Full Text

Turn on search term navigation

1. Introduction

In every workplace, human sustainability is closely connected to the quality of establishments, the accessibility of green and blue spaces, and safety [1]. Incorporating natural environments into human work settings with innovative architectural designs and sustainable construction materials and energy resources plays a serious direct and indirect role in health and wellbeing [2,3]. Although it has long been understood that green work settings play an important role in both human [4,5,6] and ecosystem health [3], it is only recently that these relationships have been specifically investigated to adapt sustainable planning and land use [6,7,8] to several social and environmental challenges [9], such as urban deprivation, biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change [10,11,12,13]. Furthermore, human-centric designs for building environments enhance their occupants’ satisfaction and health and emphasize sustainable lifestyles [3,14,15].

It is well-documented that energy and material resources are diminishing in all aspects of human activities, or that they are consumed at a faster rate than they can be replenished [3,11]. Actions have already been taken to address issues related to green establishments that connect a physical setting with the smart use of construction materials and esthetics to provide sustainable workplace environments that support human and natural resources [4,5]. Since the beginning of this century, stakeholders and governments worldwide have been discussing using a circular flow of energy instead of a linear one to sustain resources [7]. The UN environment program describes the “Environmental rule of law” that combines essential legislation with environmental needs. It provides the basis for improving environmental strategies at the governmental level. Under this initiative, environmental sustainability reflects universal moral values and ethical norms of behavior and relates to fundamental human rights and obligations [16]. Furthermore, the “Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe” provides a critical approach to the use of resources for environmental reasons but also for resource efficiency and security, employment, competitiveness, and human development [8]. It was additionally highlighted that functional, safe, and high-quality products should be more efficient, affordable, and long-lasting. They should be further designed for reuse, repair, or high-quality recycling. The philosophy of the four Rs (reuse, repair, rethink, recycle), or the “waste hierarchy” as it is known, is incorporated in various ways in CE national legislations [8]. In March 2020, the European Commission adopted the new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP). This is part of the European Green Deal, Europe’s new agenda for sustainable growth [9]. This deal will assist the transition to a circular economy (CE). The consequences of this transition will reduce the pressure on natural resources and provide sustainability to all stakeholders [9].

In this context, the design and construction of green buildings is a new research focus motivated by the need for human wellbeing and sustainable resources in the health sector [2,3,10]. The circular philosophy of dentistry is currently emerging as a theme in the research literature, providing knowledge and tools for information sharing and enhancing environmental actions [10,17,18,19]. A significant aspect of this field-specific discussion concerns providing better quality and sustainable dental services by using new processes and slow dentistry workflows in an esthetic, naturally designed environment; it also aims to offer digital solutions, provide innovative resource analysis and building constructions that guarantee less waste [6], improve skills and current knowledge related to this theme, [18,19,20] and, ultimately, provide better quality of life for all, up to 2050 [13]. In dentistry, as in other fields, the physical setting is linked to an employee’s ability to physically engage with the workplace [12]. A healthy dental workplace atmosphere positively influences individual employees’ behavior, enthusiasm, creativity, motivation, and efficiency [15,20], and, on the other hand, their desire to quit [21].

The World Green Building Council defines a green building as a building that “in its design, construction or operation, reduces or eliminates negative impacts, and can create positive impacts, on our climate and natural environment” [10]. Stakeholders in the construction industry are focusing on making modern buildings and their internal systems more sustainable by saving energy [3,19,20,21,22,23], water [24], human working hours [25], costs [26,27,28,29], and resources [3,30]. This attitude has positive impacts for a building, such as reduced carbon emissions [23], water and energy efficiency, the use of natural sunlight, exposure to nature, clean air circulation [31], reduced noise impact [32,33], higher returns in operating costs over five years, and higher investment returns with an asset value that can reach approximately 7% [26,27,28,29,30]. As a consequence, these constructions can facilitate sustainable dental practices that focus on indoor air and water quality, employees’ ability to socialize in a relaxing environment made from recycled materials, employees’ ability to exercise in the building due to long hours of continuous work, lighting and acoustic quality, safe waste disposal, and security issues [2,3,11,33].

So far, little is known about the behavior of dental professionals and their willingness to adapt to this sustainable office design and culture and the possible factors influencing their choices regarding green building issues or the “four Rs” philosophy [17,18,19,20,34]. The pro-environmental behavior of dentists has only recently emerged as a research theme [19]. This paper contributes to the theme, first by establishing 30 factors that affect the development of eco-friendly dental practices. These factors derive from 40 preliminary factors described in the relevant literature as affecting three main domains: “Sustainable Building Designing and Planning” (SBDP), “Education and Awareness of Environment Sustainability (EAES)”, and “Economic aspects relating to costs of construction and function of environmentally Sustainable Dental Practices” (ESDP) [34]. Second, we present an incidence proposal of the 13 factors we identified as being significantly important for environmental sustainability in dentistry (ESD). For these purposes, we used the method of a questionnaire survey of both students and professionals in the field. Third, we analyze the relationships between and the impact of different critical green building construction factors on the choices and behaviors of participants. We finally present some recommendations, development strategies, and educational proposals for all stakeholders.

2. Background

2.1. Pro-Environmetal Behaviors

Environmental problems correlate with human choices and behavior. Therefore, changes in behavior are necessary to improve the current status of environmental ethics. Pro-environmental behavior is behavior that minimizes the negative impact of individuals’ behavior on the environment [35]. It plays an important role in controlling energy resources and carbon footprints and protecting environmental sustainability [36]. In the literature, there are many labels similar to the term “pro-environmental behavior”, such as “environmental behavior”, “ecological behavior”, “environmentally friendly behavior”, “eco-friendly behavior”, “sustainable behavior”, “green behavior”, “conservation behavior”, “environmental action”, “responsible environmental behavior”, “ecological responsible behavior”, “environmentally responsible behavior”, “pro-ecological behaviors”, and “environmentally conscious behavior” [37]. All of these different terms have some common ground. They all essentially involve reducing resource use [38], recycling [39], or environmental volunteering [36]. They are also affected by personal values and ethics. They are further explained by psychological theories [36]. Understanding pro-environmental behaviors in healthcare has recently become a hotspot in research. Since 2012, the number of relevant studies has increased significantly [36]. Interest in pro-environmental behavior has mainly focused on the following aspects: (a) the definition and explanation of the influencing factors or results of pro-environmental behavior [40,41], (b) the relationship between pro-environmental behaviors and social norms [42], (c) the connection between pro-environmental behaviors and employees’ wellbeing [43], and (d) the design of models of pro-environmental behavior to introduce voluntary pro-environmental behaviors to employees [44]. The research conducted so far is of great significance to our systematic understanding of the tools and methodologies used to study pro-environmental ideas. However, academic research on pro-environmental behaviors in healthcare settings and especially in dental practices is in an active development stage and needs further exploration.

2.2. Theories of Pro-Environmental Behavior

The following theories are those most commonly applied in the study of pro-environmental behavior:

(A) Psychological theories. These involve the internal psychological processes undergone by individuals before they take action. The most representative ones are: (a) the theory of planned behavior [45,46], which investigates the impact of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control on individuals’ intention to engage in pro-environmental behavior [47,48,49], and (b) the norm activation theory [48]. According to this theory, personal norms such as awareness of consequences and responsibility [49] may control behaviors [50,51,52]. As such, an individual who believes that he has a moral obligation to protect the environment will undertake the corresponding actions [49,53].

(B) Sociological theories. These theories suggest that social situational factors may influence individual behaviors [54]. Members of a social network, such as dentists, inevitably interact with other members of the same network, influencing one another when making decisions or taking actions [55]. Through various kinds of social interaction, individuals obtain useful information [56], improve their understanding of environmental protection issues, and promote environmental sustainability [36].

(C) Economic theories. In this case, more attention is paid to the influence of external factors such as prices, costs, and income when studying the pro-environmental behavior of individuals. These theories provide a more realistic perspective on behaviors and choices [57]. They further suggest that people are rational and pursue their best interests. Thus, economic incentives are an effective way to promote sustainable pro-environmental behaviors [58,59].

Despite the research that has so far considered pro-environmental behaviors in many scientific fields, none of the extant literature adequately explains human attitudes towards environmentalism and sustainability. Thus, interpreting pro-environmental behaviors using a single theoretical or ethical approach should be limited [36,48]. All theories should provide complementary explanations and be revised for specific fields and practical situations. We should also keep in mind that individuals are not always rational when taking decisions. They often deviate from the hypothesis of rational choice [59]. This brings us to the hypothesis that a combined theoretical approach should be used in relevant research methodologies to acquire the greatest amount of information without bias.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Identification of Factors Influencing Sustainable Design and Planning

The aforementioned theories have been extensively used in the research of green building development [34,60,61]. Therefore, it has already been reported that certain factors could influence the buyers of green estates (green residential buildings, or GRBs). People usually decide on their future homes based on socio-environmental data [62] and factors related to resources [63,64,65,66] and capacity [67,68]. Τhese elements consist of 3 different dimensions that interact with each other and include 64 basic influential factors, which have been addressed in previous studies [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,34,36,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,64,65,69,70] (Figure 1).

