The Ecological Footprint of Greek Citizens: Main Drivers of Consumption and Influencing Factors

Abstract

The Ecological Footprint (EF) is undoubtedly an important tool for calculating humans’ impact on the environment. For this tool to be even more accessible and understood by most of the people, many online ecological footprint calculators have been created, the most reliable of which was developed by Global Footprint Network (GFN). Aim of this study is to present the Greek population’s main drivers of consumption patterns after customizing the GFN’s international online calculator to the Greek statistics and national accounts. Moreover, the goal of this study is to assess the factors influencing the Ecological Footprint of Greek citizens. The development of a Greek-specific calculator was based on long-lasting research that included gathering and analyzing information about the Greek population. Five hundred seventy-four Greeks used the calculator after its adaptation, and data were collected regarding their total ecological footprint and its differentiation by land type and by consumption category. According to the results, Greece has a low mean of ecological footprint in comparison to other European countries, but there is still a lot of ground to cover for achieving a truly acceptable sustainable way of living. Additionally, only the variable of gender seems to affect the ecological footprint of Greeks, with females having significantly lower personal EF (M = 3.37) than males (M = 4.36, p = 0.011). The adapted online calculator and the produced results regarding the EF of Greek citizens are considered as a valuable tool for policy makers, stakeholders, and educational institutions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Ecological Footprint as an Indicator of Sustainability

Sustainability is one of the top priorities for most of the high-income countries and a major concern for the developing ones. The urgent social and environmental problems of the modern age have obliged policy makers and international institutions to take actions to improve current living conditions and ensure the welfare of upcoming generations. One of the steps towards that direction was the establishment of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations [1]. SDGs can be a valuable framework for promoting sustainability in education [2], in the business world [3] and in the civil society in general [4]. Regarding the latter, providing continuously scientific information to both students and adults from all backgrounds seems to be very important in this ongoing endeavor towards sustainability [5]. By building, promoting, enhancing, and maintaining a knowledge base about sustainability in the civil society, the achievement of SDGs seems to be more feasible [6].

In this context, an important educational and awareness-raising concept is that of the ecological footprint (EF). The EF is defined as the total bio-productive area (land and/or water) required to produce the natural resources consumed by an individual, region, city, country or the entire humanity to meet their needs, while allowing the absorption of the waste produced [7]. The most common used unit for measuring EF is the global hectare (gha). Based on Wackernagel and Rees’s [7] definition of EF, the land types that are included in the calculation of the EF are the built-up lands, forests, croplands, grazing lands, fishing grounds, and the area needed for absorbing carbon dioxide [8,9]. The EF can also be expressed by key anthropogenic consumption activities such as food, shelter, mobility, goods, and services [10].

In general, EF can reveal the biological resources that humanity demands, in comparison to those that are available [11]. By determining and reflecting upon this “ecological balance”, we can have a clear picture regarding the sustainability levels that conform to our current way of living. The EF can help us identify and specifically quantify the impacts of people’s daily habits and lifestyles (e.g., modes of transport, dietary patterns, clothing, consumption, etc.) on the environment [12]. The info coming from the use of an EF calculator can offer relative data for individuals or communities and ease the corresponding environmental decision-making by policymakers [13]. Considering the relevant literature, several studies were identified showing that EF is an effective tool for promoting knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to sustainable lifestyles [14], while also being used to detect unsustainable lifestyles of students and schools [15]. As for High School students, studies [16,17] showed that the integration of EF into educational activities can help students understand the Footprint concept and improve their environmental behavior. A study with meteorology university students recorded a significant improvement in their understanding of EF aspects after participating in a simple learning activity oriented to this subject [18]. Similar results were also recorded by Gunduz and Alsagher [19] as Libyan university students showed an intermediate level in their understanding of EF during relevant educational activities. Collecting relative data by teachers, Keles and Aydogdu [20] reported an increase in the awareness of potential teachers about the concept of EF after participating in activities on its calculation. Additionally, by actively participating in an interdisciplinary educational research project of theoretical analysis and efforts to reduce EF, Spanish primary school teachers changed their consumption habits, understood sustainability as a concept, and became much more aware of their responsibility for the environment [21].

