Measuring Geoethical Awareness and Engagement Profiles in UNESCO Global Geoparks: A Validated Scale and Evidence from Greece

Geoethics provides a critical framework for understanding and guiding responsible human–Earth interactions, particularly within UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGps), which function as living laboratories for geoconservation, geoeducation, and sustainable regional development. Despite growing recognition of geoethics within the geosciences, validated and standardized tools for assessing geoethical awareness—and for understanding how societal engagement with geoheritage varies across socioecological contexts—remain limited. This study addresses this gap by integrating the development, validation, and application of a Geoethical Awareness Scale (GAS) with a comprehensive mapping of residents’ geoethical perceptions and engagement profiles across nine Hellenic UGGps (Lesvos Island, Psiloritis, Chelmos–Vouraikos, Vikos–Aoos, Sitia, Grevena–Kozani, Kefalonia–Ithaca, Lavreotiki, and Meteora–Pyli).

Using an online questionnaire administered to 798 residents, we developed and psychometrically validated a 32-item GAS structured across 16 thematic axes. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified six robust dimensions of geoethical awareness: (1) geological heritage conservation and sustainable georesource use, (2) community engagement and collaborative governance, (3) sustainability through geoenvironmental education, (4) environmental challenges and risk adaptation, (5) sustainable geotourism, and (6) climate awareness and ecosystem resilience. These factors explained 60.12% of the total variance, with reliability indices ranging from acceptable to excellent. Structural equation modeling confirmed the internal validity and generalizability of the scale, establishing GAS as a reliable tool for assessing geoethical awareness in designated, protected, and managed socioecological systems.

Beyond scale validation, spatial and comparative analyses revealed generally high levels of geoethical awareness across Hellenic UGGps, alongside significant regional variability linked to local context, management visibility, and outreach practices. Sitia UGGp consistently exhibited the highest awareness levels, whereas Psiloritis and Lavreotiki UGGps showed lower scores in dimensions related to community engagement and sustainable geotourism, highlighting opportunities for targeted governance and educational interventions. Demographic and experiential factors—particularly age, education level, urban origin, prior visits to UGGps, and membership in environmental organizations—significantly influenced geoethical perceptions, underscoring the importance of experiential learning and direct engagement.

Cluster analysis further identified four distinct resident profiles: (1) highly engaged environmental stewards, (2) supportive but selective advocates, (3) moderately indifferent participants, and (4) disengaged or critical respondents. While nearly 70% of participants demonstrated strong or moderate alignment with geoethical principles and values, the remaining groups highlight the need for tailored education, participatory governance, and inclusive outreach strategies.

Overall, this integrated assessment demonstrates how validated measurement, spatial differentiation, and social profiling of geoethical awareness can inform adaptive governance and geoeducation strategies within UGGps. The findings support a transition from anthropocentric toward geocentric perspectives, positioning geoethical awareness as a key socioecological indicator for sustainability, resilience, and Earth-system stewardship in the Anthropocene.