3.2. Methodology of Designing the Study Questionnaire

In this study, we used the questionnaire study technique, which is a systematic method for data collection. Furthermore, it has previously been used to collect professional views on sustainable construction research [34,61,65,66,67,68,71,72]. We used the technique across two rounds in our study. In the first round, we formed a list of the 64 factors previously associated with GRBs to determine the significance of their impact on stakeholders in the dental field. We gave the list randomly to thirty students from the Department of Dentistry in the School of Health Sciences of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and to thirty dentists who were selected randomly from the personnel of the Department of Dentistry and through social media advertisements. Participants in the first round agreed to complete the list in person within the settings of the dental school, providing explanations for and discussions of the comprehensibility of the factors. Factors that were not mentioned at all in the first round were excluded from further exploration. We then kept 30 factors related to green dental buildings (GDBs) (Figure 2), which were mentioned by participants in the first round, regardless of their level of significance or the frequency of answers, and we used them to form the final questionnaire used in the study.

When designing the final questionnaire to be used in the study, we addressed the following research questions: (1) what are the main attitudes of dental students and dentists towards recycling, pro-environmentalism, and volunteering? (2) How do demographic factors influence their pro-environmental behaviors and choices regarding the circular economy and the construction of green dental buildings (GDBs)? (3) Which practices most strongly lead dentists to perceive the importance of constructing GDBs?

The steps we followed to complete the final questionnaires can be seen in Figure 3.

Two categories of participants participated in the second round of the data collection: (a) undergraduate students of the Department of Dentistry of the School of Health Sciences of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and (b) dentists working in the vast metropolitan area of Athens, in the Prefecture of Attica, Greece. Two digitally formed questionnaires were designed according to the previously mentioned methodology, incorporating the thirty factors for green dental buildings (GDBs). Participants were given a specific QR code to provide direct access through smartphones; these were distributed accordingly to (a) undergraduate dental students (inclusion criteria: undergraduate students) and (b) professional dentists, who were active members of the Athens Regional Dental Association (inclusion criteria: active members of the association, working in Greece).

The questionnaire for students (Appendix A) investigated: (a) the demographic characteristics of the sample (Part A_Q1–Q4), including gender, year of study, place of residence, and the educational level of parents, which have been described elsewhere as possible correlating factors [6,25,73,74]. (b) Current environmental volunteering and awareness of legislation (Part B_Q5–Q9), so that participants could spontaneously respond to questions regarding their current eco-friendly behaviors and we could further discuss their intentions to engage in future pro-environmental behaviors [44,45]. (c) The importance of 30 factors influencing pro-environmental attitudes (Part C_Q10.1–Q10.30), revealed in the first round of the survey. (d) The estimation of educational needs and participants’ proposals (Part D_Q11–Q12) according to the factors identified in the first round [58,59,65,66]. Accordingly, the questionnaire for dentists (Appendix B) reported on: (a) the demographic characteristics of the sample (Part A_Q1–Q7) [6,25], (b) pro-environmental behaviors and attitudes towards environmental volunteering and awareness of legislation (Part B_Q8–Q13), (c) the importance of factors influencing pro-environmental attitudes (Part C_Q14.1–Q14.30) and (d) the estimation of educational needs and participants’ proposals (Part D_Q15–Q16) based on the findings of the first round of the survey, as described for Appendix A. Parts A and B had multiple choice answers, and part C required answers in terms of a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = “extremely insignificant”, 2 = “relatively insignificant”, 3 = “neutral”, 4 = “relatively significant”, and 5 = “extremely significant”. Part D contained open-ended questions where participants could offer their brief opinions and suggestions on the topic.

The questionnaires included an introductory message describing the purpose of the study. It was further noted that participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was guaranteed. Participants had the right to refuse to participate. Consent was obtained by asking participants to confirm that they agreed to complete the questionnaire by marking a “Yes, I agree to participate” box. The Board of Ethics of the Department of Dentistry gave approval (No 39521/20-4-2022). Accordingly, for participating dentists, members of the Athens Regional Dental Association of the metropolitan area of the capital, Athens, the relevant license was obtained by the scientific committee of the association (No:2660/08.12.2022).

The design and validity of the questionnaires were further examined by 15 participants from each subgroup (students and dentists), while an independent panel of 3 experts (professors of the Department of Dentistry) reviewed and revised the final version. They first filled in the questionnaires and discussed them in person and then in a group with all the other experts and members of the research team. All questions were then confirmed to be relevant to the topic. No issues regarding misconceptions of the terms or the expressions used were mentioned. To submit the form, all questions needed to be answered. Only one submission was allowed. The questionnaires required approximately 12–15 min to complete. All undergraduate students were given the same access and opportunity to complete the questionnaire. The secretariat of the department sent the link and relevant instructions for its completion three times (once per week). Accordingly, the questionnaire for dentists was sent from the secretariat of the association. The questionnaires remained open for three months.

3.3. Data Analysis

Data analysis included descriptive statistics and thematic analysis [75,76]. In the thematic analysis, the deductive approach was used [76] to analyze the information collected from the participants regarding the green dentistry issues preconceived by the researchers as a result of the current state of knowledge on the topic based on the literature review. Since the practices of green dentistry are relatively new in Greece, we opted for this approach to acquire a better understanding of dental students’ and practicing dentists’ knowledge of and attitudes towards these rather innovative concepts. After reviewing the information collected through the replies, the main common features were recorded for each group of respondents to identify patterns and to form the main points raised with regards to green dental practices. The methodology used is an adaptation of the six-step process proposed by Brown and Clarke [75].

In the statistical analysis, the frequency distribution of all variables was examined (demographic information and ESD factors). Gender (males/females) and place of residence (urban/non urban) were cross tabulated as dependent variables with a series of independent variables related to knowledge, perceptions, and the importance of factors for ESD, such as the principles of the circular economy, recycling practices, the use of environmentally friendly consumables in dental practices, green design standards in dentistry, and training in green dentistry practices, to assess the presence of a statistically significant relationship with the Chi square test and post hoc testing at the 95% significance level. Regarding the use of single-item scales vs. multi-item scales, there are arguments for both sides. In this survey, the single-item approach was used with some validation questions to establish the accuracy of the responses given for some topics. According to researchers, single-item scales are as reliable as multi-item scales and can be used in academic surveys measuring attitudes towards new practices, as long as the single items have a clear meaning and describe a specific object or issue [77], as is the case in our study. We then proceeded to attempt to capture the attitudes of a sample of dentists and dental students using a cross-sectional design to establish a basis for further actions in green dental practice.

All analyses were performed using the IBM SPPS Statistics (v.26) predictive analytics software.

4. Results

A total of 93 out of 520 dental students in their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th years of undergraduate study participated in the study (response rate of 17.88%), and 126 dentists participated out of the 6500 members of the association (response rate of 1.94%). The response rate of the practicing dentists seems rather low; however, it should be noted that, of the 6500 registered dentists in the association, the vast majority of practitioners do not respond to research-driven initiatives on professional issues [6,25]. Moreover, being registered with the association does not necessarily correspond to having a dental practice, as many members do not practice dentistry (for the year 2022, 27.8% of the registered members do not practice dentistry, according to the association). Additionally, given that environmentally friendly dental practices are currently not well known to most practicing dentists, we can assume that the survey respondents represent the small fraction of dental practitioners who are environmentally aware and may consider these issues in their practices. In other words, the results of the survey correspond to very few members of the association, rather than the whole cohort; this constitutes an important finding, which could be used to guide future efforts to familiarize dentists with green dental practices. Furthermore, when recording practices and opinions, there is no need for a correlation between responses (which is also called internal consistency or reliability) [6,25,78].

In the sample of dental students who participated in the survey (N1 = 93), 34 (36.6%) were men and 59 (63.4%) were women. The distribution according to semester of studies was as follows: 60 (64.5%) students were currently attending their 4th semester of studies (2nd year), 21 (22.6%) their 6th semester (3rd year), 5 (5.4%) their 8th (4th year), and 7 (7.5%) were in their 10th semester (5th year). The majority lived in Athens or other urban areas, with 61 urban students (65.6%) compared to 32 (34.4% of the total sample) students who live in non-urban areas or on the islands of Greece. Regarding the distribution of the practicing dentists in the study sample (N2 = 126), 46 (36.5%) were men and 80 (63.5%) were women, 96 (76.2%) resided and practiced dentistry in Athens or other urban areas and 30 (23.8%) were situated in rural areas of the Prefecture of Attica.

The gender ratio of 1:2 (man:woman) in both groups of the study corresponds to findings from relevant studies, while the participation and response levels are similar to those of other online surveys (65–70% in women and 25–30% in men) [25,74,79]. There is also a general consensus that there is a gender disparity in participation in online surveys, with women participating more than men [80]. The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

With regards to questions about recycling, voluntary participation in environmental protection activities, and knowledge of the EU legislation on mercury (Hg) use and plastic recycling within the dental practice, the responses were analyzed according to gender (Table 2) and place of residence (Table 3). We performed 2-sided t-tests and assessed the presence of statistical significance at the 95% level.

