ࡱ> npm%` bjbj .̟̟W&       &&&8^U#  ",,,.5I """"""" $hs&"] "  ,,#  , ,""  , 0:+l&&x"%#0U#1'1'1' UN\7UUU""dUUUU# d        Analysis and evaluation of the surveys results Climate Change A Public Opinion Poll in Croatia This is an evaluation of survey Climate change a public opinion poll in Croatia, which had a goal to explore public perception of climate change, its impact on everyday lives and its economic and social consequences as well. This survey is part of National Human Development Report 2008, which has been conducted by United Nations Development Programme. The survey was managed by AUDEO public opinion and market research agency from Osijek. The research was conducted by phone on a sample of randomly selected 1000 citizens older than 14 years from Croatia with well balanced socio-demographic variables. This survey confirmed a fact that all stakeholders interested in climate change issue already knew we can't make this world more balanced and sustainable i.e. we can't calm down climate changes without mobilised public. The public that is well informed and educated about threats, but also about possible solutions regarding climate change is a crucial actor in winning this battle. The long and intensive process of climate change mitigation/adaptation is impossible without involvement of public. Experiences from countries that are already on track to halt or put lower their emissions of greenhouse gases in almost all cases linked these successes with interested and participatory public. On the other hand, from this survey we can see something else evenly important and also well known in this field public opinion is often confused and blocked. As it stated in Human Development Report 2007/2008, results from other surveys showed how public attitudes continue to be dominated by a mindset that combines apathy and pessimism (pg. 66). Within this survey this is not so obvious or we could say it is in first line of answers, but as it will be showed later in comparison with results from similar surveys in Croatia we can detect similar attitudes. Newsweek journalist Robert J. Samuelson made a good point about it with the notion how in the debate over global warming, there is a big gap between public rhetoric, which verges on hysteria and public behaviour, which indicates indifference (The Globalist, 2007: 2). Naming this, we have to emphasize the important role of media in fulfilling goal of getting public concerned and mobilised about climate change. Till now, it was too often close to hollywoodisation of climate change with falsely presented balance between IPCC reports and so called climate sceptics, and tittles that was bounded with dramatic and apocalyptic views (Dessler and Parson, 2006). It is one way how apathy and pessimist mindset can be produced. We stress this important role of media because results from this survey show us how Croatian citizens gets information about climate change mostly from TV (84,6%) and then from newspapers (53,2%) and magazines (27,2%). Every social actor that communicates with public about issues from climate change scope should have that in mind. Before we go deeper with evaluation of survey it is important to emphasise how results that we will analyse are product of respondents self-assessment. It is worth to mention that already on beginning, because we can often witnessed in this kind of surveys tendency toward socially acceptable answers. But when we put mirror in front of ourselves we see better and clearer picture, than when we just talk or imagines us. Because of this, we will include in conclusion of this evaluation analyse of results from other surveys regarding climate change and close subjects in Croatia. If we want to comment introductory question about general importance of environment to citizens that was surveyed, then we can conclude how Croatia is one the most environmentally friendly country in the world. Less than 2% of respondents in survey stated that protecting the environment is not important to them. With so high acclamation for environmental protection it is not surprise that there was no any eligible difference within gender, age or region variable. However, education level act as a good indicator for environmental concern. Respondents with university degree in 82,4% of responses stated how environmental protection is very important to them personally, while this attitude falling down in lower education levels where this statement was supported by 73% and 65% of respondents. Since we already mentioned importance of information and education for relations toward climate change, this is not surprising result, especially when we compare it with number