The usefulness of the EF and its ease in communicating sustainability, however, hides the fact that EF is a complex concept that directly and indirectly influences, and is influenced by, many factors. For instance, financial development seems to increase the EF, while the technological innovations seem to reduce it [22,23]. Respectively, in the literature there are studies indicating how tourism can increase EF in particular regions [24,25,26]. However, tourism is an important economic resource for a lot of countries, and therefore, finding ways for a more sustainable form of tourism is a research objective in recent years [27,28]. This complexity makes EF a valuable, but not an absolute, indicator for characterizing the sustainability levels of a region [29]. Undoubtedly, EF is an important indicator that must be taken into consideration, but we cannot leave out of the equation important sustainability aspects such as health and people’s general well-being that are absent from its calculation [30]. Sustainability can be characterized as a wide concept that among other things, aims to improve the current living conditions. Hence, systemic approach, multidisciplinary and critical thinking are prerequisites for correctly interpreting the EF’s results and using them beneficially.

1.2. Ecological Footprint Calculator

Global Footprint Network (GFN) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) founded by Mathis Wackernagel in 2003 [7,31] who, together with William Rees, introduced and established the EF concept. Since 2014, Global Footprint Network has published 13 editions of the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts (NFBAs), a large database containing ecological footprint and biocapacity trends for world countries, which are calculated based on country-specific data drawn from several international agencies (e.g., FAO, IEA) [9]; since 2019 the NFBA are produced by the Footprint Data Foundation (FoDaFo) with York University in Toronto.

In addition to other tools and resources that GFN offers to the public (e.g., Open data platform, Food Footprint Platform, etc.), an online EF calculator has also been developed, which anyone can freely use to learn about the environmental impacts of his/her way of living. Given its intention to be a tool for widespread use at global level, GFN personal footprint calculator is available in eight languages and uses global means and statistics for the calculation of personal EF values, rather than country-specific data. The calculator requires users to answer a series of lifestyle questions regarding food preferences, accommodation, and transportation. After processing this data, results are obtained and one can find out its EF: (a) in global hectares (gha), (b) by land types, and (c) by consumption category. The EF calculator also provides information about the number of planets that are required if all people on earth had the same lifestyle as the one that takes the survey. Supplementary to the latter, the calculator’s results include the Overshoot Day, meaning the exact date when humanity runs out of all renewable resources according to this specific lifestyle [32,33].

According to data provided by GFN [34], world average EF in 2018 was 2.77 gha/person and the number of planets we required as humanity was 1.75. The respective numbers for Greece were 4.1 gha/person and 2.59 planets. This EF results concerning Greece are based on specific data and information about the country as indeed consumption habits, cultural characteristics, specific geomorphological conditions, and the general levels of development of each country all affects individuals’ Footprints [11,29]. These values, however, are not used in the popular personal Footprint Calculator, as this latter is mainly intended as a user-friendly tool to help individuals throughout the world get an initial understanding of their impact on the environment. Therefore, engaging Greek individuals and the wider civil society in the development of nation-specific sustainability actions and policies that are unique to the Greek context and needs would benefit from the use of a country-specific EF calculator [30,35].

1.3. Research Goal

Based to the above, the goal of this study is to map the EF of people living in Greece and to determine potential factors influencing it. The research questions that guided our study are the following:

(a)

What is the EF of Greek citizens, and which are its characteristics based on land type used and consumption category?

(b)

What factors affect the EF of Greek citizens?

