Keywords
social awareness
environmental pollution
How to Cite
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to assess the level of public awareness of environmental threats and their perceived impact on the health and lives of citizens, in the context of implementing the European Green Deal (EGD). The study focuses on analyzing the opinions of users of information on environmental pollution, its health effects, and the perceived opportunities and barriers related to implementing the EGD. Specific objectives include: (1) identifying public opinions on selected diseases related to environmental degradation; (2) assessing the perceived benefits and risks of implementing the EGD; and (3) analyzing the relationship between demographic characteristics and the level of acceptance for pro-environmental activities. The study is based on a survey method using a questionnaire, supplemented by a literature review. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to examine the significance of relationships between variables. The results indicate that respondents perceive a link between environmental pollution and diseases such as asthma, cancer, and lung disease. EGD is seen as an opportunity to improve environmental quality and public health, although implementation barriers such as cost, lack of public acceptance, and excessive regulation are also identified. This study contributes to our understanding of the role of public perception as a factor in the effectiveness of EU environmental policies. Key Findings of the article are : (1) Public Awareness: The study reveals that society is aware of the threats posed by environmental pollution to health and life. Diseases such as asthma, chronic lung diseases, and cancer are highlighted as major concerns ; (2) Strengths of the EGD: The EGD is seen as beneficial for providing stable electricity supply, improving the natural environment, reducing waste, and promoting clean production. It also emphasizes sustainable agriculture, circular economy, and creating new jobs ; (3) Weaknesses of the EGD: High implementation costs, lack of social acceptance, time-consuming political negotiations, and excessive regulations are identified as significant weaknesses. There are also concerns about the administrative costs and potential problems for small and densely populated countries in meeting EU requirements ; (4) Opportunities: The EGD presents opportunities for future generations to live in a better environment, advancements in therapeutic interventions, and the creation of green jobs. It also promotes multidisciplinary cooperation and better mental health for urban inhabitants; (5) Threats: Potential threats include limiting traditional agriculture, nuclear safety risks, resistance to political changes, and uncertainties about the effectiveness of planned interventions. There are also concerns about economic disruptions in high-emission industries and regions.
References
Adamowicz, M. (2021). The European Green Deal and the “greening” of agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy. Rural Areas and Agriculture, 192(3), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.344710
Bacenetti, J., Lovarelli, D., Facchinetti, D., & Pessina, D. (2018). An environmental comparison of techniques to reduce pollutants emissions related to agricultural tractors. Biosystems Engineering, 171, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.04.014
Borkowski, P. (2021). The European Green Deal as a tool for modernization and legitimization of the European project. Sprawy Międzynarodowe, 74(3), 17–45. https://doi.org/10.35757/SM.2021.74.3.02
Burgoński, P. (2023). The ideational dimension of the European Green Deal. European Review, 31(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.23.1
European Commission. (2018). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank, A Clean Planet for all A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy, Pub. L. No. 52018DC0773. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0773
European Commission. (n.d.). The European Green Deal. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
European Commission. (n.d.). Delivering the European Green Deal. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal_en
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, Pub. L. No. 02003L0087-20230605 (2003). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02003L0087-20230605
Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, Pub. L. No. 32018R0841, 156 OJ L (2018a). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018R0841
Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030, Pub. L. No. 32018R0842, 156 OJ L (2018b). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018R0842
Fischer, C., & Newell, R. G. (2008). Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55(2), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2007.11.001
Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414531627
Gobin, A., & Uljee, I. (2025). European Green Deal strategies for agriculture in dynamic urbanised landscapes. Land, 14(2), 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020424
Hao, N., & Dragomir, V. D. (2025). Renewable energy, sustainable business models, and decarbonization in the European Union: Comparative analysis of corporate sustainability reports. Sustainability, 17(8), 3646. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083646