of sources of information about environmental issues. Respondents with university degree use more sources of information than those one with finished high-school or elementary school. With this we can emphasise how results from survey gave us a picture of powerful triangle: education various sources of information environmental concern. Those three are good combination for active behaviour toward climate changes. Each one is supportive and supported by others. We saw that importance of environmental concern for personal life is on significantly high levels. So, here we talk about attitude that comes from someones feelings. But respondents answers about their knowledge regarding climate change also reach high scores. It is worth to mention as a curiosity how none of respondents said that he or she hadnt heard about climate change before this survey. Here we have again fruitful combination that higher educated persons know more about climate change and for that knowledge they use more sources of information. Almost half (49,7%) of respondents think how they know a fair amount about climate change and with the ones that said how they know a lot (16,3%), we get two thirds of informed and educated respondents. However, when we put this self-proclaiming knowledge on test, scores are going down. Almost one in five respondents (18,6%) couldnt indicate at least one contributor of climate change and 13,7% of them couldnt indicate any consequences of climate change. One of the reasons for these relatively low scores are definitely feeling about climate change as something that happened to others/to global and without awareness about direct social and economic consequences. Here we would like to stress how answers impacts on food production and higher cost of energy/food as one of the consequences of climate change indicated only 5,2% and 0,9% of respondents. This is even more worth to mention because this survey was held in mid of 2008 when reports and news about rising prices of food and energy were highly presented in Croatian media. Possible explanation is that Croatian citizens still associate climate change with environmental influences and less with social and economic aspects of our living, but then we have to admit that it is a sign of insufficient knowledge about climate change and sustainable development in general. According to this statement we can again make accent on continuity impact of education on many variables connected to climate change. Again, respondents with higher education chose more contributors and consequences of climate change. Inconsistency between self-reported and real knowledge, or between self-reported feelings and real behaviour also continue in next session about perception of threat from climate change. Large proportion of citizens (69,8%) consider climate change as a very serious problem and next 26,2% as a serious problem. From socio-demographic variables besides continuously education we can abstract here gender and region ones. Woman and respondents in Adriatic Croatia perceive climate change as a very serious problem more often than man and respondents in other regions of Croatia (Zagreb, Panonian Croatia, and Mountain Croatia). It would be worth to check more deeply for reasons of this more extreme view in Adriatic Croatia, but most likely it is because Adriatic sea is the most important natural resource of Croatia and since Croatian citizens perceive climate change more as environmental issue, dangers from climate change is most visible in this area (rising sea level, lost of biodiversity, temperature changes etc.). Any kind of disruptions in that manner would certainly affect living condition in that region and tourism as a main source of income. For region variable we have to add that significant majority of respondents from all mentioned region consider climate change as a serious problem, but respondents from Adriatic gave the extreme answer (very serious vs. serious) more frequently than respondents in other region. From this we can conclude how Croatian public is highly aware of problem. But then again 61,3% of them, somehow smaller that expected believe that climate change will not have a great deal or quite a lot effect on them personally. As previously stated, it is obvious that Croatian public look at climate change as something that still happens to others and far away. It some sense it is not a surprise, because till now Croatia evaded major threats climate change. From the usual list of climate changes consequences that are more visible to the people, Croatia experienced only occasionally local weather distortions that mostly manifested as droughts in some