazovne perspektive : zbornik radova 12. međunarodne znanstveno-stručne konferencije PAR International Leadership Conference – PILC 2023. Rijeka: Veleučilište PAR, str. 75-96
  19. Korošec, L., & Smolčić Jurdana, D. (2013). Politika zaštite okoliša - integralni dio koncepcije održivog razvoja Europske unije. Ekonomski pregled, 64(6), 605-629.
  20. Kostović-Vranješ, V. Jukić, T. (2011). Ekološka pismenost, sodobna vzgojno-izobraževalna paradigma // Raziskovalni vidiki ekologije v kontekstu edukacije : znanstvena monografija / Duh, Matjaž (ur.). Maribor : Rakičan: Pedagoška fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru ; Raziskovalno Izobraževalno Središče Dvorec Rakičan, str. 71-83
  21. Krznar, T. Markus T. (2009). Dubinska ekologija i suvremena ekološka kriza. Jedan bioekološki pregled. Hrvatsko sociološko društvo. Institut za društvena istraživanja - Zavod za sociologiju Odsjeka za sociologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Ekonomska i ekohistorija, 5(5), 226-261.
  22. Kufrin, K. (2002). Skala nove ekološke paradigme - još jedna provjera i pokušaj revizije. Socijalna ekologija, 11(4), 277-296.
  23. Lundmark, C. (2007). The new ecological paradigm revisited: anchoring the NEP scale in environmental ethics. Environmental education research, 13(3), 329-347.
  24. Stanojev, D. (2013). Ekonomska kriza i kriza ekonomske znanosti. Ekonomski fakultet, Rijeka.
  25. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723-743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001 (1.8.2024.)