Hauck, S., Greif, L., Benner, N., & Ovtcharova, J. (2025). Advancing sustainable additive manufacturing: Analyzing parameter influences and machine learning approaches for CO₂ prediction. Sustainability, 17(9), 3804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093804
Jordan, A., & Lenschow, A. (2010). Environmental policy integration: A state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.539
Nagy, G., Heiner, S. Á., & Kovács, Z. (2025). Exploring the presence and absence of academic discourse on public participation in the European Green Deal: A Central and Eastern European perspective. Societies, 15(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15030049
Nowak, Z. (2021). European Green Deal – on the way to EU climate neutrality. https://www.pism.pl/publications/The_European_Green_Deal_On_the_Way_to_EU_Climate_Neutrality
Orłowska, M., & Zarzecka, J. (2024). Presentation and assessment of the European Union's actions in the field of ecological policy. Nasze Studia, (14), 34–50. https://repozytorium.ug.edu.pl/docstore/download.seam?entityType=article&entityId=UOG488ca23e31334624bfc77d65b10cd64a&fileId=UOGcd134c9a0d78488d89491266bf5407b1
Oberthür, S., & Dupont, C. (2021). The European Union’s international climate leadership: Towards a grand climate strategy? Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 1095–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1918218
Pattak, D. C., Tahrim, F., Salehi, M., Voumik, L. C., Akter, S., Ridwan, M., Sadowska, B., & Zimon, G. (2023). The driving factors of Italy’s CO₂ emissions based on the STIRPAT model: ARDL, FMOLS, DOLS, and CCR approaches. Energies, 16(15), 5845. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16155845
Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Pereira, J. J. (2022). Relationship between economic growth, renewable energy use, technological innovation, and carbon emission towards achieving Malaysia’s Paris agreement. Environment Systems and Decisions, 42, 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09848-0
Rimpas, D., Barkas, D. E., Orfanos, V. A., & Christakis, I. (2025). Decarbonizing the transportation sector: A review on the role of electricity vehicles towards the European Green Deal for the new emission standards. Air, 3(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/air3020010
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E. F., ... & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Schreurs, M. (2016). The Paris Climate Agreement and the three largest emitters: China, the United States, and the European Union. Politics and Governance, 4(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.634
Scrioșteanu, A., & Criveanu, M. M. (2025). Sustainable transport between reality and legislation provisions - The source for the climate neutrality of the European Union. Sustainability, 17(7), 2814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072814
Sokal, K., & Kachel, M. (2025). Impact of agriculture on greenhouse gas emissions — A review. Energies, 18(9), 2272. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18092272
Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and the European Green Deal. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268112
Stankiewicz, P. (2023). Five forces of green transformation. How the European Green Deal and decarbonization affect the Polish economy. Studia BAS, (2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.31268/StudiaBAS.2023.14
Sultana, T., Hossain, M. S., Voumik, L. C., & Raihan, A. (2023). Does globalization escalate the carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from selected next-11 countries. Energy Reports, 10, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.06.020
Teijido-Murias, I., Antropov, O., López-Sánchez, C. A., Barrio-Anta, M., & Miettinen, J. (2025). Forest height and volume mapping in northern Spain with multi-source earth observation data: Method and data comparison. Forests, 16(4), 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16040563
Tkachuk, O. (2024). The European Green Deal, or how the European Union intends to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent? Politeja, 21(88/1), 325–341. https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/server/api/core/bitstreams/9ac7493d-bc3e-4ce4-91bd-8e188fb3eb46/content
Van Vuuren, D. P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D. E. H. J., van den Berg, M., Bijl, D. L., de Boer, H. S., Daioglou, V., Doelman, J. C., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Harmsen, M., Hof, A. F., van Sluisveld, M. A. E., ... & van der Zwaan, B. (2018). Alternative pathways to the 1.5°C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nature Climate Change, 8(5), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8
Wibig, J. (2020). Contemporary climate change – Observations, causes, forecasts. In K. Prandecki & M. Burchard-Dziubińska (Eds.), Climate change – Consequences for Polish society and economy (pp. 13–46).
Wolf, S., Teitge, J., Mielke, J., Schütze, F., & Jaeger, C. (2021). The European Green Deal – More than climate neutrality. Intereconomics, 56(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-0963-z
Ziemacki, Z. (2021). The European Green Deal and the reconstruction of the Polish economy – Opportunities and challenges. International Affairs, 74(3), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.35757/sm.2021.74.3.08
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Economics and Environment