region and floods in other parts. But even that didnt affect daily living of most citizens and especially didnt negatively affect Croatia in long term sense which is crucial for affecting peoples attitudes. However, we have to emphasise once more how it is distinctively that respondents in this survey didnt recognise social and economic effects of climate change, because reality shows us how threats from those sectors are more influential on Croatia and maybe they will even represent bigger problems in the future. Namely, right now Croatia produce just seven agriculture product enough to fulfil its yearly needs and all others it should import in different percentage. Although researches of Faculty of Agriculture in Zagreb state how according to the size of productive land and quality of soil, Croatia could produce food not just for itself, but for significant export, last year Croatia spent around 2$ billions on food imports. As it stated in HDR 2007/08, agricultural production and food security is one of the five key mechanisms that climate change could stall (pg. 9). Likewise, Croatia doesnt cover half of yearly energy needs with its own production, and according to current trends in 2020 it will cover only 26% and energy use will rise to 60% from now, probably depending on fossil fuels which will worsen capabilities for climate change adaptation/mitigation process. It is still not clear how far and deep will be development of renewable energy use, but right now it is on extremely low levels, especially according to accessibility of those resources. With raising foreign debt, insecurity in food production and energy sector amplified with more frequent climate change consequences will put Croatia in highly vulnerable position not just for those sectors, but for overall human development. Next session of questions was about comparisons of activities concerning reduction of climate change between Croatia and EU members and developed countries. According to almost half respondents (49,5%), Croatia is currently doing less in reducing emissions that cause climate change compared to EU members and other developed countries. In line with this, significant number of respondents state how Croatia in future should be doing more that EU members on this issue (53,2%) or the same as EU members (35%). From these results we can make a point how high expectation from their own government is good foundation for active approach toward climate change. But here we can also say how it is not surprise that Croatia is behind one Germany or Spain or other members from old EU in tackling emissions that caused climate change if we consider history and process of transition in Croatia, but also if we consider responsibility for greenhouse gases emissions. Likewise, high expectation from their own government would be more trustworthy, if Croatian citizens put these high expectations for themselves as well. Here respondents considerably underestimate citizens impact and responsibility. Regarding responsibility for emissions they were named individual consumers on third place with only 16,3% of responses. Even more, almost every fifth respondents couldnt identify the most responsible actor or sector for emissions. They find the most responsible business (industrial and manufactures sector) with 38,7% and government with 22,4% of responses. For responsibility for reducing emissions, more than half of citizens named government (52,3%) on first place, on second business (26,4) and themselves on third place again (21,2%). Here we dont want to underestimate responsibility of government or business for climate change problem. But as we stated earlier, active role of citizens in democratic society is crucial and within climate change agenda they have important role not just to agitate or persuade government and business to lower emissions, but also to chose more sustainable way of living on personal level. This is even more important in societies where personal consumption accounts with third or even more of overall emission, and Croatia is not exemption in that. In session VIII., we got answers about citizens readiness for financial contributions in climate change mitigation. More than fourth of the respondents (27,5%) are not willing to pay any additional sum to tackle emissions with investment and using of green technology and energy. Less than fourth of respondents (24,5%) are willing to pay additional monthly sum if it doesnt exceed 30 HRK. From the results we can say how almost half of respondents (48,2%) are wiling to pay additional sum if 70 HRK is a maximum level and two thirds (65,8%) if 110 HRK is a maximum level. As we could