Using gender as the dependent variable, most of the students described practicing recycling at home (men 79.41%, women 81.35%) (p = 0.16). In terms of voluntary participation in environmental protection, 55.88% of men and 59.32% of women students gave an affirmative answer. A 40.86% portion of both genders did not participate in any such activities (p = 0.41). The majority admitted to a lack of knowledge on the contents of a circular economy in dental practice (men 76.47%, women 62.71%) (p = 0.22). Similarly, most students (64.51%) did not know the EU’s legislation regarding the use of mercury (Hg) (men 61.76%, women 66.10%) (p = 0.57), nor the recycling of plastic (men 79.4%, women 74.6%) (p = 0.54). Accordingly, for the dentists, using gender as the dependent variable, it was reported that practicing dentists were not informed on the meaning of circular economy (men 65.22%, women 70.00%) (p = 0.24); nor were they informed on the EU regulations regarding mercury (men 58.69%, women 58.75%) (p = 0.36) or the recycling of plastic (men 76.09%, women 77.50%) (p = 0.54). It is important to note that no statistically significant correlations were reported according to gender (Table 2).

In Table 3, we present data from part B of the questionnaires according to the respondents’ place of origin/location of dentistry practice. No statistically significant correlations were found here either.

In the analysis of dental students’ perceptions of factors related to green dental practice, there seems to be a statistical difference between male and female students’ perceptions with regards to the increased costs required to make the necessary changes in utility networks (services including electricity, natural gas, and water) (p = 0.02), the reduced environmental integrity of building contractors (p = 0.057, marginal statistical significance) and poor wastewater management systems (p = 0.01), with female students being more prone to answer positively as “very significant”. No significant relationships were observed for gender in the study sample of the practicing dentists regarding the level of significance of factors related to green dental practice. The practicing dentists were also asked to name the most environmentally damaging practice in a dental practice, with wasted energy (p = 0.024) and the use of unapproved disinfection products (p = 0.036) being the most important (Table 4).

In Table 5, we present an analysis of the perceptions of dental students and practicing dentists using place of residence as the dependent variable. There seems to be a statistical difference in the group of dental students between residents in urban areas and residents of rural areas with regards to the level of importance of the “lack of state funding” (p = 0.02), the “low level of green design in buildings” (p = 0.03), the “low benefit for the reputation of the green dental practice by today’s standards” (p = 0.02) for those practicing in urban areas, and of the “reduced profit of a green dental practice in the immediate future” (p = 0.04) and the “lack of continuous education seminars on green dentistry” (p = 0.05) for those practicing in non-urban areas.

On the other hand, no statistically significant relationships were observed in the group of dentists regarding the level of significance of influencing factors by place of residence, with only a weak relationship for the “increased in costs for changes related to utility networks” (p = 0.08). However, although no statistically significance differences were found in the analysis, it is interesting to note the trends in the participants’ replies, particularly that significant proportions of the responding dentists declared several of these practices to be non-significant or neutral, namely, “lengthening the construction time of a green dental practice” (49.2%, p = 0.56), “increased necessary and mandatory space required” (46%, p = 0.31), “reduced benefit for the reputation of the business by today’s standards” (45.3%, p = 0.26), and “not visible financial benefit in the near future” (43.6%, p = 0.44). An interesting finding is the perception of 88 dentists (69.8%) regarding the significant “importance of lack of knowledge on green dentistry” (p = 0.66). In the question that asked dentists to identify the most environmentally damaging practices in a dental practice by place of residence, weak relationships were observed with “increased wasteful energy” (p = 0.12) and “waste of dental materials” (p = 0.19).

Figure 4 shows a combined diagram of the relationship between urbanism and gender with environmental attitudes and knowledge for the students and dentists in our study. The diagram was designed using the Vensim program (Vensim PLE 8.1.0, US Patent Application EP19910909851, 26 February 1991) and shows factors influencing environmental volunteering and knowledge and attitudes regarding the circular economy. This modeling language supports relationships shown with arrays. It also permits mapping between factors, as in our study [73].

Causal trees of the results for both groups included in the study (students and dentists) are presented in Figure 5.

The dental students in our study proposed changes to promote eco-friendly dentistry in the undergraduate course curriculum, with the addition of seminars, short courses, or essay assignments on pro-environmental attitudes and actions and on ways to efficiently run a sustainable dental practice. Of the students, 68% suggested that they should visit green dental practices while studying, to form a specific idea of how to embed the guidelines in real working dental environments. Furthermore, the courses can be optional rather than compulsory, preferably available across the five-year span of their studies, to enable participation across different stages of students’ educational paths. They noted the need for: “Better understanding of the importance of green dentistry and motivation”, “Raising awareness about the importance of organizing a greener dental practice, as well as how some “small” changes can have a big impact on the future of our planet”, “Something to inspire students initially to raise awareness and motivation. Perhaps a professor who is a competent speaker and is a good example will help students to first “get acquainted” with the issue and lead to an awakening and willingness to further be informed on the subject”, “Visit to green dental clinics to see how they work”, “More frequent and organized information”, “To implement the ecological dental clinic at university clinic level as well”, and “A step-by-step contact with green dentistry and its benefits may have been able to energize students”.

Proposals from students regarding the implementation of eco-friendly practices within dental practice included the use of biodegradable materials, the use of solar power or renewable resources to meet energy demands, reducing the amount of dental waste and increasing recycling, along with familiarization with the corresponding legal frameworks, state financial support, and financial incentives to create green dental practices.

The dentists involved in our study proposed seminars or short courses during undergraduate studies to increase the ecological awareness of future dentists, as well as online seminars for professionals. They were quite reluctant to undertake actions themselves when governmental support does not exist: “In general, I think it is highly hypocritical to talk about ‘green’ dentistry when those in charge of the world are destroying the environment in every way. It is not the dentists, the problem!” or “The state’s measures should not only be revenue-collecting, with waste management companies, where you simply pay a fixed fee and continue to throw infectious waste in the bin (!!!) or ”Measures should not be obligatory because with the current economic conditions in Greece it is not possible, I believe to correspond…”or “Not just our financial burden with various mandatory subscriptions and changes in the area, but the obligation of the state to actually recycle and actually manage waste”.

With regard to proposals for the future of green dentistry, the use of energy-saving practices, renewable energy sources, biodegradable dental materials, and guidelines on plastic recycling and waste management practices were mentioned: “Energy study of the dental setting and appliances in the dental practice, information leaflets for patient information, mandatory labelling of materials by dental companies for their ecological footprint and the amount of energy cost for their production”.

5. Discussion

In this cross-sectional study, dental students and practicing dentists participated and provided information on their knowledge and beliefs regarding sustainability in dentistry, helping us to identify barriers to and enablers of pro-environmental behaviors concerning green buildings for dental settings in Greece. Both students and dentists exhibited a lack of knowledge on the topics of the circular economy, EU regulations on mercury use, and the recycling of plastic in dental settings, with similar percentages. This contrasts with their professed use of recycling at home and their voluntary participation in environmental protection activities. This is possibly because recycling at home has long been established through relevant state and international campaigns [11,80]. This attitude is not carried through to the workplace, where a lack of time at the end of the working day prevents employees from acting accordingly [6,25]. Although the findings did not reach statistical significance, men seem to be more informed on environmental terms and legislation, while women participate more in voluntary actions. Gender differences in environmental attitudes are also discussed elsewhere, with women recently catching up with men in terms of volunteering and engaging in more altruistic voluntary activities [81]. Participation in voluntary work may be associated with individual and societal benefits. Elsewhere, factors such as one’s socioeconomic status, marital status, social network size, church attendance, and previous volunteer experiences [82] are positively associated with volunteering, while age, functional limitations, and transitions into parenthood are described as being inversely related to volunteering [83], possibly due to a lack of time and increased demands from the emerging roles. Furthermore, green volunteering is inversely related to mortality [84,85], depression [85,86,87], and functional limitations [86], and positively related to self-rated health in adults and children [87,88]. Thus, green volunteering should be further enhanced in our sample, among both students and dentists, to promote not only their social profiles but also their wellbeing.

Unfortunately, over 60% of the professional dentists who participated in our study lacked knowledge of environmental legislation. This is a high percentage that dental authorities should take into consideration when designing environmental policies. Six out of ten dentists in our study do not know the legislation for the disposal of dental amalgam, which corresponds to other relevant findings [79]. Seven out of ten dentists do not know about the circular economy in dentistry and eight out of ten ignore regulations on the recycling of plastic in the dental practice. Those individuals need certain ethical (based on the reinforcement of values and knowledge of the code of dental ethics) and economic motivations to strengthen their pro-environmental behaviors, finally transforming it into sustainable environmental behaviors. Of course, we must keep in mind that, as explained elsewhere, economic motivation alone [82,89] will not provide the desired results, since providing monetary incentives can activate a processing mode that is transactional. Money can produce mental constructs that are incompatible with sustainable behaviors, and monetary incentives can signal that money is the reason to engage in the target action.

Another interesting finding of our study is the perception from two out of five dentists that a lack of seminars and education on green dentistry has a neutral impact or is less important to them. When asked to propose educational policies on the matter, they suggested interventions for young dentists and not themselves. On the other hand, students were more sensitive in acquiring knowledge on these issues than practicing dentists; this is characteristic of their generation, as mentioned elsewhere [90,91]. From our data, we can determine that certain behaviors—those that have significant negative environmental impacts—should form part of future educational policies. Pro-environmental behavior and the culture of Greek dentists addressed here and mentioned elsewhere [79] need direct revitalization. A systematic review of 66 studies from the scientific literature showed that dentists are permanently working on reducing the environmental impact of dental practice throughout the world [92], but this is not the case in our study.