To answer these questions: (a) a Greek-specific EF calculator was developed by means of national footprint results drawn from the NFBAs to reflect the unique consumption patterns of the Greek society (see Section 2.2); and (b) a bottom-up data collection approach involving members of the Greek academic community was adopted. Such an adapted EF calculator can offer first-hand data directly originating from the country’s population and not through statistical databases. By using an adapted EF calculator, these data and all the emerging conclusions are also made available and useful for policy makers, educational institutions, and all stakeholders. Especially regarding education, we already mentioned the significant role that EF can play for altering students’ attitudes and constructing relative knowledge [14,16,17,18]. Τhe personal Greek EF calculator can provide an excellent framework to the Greek educational community and promote environmental awareness and reflection on daily habits. Through its use and the interpretation of its results, teachers and learners at all levels of education can become even more immersed in the processes of sustainable development and ecological relationships. In addition, they can identify in more detail the specific environmental balance of their place of residence and the way they can be involved in its management.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The number of people who participated in this research was 574. These were Greek citizens of all gender identities between 10 and 67 years old. To be more specific, the EF calculator was used, for the most part, by students of all educational levels, and in-service teachers. As the Greek version of the calculator was created by University Professors, most data were collected during tertiary education courses. However, as the online EF calculator was made known, though various types of multiplier events, to the Greek primary and secondary educational community, many in-service teachers and their students also used it and provided data for this research. There were also some individuals who freely used the calculator after the latter was advertised through conferences and dissemination events. In relevance to the place of residence, there were participants from all prefectures of Greece and from both rural, sub-urban and urban areas.

2.2. Research Tool and Collection of Data

Data were collected through the ad hoc customized personal Greek EF calculator. The customization of the calculator was conducted by a team consisting of Greek University Professors and PhD students in collaboration with researchers from GFN. The whole effort was funded by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI), took place from 1 December 2019 to 30 November 2020, and consisted of the following four main steps: (a) in-depth literature review of the international and Greek literature to determine values of EF-relevant conversion factors and Footprint intensities; (b) retrieval or calculation, through derivations and coefficients, of values and indicators for the Greek context, based on relevant data from the Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT), the European Statistical Authority (EUROSTAT) and other National/International Services and/or Organizations (e.g., FAO); (c) integration of such data within GFN’s NFBAs to derive a detailed Consumption-Land-Use-Matrix (CLUM) for Greece [36] and the answers’ ranges; (d) integration of Greek CLUM results into GFN’s personal EF calculator to derive the Greek-specific online EF and translation of the calculator text into the Greek language.

The collection of the necessary Greek data concerned the sectors of (a) nutrition, (b) accommodation and (c) transportation. Regarding the nutrition sector, data from the international Food and Agriculture Organization were sought, mainly concerning average quantities of food consumption such as meat, fish, and dairy products for Greece. About accommodation, data were sought from the Hellenic Statistical Authority and the Technical Chamber of Greece. Data about Greek dwellings were identified, such as the average number of persons per house, the average number of square meters and their construction characteristics (e.g., main building material, type of heating). With reference to the transportation sector, data coming mainly from EUROSTAT [37] were investigated. Those data were found in reports about the average consumption of vehicles used in the Greek territory and the use rates of public transportation by Greek citizens. The translation process involved three phases during which the two teams (Greek and GFN) were in constant contact and exchange of information. In the first phase, the GFN team communicated all the linguistic content of the online calculator, in an Excel file. This content was translated by the Greek team, and it was resent to the GFN team. In this way, during the second phase an initial, pilot, online version of the developed EF calculator was created. This version was tested and reformed leading to a newer version during the third phase. Further testing and additional corrections on the newer version were considered, ultimately shaping the final version of the Greek EF calculator.

The online Greek EF calculator was developed as an open access tool, free to everyone (The Greek EF calculator is available in the following link: https://greekecologicalfootprint.web.auth.gr/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/index_prod_el.html (accessed on 20 December 2022)). The data collection period was from 2 December 2020, to 12 July 2021 (about 7 months), during which two main data sources were used: The first source of data was from primary, secondary, and tertiary education students, who had been purposefully engaged, by their educators, to the activity of EF calculation, usually by being part of a larger education for sustainability project/course. Most participants from this source of data were university students, as the EF calculator had been developed by academics who used it extensively during their courses and other multiplier and dissemination workshops and events. The second source of data was individuals of any age, out of any specific educational setting, who were interested or intrigued by the topic of EF and decided to use the calculator after they became aware of its existence. In all cases, participants filled the EF calculator based to their way of living and their individual everyday consumption patterns. Only primary school students were guided, if needed, during the EF calculation process.