foresee, here is the most important variable that affected respondents decision, perception of their financial status. From those who said how they are not willing to pay more, 84% stated how they cant afford more burdens on their monthly expenditures. Again as independent variables we have education and region so citizens from Adriatic Croatia that find more often climate change as a very serious problem are also willing to pay more for green energy. Here we have a tricky question where it was presented alternative to citizens behaviours in relation to willingness to pay extra sum for green energy. For this, respondents were asked if they drive car more than twice per week or fly more than twice per year. The answers was divided almost evenly, 51,1% said no and 48,9 said yes on that question. Then respondents who said yes answered if they are willing to pay extra money for gas tank or plain ticket as mitigation for climate change caused by transport emissions that is, just to remind, main contributor to climate change according to respondents answers in session about their knowledge regarding climate change (pg. 15). This result is also worth to emphasise, because around third of citizens that drive car more than twice per week or fly more than twice per year are not ready to pay additional money for gas tank or plain ticket. Of those citizens who answered that they are not willing to pay extra money for gas tank and plain ticket, 76.9% gave reason that they cant afford it!? It is a truth that for more realistic results we would need more precise questions, because it is not so fair to put in one group persons who drive cars more than twice per week with persons who fly with a plain more than twice per year. Numerous researches showed us that flying is still reserved for richer stratum of population. It is a better sign of someones income than driving a car. However, even if we put aside a significant number of citizens who are not willing to pay any additional sum for green energy, and even if we accept that most of them are ones who are financially not able to pay extra sum for mitigation of climate change, we still have, to put it mildly, a significant number of citizens in Croatia who are obviously not in low income levels since they drive car more than twice per week and fly more than twice per year, and still are giving reason for not willingness to pay more their financial incapability to do it. At a same time, on self-reported questions, they present themselves as persons who in large majority care for environment and think how climate change is a (very) serious or serious problem. Only 6,5% citizens who drive cars more than twice per week or fly more than twice per year are willing to pay extra cost more than 20% for gas tank or plain ticket. Here again, the ones who are more educated and in better financial situation are willing to pay more. Again, different story is when citizens had to self-report their pro-environment activities and readiness to undertaking it in the future. Here we have high percentage of those activities with interestingly on first place reduced energy consumption (73,6%), and in addition reduced water consumption (69,9%) and used a car less or drive in efficient manner (59,3%). Intentions of undertaking similar activities in the future is even more striking and here incredibly 89,3% of respondents said how they will use an environmentally friendly way of travelling. CONCLUSION From analyse of surveys results we can make some conclusive thoughts: Firstly, it is obvious not just from this survey how variable education consist solid base for environmental concern and active behaviour toward climate change. We can emphasise how this survey showed that higher education is good indicator for: environmental concern, knowledge about climate change (not just self-reported, but they listed more contributors and consequences of climate change), perception on threats of climate change, and willingness to financially participate in mitigation of climate change. Education is highly important for every country in policy toward climate change problem, but we would like to stress in conclusion why for Croatia it is crucial. If we analyse HDR results from this year, Croatia is country with high human development index of 0,850 and 47th rank. But from all three basic dimension or indexes, Croatia got the worst score for knowledge dimension or within education index (87th rank). It will be a challenging task for country that need to improve a lot in its general education process, but to take step even further and improve public education about such a complex issue as climate change is. To achieve