With regards to the most significant factors affecting green dental building sustainability, students mentioned the increased costs related to utility networks, the lack of environmental awareness of building contractors, and the poor wastewater management, as mentioned elsewhere [18,19], whereas dentists did not identify any significant factors when examined by gender. On the other hand, when examined according to respondents’ place of residence and future place of dental practice, students identified as significant the lack of financial support, the low level of green design in buildings, the reduced profits of the dental practice, the negligible reputational benefits, and the lack of continuous education seminars on green dentistry. These responses correspond to a specific sensitivity on the matter, as discussed elsewhere [90,92,93,94].

Worldwide and in Greece, the green building market share is still very small due to the extra costs it involves. This cost is attributed to materials, design, and technological issues [21,22,23,24]. Despite the numerous benefits associated with green constructions, the issue of extra costs is a frequently cited obstacle for buyers of green buildings [22,23,24,95]. The costs of green buildings have risen from 1.84% higher on average a decade ago [26] to almost 20% in more recent studies [27,28,29]. In the green building movement, more than half of the construction costs are related to green features such as alternative systems, software for smart applications, and materials. Aside from the construction costs, there are also soft costs, including certification applications, approval, consultancy, and additional design costs. The extra costs significantly hamper the large-scale adoption of green buildings [96,97], even though they provide credits on the green building rating system [28,29]. Our data also support this finding.

Economic factors concerning the implementation of green construction and the function of dental practices, low motivation, and the consequences of the pandemic on sustainability issues [98] could explain the low response rate in our study and the non-significant values for most of the factors related to green dental constructions, both according to gender and urbanism. It is a fact that, after the COVID-19 pandemic, dentistry became more expensive and professionals seem reluctant to shoulder another increase in the cost of practicing dentistry, which will include construction or energy changes [98,99]. Urbanism seems to play an important role for students and a weak but not statistically important one for professional dentists as far as it concerns environmental philosophy and its economic consequences. The findings can be explained by the fact that practicing dentistry in urban areas seems to be more expensive and demanding due to the costs of transportation, trafficking [18,19,20], and bigger dental practices reported in our data and noted elsewhere [6,25]. For dentists in urban areas, the waste of dental materials is the most salient matter since they seem to practice more expensive dentistry, and this factor has economic consequences that reduce their income [25].

Overall, the factors determining pro-environmental behavior in our study are gender, urbanism, perceptions of costs and benefits, habits based on a lack of information, time management, participants’ economic status, and ethics, as discussed elsewhere [100]. Interventions that could best be applied to encourage pro-environmental behaviors are informational strategies (information, persuasion, social support and role models, and public participation in voluntary actions designed by dental or health state authorities) and structural strategies (availability of products and services, lowering the cost of recycling cleaning products, legal regulation, and financial strategies) [14]. The expected effects of such interventions are changes in behavioral determinants, changes in behaviors (purchasing, using, refilling), changes in environmental quality, and changes in individuals’ quality of life (changing purchasing behaviors generally has greater environmental benefits than reusing or recycling available products) [93,94]. As we propose designing effective interventions to modify habitual pro-environmental behaviors, it is important to consider how habits are formed, reinforced, and sustained [96,97,100,101,102]. Dental authorities and energy companies should therefore play an important role in rewarding green practices and cultivating green impulses among professionals to change habits and improve motivations, perceptions, cognitions, and norms. Meanwhile, structural state strategies should focus on changing the circumstances under which behavioral choices are made [14,47,48,91].

We can derive both theoretical and practical implications from our data. These data help to highlight some of the issues that are considered important by a sample of practicing dentists and dental students, and which indicate a lack of knowledge (e.g., circular economy, EU legislation on mercury) or inform environmental behaviors (e.g., poor waste management, use of non-approved disinfection products) and factors affecting their GDB choices. Our findings also point to some practices that are deemed important for the establishment of green dentistry (e.g., seminars, green building design parameters, enhancing environmental volunteering) and the design and function of a professional practice that is linked to environmental awareness and sustainability.

6. Conclusions

The analysis according to place of residence and place of dental practice indicates some functional obstacles in the establishment of environmental sustainability, such as the lack of financial support, the low level of green design in buildings, and increased costs for utility networks, which are obviously linked to difficulties in sustainable urban design regulations and limited financial support for creating an eco-friendly practice. Dental students seem to be more engaged in identifying ways to increase access to new information on environmentally sustainable dentistry and green buildings that host modern dental practices, and more committed to improving their eco-employment prospects. Practicing dentists, on the other hand, seem more set in their ways; they appear less engaged with the prospect of switching to environmentally sustainable practices in dentistry and less interested in participating in continuous educational activities compared to students. Introducing the topic of environmentally sustainable dentistry (ESD) in the undergraduate dental course curriculum is vital to providing the necessary knowledge to new generations of dentists and to enabling the implementation of a series of sustainable practices in dentistry by choice and not merely due to the need to adhere to guidelines and regulations. The corresponding changes in policies and regulations when setting up a dental practice need to meet environmentally sustainable requirements along with regularly updated guidance on changes and new developments in the field. Facilitators such as funding opportunities and user-friendly administrative procedures will favor the shift to establishing more green dental practices in the future. Although green dentistry is an interesting marketing tool for all health professionals in the public and private sectors, there is a need for additional guidelines, tools, techniques, and state support to share common environmental ethics and practices.

This study has certain limitations. The data regarding factors influencing the acceptance of the cost of green dental buildings were mainly based on factors mentioned in other studies [4,5,14,15,34,61,65,66,67,68,71,72] and not on specific factors that exist in the building construction industry in Greece. Because of this limitation, the behavioral results should be further assessed to link specific green building elements with the environmental issues addressed in this study. There is also a lack of experimental elements which could more rigorously assess the willingness and practices of the specific sample, as reported elsewhere [79,95,103]. Moreover, a larger sample could have provided us with more robust results for the observed associations, which, in turn, could provide the basis for formulating proposals for stakeholders and a better assessment of their values. The low response rate to the survey precludes the generalization of the findings and the cross-sectional design only presents a static image of attitudes towards green dentistry issues in Greece during a certain period. However, the low participation rate may also indicate some degree of selection bias, in that those who are most interested in green dentistry practices responded to the questionnaires. In this case, the observed findings may be overestimated, which means that the true relationships in the total population of practicing dentists and dental students are much weaker and more efforts are required to establish green dental practices. Finally, the survey was conducted among a population of dentists and students in one country (Greece) and the findings need to be verified in other settings to formulate specific policies and legislation with a greater reach.

Despite these limitations, it is obvious that there is a need for more evidence to inform the green health building movement in Greece. A future study should apply different psychological, social, or economic theories to investigate students’ and dentists’ willingness to adopt sustainable pro-environmental behaviors. We should further investigate the values that reinforce environmental actions. Finally, additional study of the issue should address different motivators and facilitators of behavioral changes after specifically designed educational interventions. In this regard, the questionnaires used in this study could be used in the future to assess a larger sample of respondents from across the whole country. An assessment baseline level of the target behaviors should be further examined in this future sample after information sharing through social media and continuing educational projects from universities and dental associations. Dental associations must accordingly assess the long-term feasibility of changing the behaviors of their members after implementing the relevant educational campaigns. The reluctance of dentists to participate in this eco-study reflects their negative attitude towards actions that will possibly incur unexpected or obligatory costs. This attitude could be possibly overcome by a reward for participation, as mentioned elsewhere [104]. It is also necessary to determine the respondents’ spending power and the availability of resources for green materials and buildings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.; methodology, M.A.; software, E.R.; validation, M.A. and E.R.; formal analysis, E.R.; investigation, M.A., G.C. and R.T.; resources, M.A., G.C. and R.T.; data curation, M.A. and E.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A., G.C., R.T. and E.R. writing—review and editing, M.A. and E.R.; visualization, M.A.; supervision, M.A.; project administration, M.A.; funding acquisition, M.A. and E.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Dental School of Athens (39521/20.04.2022) and the scientific committee of the Athens Regional Dental Association (no: 2660/08.12.2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained when the questionnaires were filled out.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants who filled out the questionnaires used in the study and the Scientific Board of the Athens Regional Dental Association, metropolitan area of the capital, for the help in presenting this issue to its members.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Environment sustainability in dentistry (ESD), European Union (EU), Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), circular economy (CE), sustainable building designing and planning (SBDP), education and awareness of environment sustainability (EAES), economic aspects relating to the costs of the construction and function of environmentally sustainable dental practices (ESDP), green residential buildings (GRBs), green dental buildings (GDBs).

Footnotes

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.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Categorization of factors affecting GRB selection.

Figure 2. The 30 factors affecting GDB selection.

Figure 3. Steps of the methodology of the study.

View Image - Figure 4. A Vensim causal and use diagram of the pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes of dental students and dentists according to gender and urbanism in Greece. The diagram presents relationships and causal loops presented as (+) positive or in tandem influence, and (S) neutral relationships. Border lines with dots (…) indicate a lack of sufficient data.

Figure 4. A Vensim causal and use diagram of the pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes of dental students and dentists according to gender and urbanism in Greece. The diagram presents relationships and causal loops presented as (+) positive or in tandem influence, and (S) neutral relationships. Border lines with dots (…) indicate a lack of sufficient data.

View Image - Figure 5. Causal trees for gender and urbanism in relation to the 13 key factors influencing pro-environmental behaviors and dental professional status (dental students vs. dentists).