Raw results concerning the EF of all participants were retrieved from the calculator server and further elaborated and analyzed by the research team. These data were including participants’: (a) demographics (age, place and prefecture of residence); (b) the total personal EF expressed in global hectares (gha); (c) EF breakdowns by land type and by consumption categories; (d) the Earth Overshoot Day of the participants; and (e) the number of planets that would be required if the whole humanity had EF equal to that of each participant.

2.3. Analysis

At the end of the data collection period, 3494 entries were retrieved from the calculator server. These entries did not correspond to equal number of individuals, as there were multiple entries by most of the participants. These multiple entries occurred as some participants initially used the calculator through experimental attempts, and many others used it twice to find out whether possible changes in their way of living could affect their EF. To filter out multiple entries, completion time stamps were used that were recorded in the database of the server running the online calculator. Selecting the right entry among multiple records was based on the time of using the calculator by each participant. In this way, records from the initial time of completion (familiarization phase with the calculator) and from its end (revision/modification of the way of living) were excluded. Valid records were considered the ones that took place in a middle time interval to capture, as much as possible, the current state of the participants’ EF. The elaboration phase was conducted in several consecutive steps, and when completed it included single calculator entries from 574 unique participants. In this context, and to facilitate understanding, a grouping of ages was decided.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Participants

Regarding the participants’ gender, most of them were females (73%), while the most frequent age groups were the 19 to 25 (42%) and the 26 to 40 years old (25%,

Table 1. Distributions of the various age groups among the total number of participants and of the Ecological Footprint per age group.

Age Group	Percentages of the Total Sample	Mean Ecological Footprint Values per Age Group (in gha)
11–12	2%	4.70
13–18	17%	4.13
19–25	42%	3.14
26–40	25%	3.54
41–50	8%	2.96
>50	6%	4.16

). Secondary students accounted for 17% of the participants, while only 8% were between 41–50 years old, and 6% above 51 years old. Primary school students accounted only for 2% of the participants.

Moreover, in respect to the place of their residence, a balance in their distribution among urban (33%), sub-urban (37%) and rural areas (30%) was recorded.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics Regarding the EF of Greek Citizens

In aggregate, the average personal ecological footprint across the 574 participants was 3.4 global hectares, and the corresponding annual average CO₂ emissions were 6.2 tons per capita. In addition,

Table 2. Distribution of participants based (a) to the year of their renewable resources’ depletion date, and (b) the number of Earths needed to support the entire Earths’ population in the case it has patterns of living similar to them.

a. Time point of renewable resources’ depletion	Percentages of participants
Within the same year	94%
Within the next year	6%
b. Number of Earths needed to support the entire Earth’s population in the case it has patterns of living similar to participants
0–1	6%
1.1–2	41%
2.1–3	40%
3.1–4	6%
>4	7%

illustrates the distribution of participants according to their personal Overshoot Day, and whether it falls within the same calendar year in which the calculation of the EF takes place (94% of participants), or it is placed in the following year (6%).

Table 2 also shows the number of Earths that would be required to support humanity if all Earth’s population had consumption patterns similar to those of the respondents. According to most participants’ answers (93%), more than one Earth would be needed to support the Earth’s whole population in case it had the same way of living of respondents. Most of the participants (81%) needed between two and three planet Earths (1.1–3), while only 6% uses less than 1 Earth, and a 13% uses more than 3 Earths.

When looking at participants’ personal ecological footprint by land type (Figure 1), we found that more than half of participants’ ecological footprints were placed upon the carbon sequestration capacity of ecosystems (56.2%), followed by cropland (24.6%). Grazing land (7.7%) and forest products (6.9%) share about the same percentage, while a minor pressure is placed upon fishing grounds (3%) and built-up surfaces (1.6%).

In addition to the distribution of participants’ EF by land type, its differentiation by consumption category was also calculated (Figure 2). More specifically, food (41%) and mobility (28%) are by far the most influential factors, altogether accounting for more than the two thirds (69%) of the total personal EF of the participants. The contribution of shelter (13%) and the purchase of goods (12%) share about the same low percentage, while services have the lowest one (6%).

