This paper addresses a central challenge in sustainability education: the gap between environmental awareness and environmental action among students. Despite students knowing about the climate crisis and sustainability, they often fail to translate this knowledge into meaningful behavioral change. While campaigns targeting sustainability have increased, individual carbon footprints remain high, demonstrating that knowledge alone is insufficient to drive behavioral change. A worrying discrepancy remains between environmental awareness and behavioral change. The research question guiding this study is: Why do students from different educational levels (Vocational, Applied Sciences, and University) fail to commit to sustainability, despite being aware of the climate crisis? 

The theoretical framework integrates insights from environmental psychology and critical pedagogy. Concepts such as cognitive dissonance, eco-anxiety, tokenism, comfort, and responsibility shifting are used to explain why awareness does not automatically result in action. The study employs a mixed-methods approach to identify the cognitive and structural barriers preventing students from acting. The research population included students from three distinct educational levels within the Dutch education system: Vocational, Applied Sciences, and University. This allows for a comparative analysis of how educational background and pedagogical orientations influence sustainability mindsets. Data was collected through a quantitative survey (N=69) using a 5-point Likert scale, followed by semi-structured interviews (N=7) to triangulate findings and provide qualitative depth. 

The results reveal that the primary barrier to action is not climate skepticism, but a profound feeling of powerlessness. The data shows a common belief that personal sacrifice is meaningless if others do not act too. However, the study also identifies differences in how this inaction manifests across different educational contexts.

This research identifies a specific paradox: the belief that individual action is futile in the face of global environmental challenges. University students demonstrated the highest levels of eco-anxiety and theoretical awareness but paradoxically reported deep feelings of paralysis. Their inaction is driven by an over-exposure to the scale of the problem without accompanying practical skills, leading to a reliance on the government to fix the problem. Conversely, Vocational and Applied Sciences students exhibited a form of distancing, arguing that environmental issues are either the responsibility of future generations or will be solved by technological innovation rather than behavioral change. In particular, Vocational students highlighted the unaffordability of sustainable choices as a major barrier.

The findings suggest that current educational models are effectively transferring factual knowledge, leading to awareness, but failing to create agency. The study concludes that this knowledge-action gap is sustained by a pedagogical focus on the severity of the crisis rather than the importance of individual influence. These findings have significant implications for educational policy, suggesting that without addressing the psychological barrier of personal insignificance, action may never happen.

While empirically grounded in the Netherlands, the study has strong European and international relevance. The paradox of inaction reflects broader dynamics present across European education systems, where sustainability is increasingly integrated into curricula yet struggles to generate behavioral change. By focusing on students’ perceived lack of impact, this research contributes to international debates on how education can move beyond awareness-raising towards empowering learners as active participants in collective sustainability transitions. 

This study employed a mixed-methods research design to explore students’ perceptions of sustainability-related inaction and the factors contributing to their sense of individual insignificance. The research was conducted within the context of Dutch post-secondary education, including Vocational, Applied Sciences, and University. The research took place in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, selecting a diverse sample to ensure representation across the Dutch higher education system. Participants A total of 69 students participated in the quantitative phase of the study: 26 Vocational students, 23 Applied Sciences students, and 20 University students. Participants were recruited in Rotterdam through convenience sampling across multiple institutions, ensuring representation from all three educational levels. For the qualitative phase, seven students were selected for follow-up interviews: three University students, two Applied Sciences students, and two Vocational students. Instruments The primary quantitative instrument was a questionnaire consisting of 14 statements measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). The statements were designed based on themes identified previously in a literature review, including responsibility attribution, eco-anxiety, financial barriers, habitual behaviour, social norms, and beliefs about technological solutions. Mean scores were calculated for each question across educational levels to allow for comparison. To complement the survey data, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain deeper insight into students’ reasoning, emotional responses, and lived experiences related to sustainability. Interview questions focused on perceived responsibility, motivation, perceived impact of individual actions, and obstacles to behavioural change. Procedure Firstly, a questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data and identify general trends. Subsequently, participants were invited to an interview to discuss their responses in more detail, allowing for triangulation and qualitative validation of the survey findings. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Data Analysis Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, focusing on mean scores and patterns across educational levels. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, with codes derived both deductively from the literature (e.g. eco-anxiety, cognitive dissonance) and inductively from the interview material. The integration of both data sources enabled an understanding of how shared beliefs and educational contexts shape students’ sustainability-related behaviour.

This research set out to deconstruct the paradox of inaction, analyzing why students aware of the climate crisis struggle to engage in sustainable behaviors. Through a comparative analysis of Vocational, Applied Sciences, and University students, four key conclusions emerge regarding the barriers to action. First, the study confirms that the action insignificance paradox is a fundamental psychological barrier. The data shows that inaction stems from a belief that individual efforts are negligible. This manifests as a collective waiting game, where students defer responsibility to governments or corporations, creating a cycle where no party acts because others are not acting. Second, we conclude that the nature of this inaction is stratified by education level. University students suffer from a paralysis, where high theoretical knowledge leads to increased eco-anxiety and feeling overwhelmed. Conversely, Vocational and Applied Sciences students distance themselves from the problem by believing future technology will resolve it. Third, socio-economic factors act as a justification for inaction. Students universally cited financial constraints and the difficulty of breaking habits as major hurdles. Vocational students, in particular, perceive a disconnect between sustainability goals and their own financial reality, viewing sustainable behavior as a luxury rather than a responsibility. Finally, this study highlights a critical flaw in current sustainability education. By emphasizing the catastrophic scale of climate change without providing tools for individual agency, education is fostering feelings of insignificance. Future research must therefore focus not on informing students of the problem, but on psychological strategies and practical tools to validate the power of the individual within the collective.

Bruzzone, V., & Mulvihill, P. R. (2022). Phenomenology, habit, and environmental inaction. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 25(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1940448 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1968) Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. Lacroix, K., Gifford, R., & Chen, A. (2019). Developing and validating the Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers (DIPB) scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.03.001 Robinson, D. (2025, March 28). 15 biggest environmental problems of 2025 | Earth.Org. Earth.Org. https://earth.org/the-biggest-environmental-problems-of-our-lifetime/ Servant-Miklos, G. (2024). Pedagogies of collapse: A hopeful education for the end of the world as we know it. Bloomsbury Academic. Servant-Miklos, V. (n.d.). Sustainability, identity and learning: Lessons from a two-year investigation in a problem-based setting [PBL conceptual paper]. Erasmus University College. Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., & Jaeger, C. C. (2001). The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3 Zhao, J., & Luo, Y. (2021). A framework to address cognitive biases of climate change. Neuron, 109(22), 3548–3551.