Figure 5. Causal trees for gender and urbanism in relation to the 13 key factors influencing pro-environmental behaviors and dental professional status (dental students vs. dentists).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the study samples: dental students and practicing dentists.

	Gender		Place of Residence		Semester of Studies
	MalesN (%)	FemalesN (%)	UrbanN (%)	RuralN (%)	10thN (%)	8thN (%)	6thN (%)	4thN (%)
Students	34 (36.6)	59 (63.4)	61 (65.6)	32 (34.4)	7 (7.5)	5 (5.4)	21 (22.6)	60 (64.5)
	Total 93
Dentists	46 (36.5)	80 (63.5)	96 (76.2)	30 (23.8)
	Total 126

Table 2

Pro-environmental behaviors regarding volunteering and knowledge of legislation according to gender for students and dentists. Non-statistically significant p-values were recorded.

Questions Q5–Q9 (Students) and Q8–Q13 (Dentists) and Results According to Gender
Q5. Do you use recycling at home?
	Total		Men		Women
	StudentsN1 = 93	DentistsN2 = 126	StudentsN1m = 34	DentistsN2m = 46	StudentsN1w = 59	DentistsN2w = 80
Yes	75 (80.64%)	104 (82.54%)	27 (79.41%)	40 (86.96%)	48 (81.35%)	64 (80.00%)
No	16 (17.20%)	22 (17.46%)	5 (14.70%)	6 (13.04%)	11 (18.65%)	16 (20.00%)
I prefer not to answer	2 (2.16%)	0	2 (5.89%)	0	0	0
p-value	0.16	0.32
Q6. Have you ever participated in voluntary environmental actions at home or during your studies?
Yes	54 (58.06%)	84 (66.66%)	19 (55.88%)	28 (60.86%)	35 (59.32%)	56 (70.00%)
No	38 (40.86%)	40 (31.74%)	14 (41.17%)	16 (34.78%)	24 (40.68%)	24 (30.00%)
I prefer not to answer	1 (1.08%)	2 (1.60%)	1 (2.95%)	2 (4.36%)	0	0
p-value	0.41	0.13
Q7. Are you aware of what circular economy means in dental practice?
Yes	20 (21.50%)	27 (21.42%)	4 (11.76%)	11 (23.91%)	16 (27.11%)	16 (20.00%)
No	63 (67.74%)	86 (68.25%)	26 (76.47%)	30 (65.21%)	37 (62.71%)	56 (70.00%)
I prefer not to answer	10 (10.76%)	13 (10.33%)	4 (11.77%)	5 (10.88%)	6 (10.18%)	8 (10%)
p-value	0.22	0.24
Q8. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about mercury use and disposal?
Yes	28 (30.10%)	41 (32.54%)	12 (35.29%)	17 (36.95%)	16 (27.11%)	24 (30.00%)
No	60 (64.51%)	74 (58.73%)	21 (61.76%)	27 (58.69%)	39 (66.10%)	47 (58.75%)
I prefer not to answer	5 (5.39%)	11 (8.73%)	1 (2.95%)	2 (4.36%)	4 (6.79%)	9 (11.25%)
p-value	0.57	0.36
Q9. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about plastic recycling?
Yes	20 (21.50%)	20 (15.87%)	7 (20.6%)	9 (19.56%)	13 (22.0%)	11 (13.75%)
No	71 (76.34%)	97 (76.98%)	27 (79.4%)	35 (76.09%)	44 (74.6%)	62 (77.50%)
I prefer not to answer	2 (2.16%)	9 (7.14%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (4.35%)	2 (3.4%)	7 (8.75%)
p-value	0.54	0.45

Table 3

Pro-environmental behaviors regarding volunteering and knowledge of legislation according to place of origin/dentistry practice.

Questions Q5–Q9 (Students) and Q8–Q13 (Dentists) and Results According to Place of Origin/Dentistry Practice
Q5. Do you use recycling at home?
	Total		Urban Areas		Non-Urban Areas
	StudentsN1 = 93	DentistsN2 = 126	Students N1urban = 61	DentistsN2urban = 96	StudentsN1nonurban = 32	DentistsN2nonurban = 30
Yes	75 (80.64%)	104 (82.54%)	48 (78.68%)	80 (83.33%)	27 (84.37%)	24 (80.00%)
No	16 (17.20%)	22 (17.46%)	12 (19.67%)	16 (16.67%)	4 (12.50%)	6 (20.00%)
I prefer not to answer	2 (2.16%)	0	1 (1.65%)	0	1 (3.13%)	0
p-value	0.63	0.67
Q6. Have you ever participated in voluntary environmental actions at home or during your studies?
Yes	54 (58.1%)	84 (66.66%)	35 (57.4%)	62 (64.58%)	19 (59.4%)	22 (73.33%)
No	38 (40.9%)	40 (31.74%)	25 (41.0%)	32 (33.33%)	13 (40.6%)	8 (26.67%)
I prefer not to answer	1 (1.1%)	2 (1.60%)	1 (1.6%)	2 (2.09%)	0	0
p-value	0.76	0.55
Q7. Are you aware of what circular economy means in dental practices?
Yes	20 (21.5%)	27 (21.43%)	14 (22.95%)	17 (17,70%)	6 (18.75%)	10 (33.33%)
No	63 (67.7%)	86 (68.25%)	41 (67.21%)	70 (72.91%)	22 (68.75%)	16 (53.33%)
I prefer not to answer	10 (10.8%)	13 (10.32%)	6 (9.84%)	9 (9.39%)	4 (12.5%)	4 (13.34%)
p-value	0.85	0.19
Q8. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about mercury use and disposal?
Yes	28 (30.10%)	41 (32.54%)	19 (31.14%)	34 (35.42%)	9 (28.1%)	7 (23.33%)
No	60 (64.51%)	74 (58.73%)	38 (62.29%)	56 (58.33%)	22 (68.8%)	18 (60.00%)
I prefer not to answer	5 (5.39%)	11 (8.73%)	4 (6.57%)	6 (6.25%)	1 (3.1%)	5 (16.67%)
p-value	0.71	0.14
Q9. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about plastic recycling?
Yes	20 (21.50%)	20 (15.87%)	14 (22.95%)	16 (16.67%)	6 (18.75%)	4 (13.33%)
No	71 (76.34%)	97 (76.98%)	45 (73.77%)	74 (77.08%)	26 (81.25%)	23 (76.67%)
I prefer not to answer	2 (2.16%)	9 (7.14%)	2 (3.28%)	6 (6.25%)	0	3 (10.00%)
p-value	0.50	0.74

Table 4

Rating of the most significant factors in green dental practices from dental students and practicing dentists according to gender.

	Gender
Dental Students	Males N (%)	Females N (%)	p Value *
Increased costs in utility networks
Neutral	6 (17.6%)	20 (33.9%)	0.02
Extremely insignificant	5 (14.7%)	1 (1.7%)
Extremely significant	23 (67.6%)	38 (64.4%)
Lack of environmental awareness of manufacturers
Neutral	6 (17.6%)	2 (3.4%)	0.057
Extremely insignificant	0 (0.0%)	3 (5.1%)
Extremely significant	28 (82.4%)	54 (91.5%)
Poor wastewater management
Neutral	7 (20.6%)	2 (3.4%)	0.01
Extremely insignificant	0 (0.0%)	4 (6.8%)
Extremely significant	27 (79.4%)	53 (89.8%)
Dentists	Most environmentally damaging practice in a dental practice
	Males N (%)	Females N (%)	p-value
Wasted energy
No	28 (60.87%)	32 (40.00%)	0.024
Yes	18 (39.13%)	48 (60.00%)
Use of unapproved disinfection products
No	36 (78.26%)	48 (60.00%)	0.036
Yes	10 (21.74%)	32 (40.00%)

* χ² test.

Table 5

Rating of the most significant factors in green dental practices by dental students and practicing dentists by place of residence.

	Place of Residence
Students	Urban	Rural N (%)	p Value *
Lack of financial support
Neutral	4 (6.6%)	4 (12.5%)	0.02
Extremeley insignificant	0 (0.0%)	4 (12.5%)
Extremely significant	57 (93.4%)	24 (75.0%)
Low level of “green” design in buildings
Neutral	2 (3.3%)	4 (12.5%)	0.03
Extremely insignificant	0 (0.0%)	2 (6.3%)
Extremely significant	59 (96.7%)	26 (81.2%)
Reduced profits of green dental practice in the near future
Neutral	12 (19.7%)	14 (43.8%)	0.04
Extremely insignificant	11 (18.0%)	3 (9.4%)
Extremely significant	38 (62.3%)	15 (46.9%)
Negligible benefits for the reputation of the business by today’s standards
Neutral	15 (24.5%)	14 (43.8%)	0.02
Extremeley insignificant	2 (3.3%)	5 (15.6%)
Extremeley significant	44 (72.2%)	13 (40.6%)
Lack of continuous education and training seminars on green dentistry
Neutral	9 (14.8%)	4 (12.5%)	0.05
Extremely insignificant	0 (0.0%)	3 (9.4%)
Extremely significant	52 (85.2%)	25 (78.1%)
Dentists
	Urban N (%)	Rural N (%)	p-value
Increased costs in utility networks
Neutral	19 (19.8%)	11 (34.4%)	0.08
Extremely insignificant	12 (4.9%)	3 (12.5%)
Extremely significant	43 (70.5%)	65 (67.7%)

* χ² test.