Participants’ EF by age group is illustrated in Table 1, where the largest ecological footprint is recorded to the age group of >51 years old. A similar high absolute value of EF is recorded for the age group of 13–18 years old, while the lowest value was recorded by the 41–50 age group.

3.3. Factors Affecting the Ecological Footprint

Besides the description of the characteristics of Greek citizens’ EF, three independent variables were also examined for their role to the formulation of EF, including participants’ (a) gender, (b) age group, and (c) place of residence (

Table 3. Factors affecting the ecological footprint of Greeks.

Independent Variables	N	M	SD	F	df	p
1. Gender	306	3.87	3.38	9.517	304	0.011
Females	223	3.37	1.93
Males	83	4.36	4.83
2. Age group	388	4.93	3.98	2.12	5	0.080
11–12	7	4.93	3.97
13–18	65	4.13	3.90
19–25	162	3.14	1.30
26–40	97	3.54	1.62
41–50	33	2.96	1.18
>50	24	4.16	6.29
3. Place of residence	421	3.57	1.85	0.412	2	0.663
Urban areas	136	3.78	3.39
Sub-urban areas	157	3.48	3.06
Rural areas	128	3.56	1.85

). In particular, the parametric t-test was used to examine potential significant differences to participants’ personal EF based to their gender. In this case, a statistically significant difference was recorded between females (M = 3.37, SD = 1.93) and males (M = 4.36, SD = 4.83) [t(304)= 9.517, p = 0.011]. In addition, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was statistically significant (p = 0.002) and therefore the two populations have different variances. For this reason, the p for non-equal variances was considered.

The influence of age on participants’ EF was tested by One-way ANOVA using the predefined age ranges. In this procedure, the F-value of Levene’s criterion was examined and based on its value, an alternative general test of analysis of variance (Welch test) was implemented. According to the results of the Welch test, no statistically significant differences in EF were recorded among the age groups [F_welch(5, 45.98) = 2.12, p = 0.080].

Regarding participants’ places of residence (rural, sub-urban, urban), the One-way ANOVA statistical test was conducted again. Results produced no statistically significant differences in EF between the three groups [F(2, 418) = 0.412, p = 0.663].

4. Discussion

4.1. A Comparative Reflection upon Greek Citizens EF

The average need for Earths for all participants was 2.33, which is close to the international average (2.58) for 2017 [34]. This value is also congruent with the results about the date of renewable natural resources’ depletion, as only 6% of the participants needed up to one Earth to meet their needs (sustainable way of living), while the remaining 94% needed more than one planet (unsustainable way of living).

A comparison between this study’s results using an adopted calculator and other countries’ data that have been derived by the global calculator can be questioned regarding its validity. However, since there are not so many adapted to national accounts calculators, such a comparison can provide a first insight on this matter. Greece EF value seems to be among the lowest published worldwide, as for instance, university students in Cardiff (UK) and Siena (Italy), recorded 4.6 gha and 5.4 gha, respectively. An almost double average of 8.74 gha has been recorded in the University of Toronto Mississauga Ontario, [38], while much higher averages are shown by Texas A&M University students in USA (16.8 gha) [14] and by students in University of Queensland in Australia (37.8 gha) [39]. It is also noteworthy that the average Greek EF value that was calculated by this study is different from the one that is provided by the GFN. In particular, the GFN provided a mean value for Greece of 4.1 gha per person, meaning 0.7 gha higher than the average value (3.4 gha per person) derived from the results of 574 users of the personal Greek EF calculator used in this study. This difference could be attributed to the age of the participants, having a mean of 27.6 compared to the mean of 41.9 of the general Greek population. Expanding on the EF results by land type, one cannot disregard the high percentage of carbon demand on land, accounting for the 56.2% of the total personal EF. This percentage recorded for the Greek population is a bit lower to the international mean of 60% for the year 2018 [34]. On the contrary, the Greek percentages for cropland (24.6%) and grazing lands (7.7%) were found higher than the global ones which are 18.5% and 4.8%, respectively, for the same year (2018) [34].