Appendix A. Questionnaire for Dental Students

INTRODUCTORY MESSAGE

Dear colleagues,

This online survey aims to gather information regarding your environmental attitudes, knowledge of the circular economy, recycling, and environmental volunteering preferences. Our aim is to gather information on factors influencing your acceptance of an eco-friendly constructed building (sustainable energy, water, air, construction materials) for your future dental practice. We finally aim to gather proposals for future effective educational approaches to the matter. Participation in the study is voluntary and no personal data are gathered. No reward is given for your participation. You have the right to refuse participation. You may confirm your approval by marking the box labelled “Yes, I agree to participate”. Access to the questionnaire is only granted once. Answering all questions is obligatory to submit the form. Ethical approval is obtained from the Board of Ethics of the Department of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (No.39521/20-4-2022).

Part A. Demographics:
Q1. What is your gender? male_female_other
Q2. Which is your semester of studies? 4o_6o_8o_10o semester (undergraduate level)
Q3. Where does your family live? capital_other urban city_mainland/non urban areas_islands/non urban areas
Q4. What is the highest educational level of your family members? (refer to the parent who has the highest level of education); elementary_gymnasium/lyceum_college_university
Part B. Environmental bevahiors regarding volunteering and knowledge of legislation
Q5. Do you use recycling at home? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q6. Have you ever participated in voluntary environmental activities at your place of residence or during your studies? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q7. Are you aware of the principles of the circular economy in the dental practice? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q8. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about mercury use and disposal?
Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q9. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about plastic recycling? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Part C. Importance of factors influencing environmental attitudes
Q10. Evaluate the following factors depending on the importance you think they have for a green dental practice (note the one that most accurately represents your view) 1: extremely insignificant, 2: relatively insignificant, 3: neutral, 4: significant, 5: extremely significant
Q10.1 Lack of regulations and national legislation
Q10.2 Lack of state control
Q10.3 Lack of specific technical knowledge and support during the construction of the building
Q10.4 Lack of specific technical knowledge and support during the design of the dental practice
Q10.5 Lack of financial support to design a green dental practice
Q10.6 Low level of “green design” in buildings
Q10.7 Lengthening the construction time of a green dental practice
Q10.8 Increase in costs for related changes to utility networks
Q10.9 Increase in the necessary and mandatory space for a dental practice
Q10.10 Higher cost of buying/renting a green dental practice
Q10.11 Possible damage to the structure of the buildings if green changes are performed after construction
Q10.12 Lack of developed knowledge about green building construction
Q10.13 Immature market of green construction materials for health offices
Q10.14 The economic benefit of a green dental practice is not visible in the near future
Q10.15 Questions and doubts from patients about the safety of green construction materials
Q10.16 Low demand for green buildings
Q10.17 Lack of environmental awareness of manufacturers
Q10.18 Lack of environmental awareness of the public
Q10.19 Lack of advertising for green dental practice
Q10.20 Lack of training on green dentistry issues
Q10.21 Waste of water in the dental practice
Q10.22 Poor wastewater management in the dental practice
Q10.23 Incomplete management of household waste
Q10.24 Cost of septic waste collection
Q10.25 Cost of air purification devices in the dental practice
Q10.26 Reduced application of renewable energy sources in public
Q10.27 Reduced application of renewable energy sources in the dental practice
Q10.28 Negligible reputational benefits for green dental practices by today’s standards
Q10.29 Lack of general instruction from regional dental associations about paper and plastic recycling in the dental practice
Q10.30 Lack of training seminars on environmentally friendly dentistry
Part D. Estimation of educational needs and participants’ proposals
Q11. Needs for seminars about environmental sustainability in dental practices (please complete)…
Q12. Proposals and suggestions for the environmentally friendly dental practices of the future (please complete)…

Appendix B. Questionnaire for Dentists

INTRODUCTORY MESSAGE

Dear colleagues,

This online survey aims to gather information on your environmental attitudes, knowledge of the circular economy, recycling, and environmental volunteering preferences. Our scope is to gather information on factors influencing your acceptance of an eco-friendly constructed building (sustainable energy, water, air, construction materials) for your dental practice. Participation in the study is voluntary and no personal data are gathered. No reward is given for your participation. You have the right to refuse participation. You may confirm your approval by marking the box labelled “Yes, I agree to participate”. Access to the questionnaire is only granted once. It is necessary to answer all questions to submit the form. Ethical approval was obtained from the Scientific Board of the Athens Regional Dental Association (No: 2660/08.12.2022).

Part A. Demographics:
Q1. What is your gender? male_female_other
Q2. For how many years have you worked as a dentist? 0-5_6-10_11-20_21-30_31 and over
Q3. Where do you work as a dentist? capital_other urban city_mainland/non urban areas_islands/non urban areas
Q4. How do you perform dentistry? private practice_employee_academic_public sector_other
Q5. Which is your main field of practicing dentistry? general dentistry_endodontics_periodontics_prosthetics, orthodontics_paedodontics_restorative/esthetic dentistry_oral surgery_other
Q6. Have you ever participated in voluntary environmental actions at your place of residence or work? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q7. How many employees do you have in your practice? None_1-2_3-4_5 and more
Part B. Pro-environmental bevahiors regarding volunteering and knowledge of legislation
Q8. Do you use recycling at home? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q9. Do you use recycling at work? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q10. Are you aware of the principles of the circular economy in dental practice? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q11. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about mercury use and disposal?Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q12. Are you aware of the current European Union legislation about plastic recycling? Yes_ No_I prefer not to answer
Q13. What is the most negative environmental behavior in the dental practice?
Q13.1 The collection of septic along with household waste
Q13.2 The non-application of documented antisepsis protocols
Q13.3 Noise production
Q13.4 Waste of energy
Q13.5 Waste of water
Q13.6 Waste of dental materials
Q13.7 The use of non-recyclable single-use products
Q13.8 The use of uncertified disinfection products
Part C. Estimation of the importance of factors influencing pro-environmental attitudes
Q14. (as Q10 in Appendix A)
Part D. Estimation of educational needs and participants’ proposals
Q15. (as Q11 in Appendix A)
Q16. (as Q12 in Appendix A)

References

1. WHO. Green and New Evidence and Perspectives for Action Blue Spaces and Mental Health. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342931/9789289055666-eng.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2023).

2. Cvenkel, N. Well-Being in the Workplace: Governance and Sustainability Insights to Promote Workplace Health; On Approaches to Global Sustainability Markets and Governance Springer: Singapore, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3619-9]

3. Kotsopoulos, D. Organizational Energy Conservation Matters in the Anthropocene. Energies; 2022; 15, 8214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15218214]

4. Allen, J.G.; MacNaughton, P.; Laurent, J.G.C. Green Buildings and Health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep.; 2015; 2, pp. 250-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40572-015-0063-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26231502]

5. Scrima, F.; Mura, A.L.; Nonnis, M.; Fornara, F. The relation between workplace attachment style, design satisfaction, privacy and exhaustion in office employees: A moderated mediation model. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2021; 78, 101693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101693]

6. Antoniadou, M. Quality of Life and Satisfaction from Career and Work–Life Integration of Greek Dentists before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 9865. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169865] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36011505]

7. EC. A Resource-Efficient Europe—Flagship Initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy; COM 21 European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.

8. EC. Road Map to a More Resource Efficient Europe; SEC 1067 European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.

9. EC. New Circular Economy Action Plan. 2020; Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en (accessed on 20 March 2023).

10. FDI Consensus Statement. Consensus on Environmentally Sustainable Oral Healthcare: A Joint Stakeholder Statement. Available online: https://www.fdiworlddental.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Consensus%20Statement%20-%20FDI.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2023).

11. Antoniadou, M.; Varzakas, T.; Tzoutzas, I. Circular Economy in Conjunction with Treatment Methodologies in the Biomedical and Dental Waste Sectors. Circ. Econ. Sustain.; 2020; 1, pp. 563-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43615-020-00001-0]

12. Di Noto, J. Healthy Buildings vs Green Buildings: What’s the Difference?. 16 December 2021; Available online: https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/resources/healthy-buildings-vs-green-buildings-difference (accessed on 23 March 2023).

13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC 5th Assessment Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.

14. Zhang, M.; The Cong, P.; Sanyal, S.; Suksatan, W.; Maneengam, A.; Murtaza, N. Insights into rising environmental concern: Prompt corporate social responsibility to mediate green marketing perspective. Econ. Res.; 2022; 35, pp. 5097-5113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2021966]

15. Zhenjing, G.; Chupradit, S.; Yen Ku, K.; Nassani, A.; Haffar, M. Impact of Employees’ Workplace Environment on Employees’ Performance: A Multi-Mediation Model. Front. Public Health; 2022; 10, 890400. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.890400]

16. UN Environment Program. Environmental Rule of Law. Available online: https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/environmental-rights-and-governance/what-we-do/promoting-environmental-rule-law-0 (accessed on 20 May 2023).

17. Duane, B.; Harford, S.; Ramasubbu, D.; Stancliffe, R.; Pasdeki-Clewer, E.; Lomax, R. Environmentally sustainable dentistry: A brief introduction to sustainable concepts within the dental practice. Br. Dent. J.; 2019; 226, pp. 292-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0010-7]

18. Duane, B.; Stancliffe, R.; Miller, F.A.; Sherman, J.; Pasdeki-Clewer, E. Sustainability in Dentistry: A Multifaceted Approach Needed. J. Dent. Res.; 2020; 99, pp. 998-1003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022034520919391]

19. Veress, A.; Kerekes-Máthé, B.; Székely, M. Environmentally friendly behavior in dentistry. Med. Pharm. Rep.; 2023; 96, pp. 199-205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15386/mpr-2473]

20. Martin, N.; Mulligan, S. Environmental Sustainability through Good-Quality Oral Healthcare. Int. Dent. J.; 2022; 72, pp. 26-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2021.06.005] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34412896]

21. Markey, R.; Ravenswood, K.; Webber, D. The Impact of the Quality of the Work Environment on Employees’ Intention to Quit. Economics Working Paper Series 1220, University of West England. Available online: https://www2.uwe.ac.uk/faculties/BBS/BUS/Research/economics2012/1221.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2023).

22. Van Schaack, C.; Ben Dor, T. A comparative study of green building in urban and transitioning rural North Carolina. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.; 2011; 54, pp. 1125-1147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.550793]

23. Tsai, W.H.; Yang, C.H.; Huang, C.T.; Wu, Y.Y. The impact of the carbon tax policy on green building strategy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.; 2017; 60, pp. 1412-1438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1221800]

24. Akamani, K. Challenges in the transition toward adaptive water governance. Water Conservation: Practices, Challenges and Future Implications; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 165-178.

25. Antoniadou, M. Estimation of Factors Affecting Burnout in Greek Dentists before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Dent. J.; 2022; 13, 108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj10060108]

26. Kats, G. Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.

27. Langdon, D. The Cost & Benefit of Achieving Green Buildings; Davis Langdon Management Consulting: London, UK, 2007.

28. Jin-Lee, K.; Martin, G.; Sunkuk, K. Cost Comparative Analysis of a New Green Building Code for Residential Project Development. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2014; 140, 05014002.

29. Dwaikat, L.N.; Ali, K.N. Green buildings cost premium: A review of empirical evidence. Energy Build.; 2016; 110, pp. 396-403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.021]

30. Darko, A.; Zhang, C.; Chan, A.P.C. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat Int.; 2017; 60, pp. 34-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.12.007]

31. Tzoutzas, I.; Maltezou, H.C.; Barmparesos, N.; Tasios, P.; Efthymiou, C.; Assimakopoulos, M.N.; Tseroni, M.; Vorou, R.; Tzermpos, F.; Antoniadou, M. et al. Indoor Air Quality Evaluation Using Mechanical Ventilation and Portable Air Purifiers in an Academic Dentistry Clinic during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 8886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168886]

32. de Lima Andrade, E.; Da Cunha e Silva, D.C.; De Lima, E.A. Environmental noise in hospitals: A systematic review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 19629-19642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13211-2]

33. Antoniadou, M.; Tziovara, P.; Antoniadou, C. The Effect of Sound in the Dental Office: Practices and Recommendations for Quality Assurance—A Narrative Review. Dent. J.; 2022; 10, 228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj10120228]

34. Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, X. Factors Affecting Green Residential Building Development: Social Network Analysis. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10051389]

35. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2002; 8, pp. 239-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401]

36. Mesmer-Magnus, J.; Viswesvaran, C.; Wiernik, B.M. The Role of Commitment in Bridging the Gap between Organizational Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability. Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability; Jackson, S.E.; Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 245-283.

37. Tian, H.; Liu, X. Pro-Environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical Progress and Future Directions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 31, 6721. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116721]

38. Dilchert, S.; Ones, D.S. Measuring and Improving Environmental Sustainability. Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability; Jackson, S.E.; Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S. sJossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 284-327.

39. Topf, S.; Speekenbrink, M. Follow my example, for better and for worse: The influence of behavioral traces on recycling decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl.; 2023; 5, 452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000452]

40. Nilsson, A.; Bergquist, M.; Schultz, W.P. Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: A review and research agenda. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2017; 23, pp. 573-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250148]

41. Li, D.; Zhao, L.M.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L.X. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2019; 146, pp. 28-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.024]

42. Farrow, K.; Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L. Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Ecol. Econ.; 2017; 140, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017]

43. Zawadzki, S.J.; Steg, L.; Bouman, T. Meta-analytic evidence for a robust and positive association between individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors and their subjective wellbeing. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2020; 15, 123007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc4ae]

44. Lulfs, R.; Hahn, R. Corporate Greening beyond Formal Programs, Initiatives, and Systems: A Conceptual Model for Voluntary Pro-environmental Behavior of Employees. Eur. Manag. Rev.; 2013; 10, pp. 83-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/emre.12008]

45. Asch, J.; Shore, B.M. Conservation Behavior as Outcome of Environmental-Education. J. Environ. Educ.; 1975; 6, pp. 25-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1975.9942002]

46. Arbuthnot, J. The Roles of Attitudinal and Personality Variables in the Prediction of Environmental Behavior and Knowledge. Environ. Behav.; 1977; 9, pp. 217-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001391657792004]

47. Whitley, C.T.; Takahashi, B.; Zwickle, A.; Besley, J.C.; Lertpratchya, A.P. Sustainability behaviors among college students: An application of the VBN theory. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2018; 24, pp. 245-262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250151]

48. Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2010; 30, pp. 305-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003]

49. Klockner, C.A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour-A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang.; 2013; 23, pp. 1028-1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014]

50. Schwartz, S.H. Awareness of Consequences and Influence of Moral Norms on Interpersonal Behavior. Sociometry; 1968; 31, pp. 355-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786399]

51. Harland, P.; Staats, H.; Wilke, H.A.M. Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.; 1999; 29, pp. 2505-2528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x]

52. Greaves, M.; Zibarras, L.D.; Stride, C. Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2013; 34, pp. 109-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003]

53. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 135, pp. 732-739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.120]

54. Patrick, R.; Henderson-Wilson, C.; Ebden, M. Exploring the co-benefits of environmental volunteering for human and planetary health promotion. Health Promot. J. Aust.; 2022; 33, pp. 57-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hpja.460]

55. Kim, J.; Bae, Y.K.; Chung, J.H. Modeling Social Distance and Activity-Travel Decision Similarity to Identify Influential Agents in Social Networks and Geographic Space and Its Application to Travel Mode Choice Analysis. Transp. Res. Rec.; 2020; 2674, pp. 466-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361198120919412]

56. Zhou, X.L.; Tang, C.C.; Lv, X.Y.; Xing, B. Visitor Engagement, Relationship Quality, and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 1151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041151]

57. Gsottbauer, E.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Environmental Policy Theory Given Bounded Rationality and Other-regarding Preferences. Environ. Resour. Econ.; 2011; 49, pp. 63-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9433-y]

58. Klockner, C.A.; Blobaum, A. A comprehensive action determination model toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2010; 30, pp. 574-586. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.001]

59. Frederiks, E.R.; Stennerl, K.; Hobman, E.V. Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2015; 41, pp. 1385-1394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.026]

60. Mills, E. Building commissioning: A golden opportunity for reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Energy Effic.; 2011; 4, pp. 145-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-011-9116-8]

61. Yang, R.J.; Zou, P.X.W.; Wang, J. Modelling stakeholder-associated risk networks in green building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2016; 34, pp. 66-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.09.010]

62. Richardson, G.R.A.; Lynes, J.K. Institutional motivations and barriers to the construction of green buildings on campus: A case study of the University of Waterloo, Ontario. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2007; 8, pp. 339-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370710817183]

63. Jamison, A. Turning Engineering Green: Sustainable Development and Engineering Education. Engineering, Development and Philosophy; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012.

64. Mi, J.K.; Oh, M.W.; Kim, J.T. A method for evaluating the performance of green buildings with a focus on user experience. Energy Build.; 2013; 66, pp. 203-210.

65. Hwang, B.G.; Shan, M.; Looi, K.Y. Key constraints and mitigation strategies for prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 183, pp. 183-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.136]

66. Hwang, B.G.; Shan, M.; Phua, H.; Chi, S. An exploratory analysis of risks in green residential building construction projects: The case of Singapore. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9071116]

67. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, X.B.; He, Q. Regional variations of credits obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings—A country level analysis. Sustainability; 2017; 10, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10010020]

68. Dickinson, J.L.; Crain, R.L.; Reeve, H.K.; Schuldt, J.P. Can evolutionary design of social networks make it easier to be ‘green’?. Trends Ecol. Evol.; 2013; 28, pp. 561-569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23787089]

69. Ogunmakinde, O.E.; Egbelakin, T.; Sher, W.; Omotayo, T.; Ogunnusi, M. Establishing the limitations of sustainable construction in developing countries: A systematic literature review using PRISMA. Smart Sustain. Built Environ.; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2022-0223]

70. Assylbekov, D.; Nadeem, A.; Md Aslam Hossan, A.; Khalfan, M. Factors Influencing Green Building Development in Kazakhstan. Buildings; 2021; 11, 634. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120634]

71. Eichholtz, P.; Quigley, J.M. Green building finance and investments: Practice, policy and research. Eur. Econ. Rev.; 2012; 56, pp. 903-904.