In relevance to the Greek EF results by consumption category, it was realized that food was the category with the highest score, responsible for 41% of the total EF. This value (41%) is consistent with results published elsewhere, including the studies of McNickol et al. (61%) [39], Collins et al. (40%) [17], and Gottlieb et al. (38%) [40]. However, food appears with much lower percentages in the survey of Conway et al. in Canada (9.2%) [38]. With reference to mobility, similar percentages to the findings from Greece (28%) appear in the research of McNickol et al. [39] (22%) and Conway et al. [38] (16.1%). Higher percentage on mobility has been recorded in the research of Venetoulis [41] (32.4%) in the USA, while much lower percentages have been recorded in studies conducted in Italy (13%) [17], Israel (8%) [40], and USA (14%) [14]. The category of shelter’s EF (13%) comes third for the Greek population, while in the survey of Ryu and Brody in USA [14] appears to have a much higher percentage (25%). Finally, while goods and services in the latter research [14] form together a percentage of 35%, in this research their scores are much lower, accounting for only 18% in aggregate.

Moreover, not many differences in EF based on participants’ gender, age and place of residence have been identified in the international literature. In that sense, the finding of this study regarding the role of gender in the formulation the EF is notable. Age does not seem to affect the EF values of Greeks, but this is not congruent with the research of Ryu and Brody [14] who recorded that older people have higher EF compared to the younger.

4.2. Implications for Policy Makers and Educational Institutions

The main drivers identified through this research bring to the limelight certain aspects concerning the current way of living in this country that are directly related to sustainability. Specifically, food and mobility are the two consumption categories contributing the most to the increasing trend of the Greek EF. This finding has various implications and can guide our endeavors towards a more sustainable way of living.

Starting with the consumption category with the largest impact on the Greek EF, that of food (41%), we must note that it is subjected to both individual and public choices and policies. Thus, its significance in achieving sustainability is crucial, as it is both the major driver of the Greek EF, and the factor most amenable to change through appropriate policy making and individuals’ traditions and nutrition habits [42]. In particular, promoting sustainable agriculture practices, redefining food supply chain management, and offering financial support or tax reductions to stakeholders that produce and distribute local food can significantly affect the portion of EF that relates to nutrition [43,44,45]. Greece is privileged as a country with a rich, diverse natural environment that could ensure food self-sufficiency. By investing in such a perspective, all the appropriate actions can be taken by the civil and the local government to establish a food self-sufficient rural settlement that will lower the relative portion of the country’s EF [46,47]. As agriculture and livestock farming have always been top priorities in the development strategy of Greece, it is important to adjust these business sectors to sustainability standards and certifications to keep the food EF low. Moreover, Greece, as a few other Mediterranean countries, is considered the cradle of the Mediterranean diet, yet its residents seem to have transitioned away from the Mediterranean diet [47]. Therefore, nutritional guidelines and public campaigns could be set up and promoted within Greece to favor a major adherence to the Mediterranean diet, which would result in both health and environmental benefits.

In relevance to mobility, which is the second largest driver of the Greek EF (28%), it is clear by the literature that specific policy options can contribute to its reduction [27,48]. Raising the public transportation quality standards, changing the regulations about commonly used fuels and reshaping the urban environment can be only some of the measures institutional stakeholders can take to restrict the EF of mobility [49,50].

The EF of shelter and goods may not be so high as that of food and mobility in the Greek setting, but still, the available data should be examined with caution. Belonging to the Mediterranean region, buildings in Greece need both heating and cooling, depending on the season and their relative position. Therefore, a lot of energy consumption during every calendar year pertains to shelter. Constructing low-energy consumption and passive buildings or energetically refurbishing the existing structures can be options that will decrease the EF of shelters [51,52]. This perspective regarding the buildings’ energy efficiency should not be restricted only to public property, but also expanded in the private one by subsidizing such renovation practices [53].