72. Zhao, X.B.; Hwang, B.G.; Hong, N.L. Identifying critical leadership styles of project managers for green building projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag.; 2016; 16, pp. 150-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1130602]

73. Peponis, M.; Antoniadou, M.; Pappa, E.; Rahiotis, C.; Varzakas, T. Vitamin D and Vitamin D Receptor Polymorphisms Relationship to Risk Level of Dental Caries. Appl. Sci.; 2023; 13, 6014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app13106014]

74. Antoniadou, M.; Masoura, E.; Devetziadou, M.; Rahiotis, C. Ethical Dilemmas for Dental Students in Greece. Dent. J.; 2023; 2, 118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11050118]

75. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.; 2006; 2, pp. 77-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]

76. Bingham, A.J.; Witkowsky, P. Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Data: After the Interview; Vanover, C.; Mihas, P.; Saldaña, J. SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2022; pp. 133-146.

77. Ang, L.; Eisend, M. Single versus multiple measurement of attitudes: A meta-analysis of advertising studies validates the single-item measure approach. J. Advert. Res.; 2018; 58, pp. 218-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2017-001]

78. Bursac, Z.; Gauss, C.H.; Williams, D.K. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol. Med.; 2008; 3, 17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1751-0473-3-17]

79. Spaveras, A.; Antoniadou, M. Awareness of Students and Dentists on Sustainability Issues, Safety of Use and Disposal of Dental Amalgam. Dent. J.; 2023; 11, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11010021]

80. Becker, R. Gender and Survey Participation. An Event History Analysis of the Gender Effects of Survey Participation in a Probability-based Multi-wave Panel Study with a Sequential Mixed-mode. Des. Methods Data Anal.; 2022; 16, pp. 3-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12758/mda.2021.08]

81. OECD Women Are Catching Up to Men in Volunteering, and They Engage in More Altruistic Voluntary Activities. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/women-are-catching-up-to-men-in-volunteering-and-they-engage-in-more-altruistic-voluntary-activities.htm (accessed on 2 April 2023).

82. SMU City Perspectives TeamSMU, Singapore Management University. Why Rewarding Sustainable Behaviour with Money is a Bad Idea. 2022; Available online: https://cityperspectives.smu.edu.sg/article/why-rewarding-sustainable-behaviour-money-bad-idea (accessed on 2 April 2023).

83. Niebuur, J.; van Lente, L.; Liefbroer, A.C. Determinants of participation in voluntary work: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. BMC Public Health; 2018; 18, 1213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6077-2]

84. Okun, M.A.; Yeung, E.W.; Brown, S. Volunteering by older adults and risk of mortality: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Aging; 2013; 28, pp. 564-577. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031519]

85. Jenkinson, C.E.; Dickens, A.P.; Jones, K.; Thompson-Coon, J.; Taylor, R.S.; Rogers, M. Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers. BMC Public Health; 2013; 13, 773.Available online: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-773 (accessed on 20 March 2023). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-773]

86. Anderson, N.D.; Damianakis, T.; Kröger, E.; Wagner, L.M.; Dawson, D.R.; Binns, M.A. The benefits associated with volunteering among seniors: A critical review and recommendations for future research. Psychol. Bull.; 2014; 140, pp. 1505-1533. Available online: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0037610 (accessed on 20 March 2023). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037610]

87. International Labour Office Geneva. Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work; International Labour Office (ILO): Geneva, Switzernald, 2011; pp. 1-120. ISBN 978-92-2-125071-5 Available online: www.ilo.org/publnsI (accessed on 20 March 2023).

88. Salamon, L.M.; Sokolowski, S.W.; Megan, A.; Tice, H.S. The State of Global Civil Society and Volunteering: Latest Findings from the Implementation of the UN Nonprofit Handbook; Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2013; Volume 49, 18.

89. Zhang, W.; Xu, R.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, W. How Environmental Knowledge Management Promotes Employee Green Behavior: An Empirical Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 29, 4738. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094738]

90. Sung, Q.C.; Lin, M.L.; Shiao, K.Y.; Wei, C.C.; Jan, Y.L.; Huang, L.T. Changing behaviors: Does knowledge matter? A structural equation modeling study on green building literacy of undergraduates in Taiwan. Sustain. Environ. Res.; 2014; 24, pp. 173-183.

91. Truelove, H.B.; Carrico, A.R.; Weber, E.U.; Raimi, K.T.; Vandenbergh, M.P. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Chang.; 2014; 29, pp. 127-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004]

92. Khanna, S.S.; Dhaimade, P.A. Green dentistry: A systematic review of ecological dental practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2019; 21, pp. 2599-2618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0156-5]

93. Watson, L.; Hegtvedt, K.; Johnson, C.; Parris, C.; Subramanyam, S. When legitimacy shapes environmentally responsible behaviors: Considering exposure to university sustainability initiatives. Educ. Sci.; 2017; 7, 13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010013]

94. Watson, L.; Johnson, C.; Hegtvedt, K.; Parris, C. Living green: Examining sustainable dorms and identities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.; 2015; 16, pp. 310-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2013-0118]

95. Ma, C.; Rogers, A.A.; Krag, M.E.; Zhang, F.; Polyakov, M.; Gibson, F.; Chalak, M.; Pandit, R.; Tapsuwan, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable energy: A meta-regression analysis. Resour. Energy Econ.; 2015; 42, pp. 93-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.07.003]

96. Hamilton, E.M. Green Building, Green Behavior? An Analysis of Building Characteristics that Support Environmentally Responsible Behaviors. Environ. Behav.; 2021; 53, pp. 409-450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916520942601]

97. Xie, X.; Lu, Y.; Gou, Z. Green Building Pro-Environment Behaviors: Are Green Users Also Green Buyers?. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1703. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9101703]

98. Antoniadou, M. Economic survival during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral Hyg. Health; 2021; 9, pp. 267-269.

99. ADA. COVID-19 Economic Impact on Dental Practices. March 2015; Available online: https://www.ada.org/resources/research/health-policy-institute/impact-of-covid-19 (accessed on 2 April 2023).

100. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2009; 29, pp. 309-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004]

101. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev.; 1999; 6, pp. 81-95.

102. Staddon, S.C.; Cycil, C.; Goulden, M.; Leygue, C.; Spence, A. Intervening to change behavior and save energy in the workplace: A systematic review of available evidence. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2016; 17, pp. 30-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.027]

103. Gou, Z.; Lau, S.S.Y.; Prasad, D. Market readiness and policy implications for green buildings: Case study from Hong Kong. J. Green Build.; 2013; 8, pp. 162-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3992/jgb.8.2.162]

104. Abdelazeem, B.; Abbas, K.S.; Amin, M.A.; El-Shahat, N.A.; Malik, B.; Kalantary, A.; Eltobgy, M. The effectiveness of incentives for research participation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE; 2022; 22, e0267534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267534]

Word count: 12612

Show less

© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Translate

Ηuman sustainability in dental enterprises, as in every workplace, is connected to air and water quality, eco-friendly and naturally designed working spaces, and the culture of the 4Rs. The purpose of this study was to assess pro-environmental behavior, as well as knowledge of preferences for circular economies and green building construction, among a sample of dental students and dentists in Greece. We further assessed the factors influencing their choices. Students (N1 = 93) and dentists (N2 = 126) filled in e-questionnaires from April to December 2022. The data revealed that both students and dentists lack knowledge about the circular economy (N1 = 67.74%, N2 = 68.25%), EU regulations on amalgam disposal (N1 = 64.51%, N2 = 58.73%), and plastic recycling (N1 = 76.34%, N2 = 76.98%); meanwhile, they do recycle at home (N1 = 80.64%, N2 = 82.54%) and have participated in voluntary environmental initiatives (N1 = 58.06%, N2 = 66.66%). Gender influences the importance of factors related to green dental practices, with women students being more likely to agree that increased costs for network changes (p = 0.02) and poor wastewater management (p = 0.01) are significant. Students from urban areas are more likely to give positive answers to questions related to the lack of state financial support (p = 0.02), low levels of green design in buildings (p = 0.03), the negligible direct financial benefits of green dental offices (p = 0.04), the negligible reputational benefits of green dental offices (p = 0.02), and the lack of continuing education training seminars on green dentistry (p = 0.05). For dentists, no significant relationships were observed, except for a weak positive relationship for the increases in costs due to changes related to utility networks (p = 0.08), while increases in waste energy (p = 0.12) and the waste of dental materials (p = 0.19) seemed significant only for dentists in urban areas. Women dentists were more likely to answer positively regarding wasting energy (p = 0.024) and the use of unapproved disinfection products (p = 0.036). The findings contribute ideas and solutions for green dental practice buildings and sustainable behaviors through educational activities and regarding the social aspects of factors such as age, experience in dentistry, gender, and urbanism. This study also provides a basis for future multi-disciplinary research on dental quality assurance, the psychology of environmentalism, economics, and behavioral science in dentistry.

Details

Title

Green Dental Environmentalism among Students and Dentists in Greece

Author

Antoniadou, Maria¹

; Chrysochoou, Georgios¹; Tzanetopoulos, Rafael¹; Riza, Elena²

¹ Department of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 115 27 Athens, Greece; [email protected] (G.C.); [email protected] (R.T.)
² Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology & Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 115 27 Athens, Greece; [email protected]

First page

9508

Publication year

2023

Publication date

2023

Publisher

MDPI AG

e-ISSN

20711050

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129508

ProQuest document ID

2829882500

Green Dental Environmentalism among Students and Dentists in Greece

Jump to:

Full Text

Abstract

Details

Suggested sources