Nonetheless, besides the state regulations and interventions which seem to be crucial according to what has been mentioned above, the private initiatives and the ways individuals behave in their everyday life can still be a determining factor for achieving sustainability and decreasing the EF values. Personal behavior cannot be totally controlled, but it can be to a certain extent shaped by education. As in many cases that have to do with attitude and behavior shaping, formal and informal education can potentially play a significant role and they are often the main way to achieve long-lasting changes. For instance, environmental education is already a highly appreciated context for altering students’ attitudes [54]. Accordingly, the EF can be both a subject and a context of education for sustainability [17,55]. Using the EF online calculator can be an effective tool that has the potential to raise environmental awareness and promote a more sustainable way of living [56,57]. Examining the above issues conversely, the EF can also be one of the main criteria for assessing the effectiveness of environmental courses, especially when the whole educational institutions’ organization and function need to be reformed and aligned to a more ecofriendly framework [58].

The personal Greek EF calculator could complement the country’s school-based environmental education projects by examining a possible decrease in participants’ EF after attending relevant projects. Since the variables of place of residence and age do not seem to affect the EF of Greeks, an extended, common project across the country could be suitable and effective for decreasing the EF and promoting a more sustainable way of living for students and adults.

In general, educational institutions need reliable data to implement educational interventions according to, and because of that information. Given that the personal Greek online EF calculator provides reliable data about consumption categories and land types, the Greek academic and educational community can develop specific and focused educational activities. Furthermore, such detailed information can even improve the country’s curriculum by applying respective changes to reflect all the conclusions that have been drawn regarding the EF of the Greek population. The trend recorded in this study, with younger students (<18) having the highest EF among our participants, enhances even more the need for sustainability education in schools. Adolescence is a complex period [59] and environmental problems are usually not a priority for students of that age. According to Simsar [60], the problem of low EF awareness is already detectable by the age of 5–6 years old. This finding raises further the concern about integrating environmental projects into educational systems worldwide and into all grades.

5. Conclusions

The adaptation of GFN’s personal Footprint calculator to the Greek context is undoubtedly an important step towards the use—within Greece—of more reliable and interactive educational tools towards the promotion of sustainability in the country. Providing reliable data about the way of living creates the required space for environmental awareness, critical reflection, and decision making. The conclusions that have been drawn about the Greek population are encouraging compared to other countries. However, there is still some ground to be covered before reaching an acceptable way of living regarding sustainability.

Focusing on the main research question about the Greeks’ EF value, Greece stands among the countries with low EF in the European Union. Keeping track of where a country stands concerning this matter, is highly important in this global sustainable development context. Supplementary data obtained such as the time point of renewable resources’ depletion and the number of Earths needed according to Greeks’ consumption patterns, rank Greece along with other European countries that need to make profound changes in sectors such as nutrition and mobility. The high contribution of these two categories to the overall EF must be examined with caution, and certain measures should be taken by governmental agencies towards the promotion of more sustainable ways of consumption.

Identifying the factors affecting the ecological footprint of Greeks was also among the aims of this research. Given that age and place of residence do not seem to alter the EF score significantly, one can say that a domestic campaign for sustainability could be all-embracing without differentiations depending on generations or regions. Undoubtedly, further research is needed to solidify these conclusions, yet this is a first comprehensive overview of the Greek population EF characteristics.

Educational institutions of all levels should also focus on information such as those provided by this study and adjust accordingly their curricula. In fact, we need concerted actions that will engage both school and general populations and provoke permanent and profound changes in Greek people’s attitudes and everyday activities. With food as the primary driver of the Greek EF, for instance, food literacy initiatives, and/or the inclusion of food literacy as part of curricula would seem to be of priority for the country. The user-friendly platform of the online Greek EF calculator can assure that a wide range of people can be involved and realize their EF. At the same time, the detailed information of all EF aspects offered by the calculator (e.g., EF by activity type) can promote the comprehension of the whole concept and the impact of one’s way of living. The realization of our EF and its main drivers that lead to a non-sustainable way of living, may ignite a personal endeavor towards the modification of our daily activities for the minimization of our impact on the environment, within the limits set by the one planet.

6. Limitations of the Study

The main limitation of the study is that most of the participants were from the education sector and there were limited entries from other occupational and social sectors. However, the large number of participants and the variance in their ages and places of residence, counterbalance this limitation to some extent.