better position and condition in this area, Croatia would need not just to implement climate change topics in education system, but to strengthen public campaigns about climate change. Likewise, media would need to provide more appropriate and educative information. Secondly, besides importance of self-assessment within public opinion surveys, results from this one taught us again how it is also important to test respondents statements and attitudes. On several occasion in this survey we could notice how behaviour is not in line with proclaimed statements. Last session in survey about pro-environment activities also follow that relation. It was a helpful coincidence that during writing evaluation report about this survey, it was published results from two similar public opinion polls in Croatia, but these ones tested actual knowledge and acting of respondents. One survey was held by GFK market research agency from Zagreb about percentage of energy efficiency retail products in Croatian homes (Ve ernji list, 29.07.2008.). Here our scores within 70 other countries in the world showed how in purchasing of energy efficiency (A or A+) fridges, Croatia is below even Eastern European countries. This was already noticed in previous surveys in Croatia (Domac, egon and Kufrin, 2004) on similar topics such are renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, where two fifth of respondents from Zagreb and Rijeka answered how main reason for buying home appliances is their price. Other survey was held by city waste company istoa from Split where they tested citizens knowledge and behaviour about waste and recycling. They got really low scores on knowledge about those subjects and some answers about recycling are really troublesome (Slobodna Dalmacija, 06.08.2008.). We have good news and bad news now. The good news is that this phenomenon was also noticed in most of the countries in the world and even in EU countries, which standards regarding environmental protection and climate change policy Croatia is trying to reach and implement during pre-accession process. In Special Eurobarometar 295 Attituted of European Citizens toward the Environment from this year, after testing of green consumption results stated that significantly more Europeans claim how they are willing to buy even if they are more expensive environmentally friendly products than actually do. That remind us how environmentally friendly attitudes do not necessarily lead to environmentally friendly actions (pg. 29). The bad news is that no matter on this EU-commonly low level of actual environmentally aware behaviour, Croatia is far behind most of European countries in climate change adaptation/mitigation process and more demanding action plan would be needed here. %'Wbcd' ) + , - D c d h ŵsg[gOgOCO[O[h(-OJQJ^JaJhjOJQJ^JaJhf1OJQJ^JaJh3&OJQJ^JaJh4Ah4AOJQJ^JaJ#hvhv6CJOJQJ^JaJh1G6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hvh4A6CJOJQJ^JaJh4Ah_^6OJQJ^JaJh_hr5OJQJ^JaJh4A5OJQJ^JaJhW>25OJQJ^JaJh_h_^5OJQJ^JaJ1cd d '*$)237v<@DI"JQLRL $da$gdR $da$gdf $da$gdjdhgdv $da$gdv $da$gd_^ + I    + !!$/:;ZĸĸĠ蔈~tjt~j~t~^hbOJQJ^JaJh$xOJQJ^JhddOJQJ^Jhf OJQJ^Jh<OJQJ^JaJhf1OJQJ^JaJhf OJQJ^JaJhddOJQJ^JaJhDOJQJ^JaJh??OJQJ^JaJh3OJQJ^JaJh OJQJ^JaJh$xOJQJ^JaJh_OJQJ^JaJ X 5>PR-5NVckm/5Lǽrfrfh3OJQJ^JaJh3h3OJQJ^JaJh3OJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhQ*OJQJ^Jhe ^OJQJ^JhddOJQJ^Jh XOJQJ^Jh.JOJQJ^JhOOJQJ^JhVNhbOJQJ^JhbOJQJ^JhbOJQJ^JaJhiWOJQJ^JaJ%Lghlmwy&'a}F`a0*lQ޶zppfpf\ph:]OJQJ^Jh{OJQJ^JhnOJQJ^Jh&,OJQJ^Jh2OJQJ^Jh[$OJQJ^JhWOJQJ^Jh;OOJQJ^JhgFOJQJ^Jh4AOJQJ^JhvOJQJ^Jh>OJQJ^JhAnaOJQJ^Jhw^OJQJ^Jhw^OJQJ^JaJh11OJQJ^JaJ$  8M^}/4] Q t ĺİ~~~~t~t~thv OJQJ^JhEOJQJ^JhfOJQJ^JhRnrOJQJ^JhAnaOJQJ^Jh0OJQJ^Jh@OJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhROJQJ^Jh;OOJQJ^JhWOJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh:]OJQJ^JhnOJQJ^J* !!! !4!="J"i""""">#g###)$*$7$$$$$`%a%&&&.'\(_((غİ쒈~ttj`jhy{OJQJ^Jh3>OJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^Jh#OJQJ^Jh}2OJQJ^JhYOJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh_OJQJ^Jh*OJQJ^Jh0OJQJ^Jh":OJQJ^Jh46OJQJ^JhEOJQJ^Jhv OJQJ^Jho OJQJ^J ((()))**7**C+b++++++++++++7,V,l,,-&-'-(-4-R-˷ˣˌxxxxxndndnZhOJQJ^Jh#OJQJ^JhvOJQJ^Jh=]OJQJ^JhLOJQJ^Jh7OJQJ^Jh7h7OJQJ^JhVOJQJ^Jh}OJQJ^Jh~OJQJ^JhBp OJQJ^Jh8OJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh3>OJQJ^Jh%=OJQJ^Jh3>h3>OJQJ^J R-s--n.t....b/u/////000000001;1C1S1`1a1k11111122222233"4]445غذذİئئΦ~~hrOJQJ^Jh}OJQJ^Jh}gOJQJ^Jhw\OJQJ^Jh#OJQJ^Jh]OJQJ^Jh7OJQJ^Jh}KOJQJ^Jh-LOJQJ^JhyOJQJ^Jh6_zOJQJ^JhOJQJ^JhK]OJQJ^J-56666G7w7777777 88/8:8g888 999999 :+:P:Q::;;<u<v<<<<<⺰ⰺ캰✒~tj~h OJQJ^Jh|m{OJQJ^JhGOJQJ^Jh}UOJQJ^JhkOJQJ^Jh}OJQJ^Jh `OJQJ^Jh"xOJQJ^JhbsOJQJ^JhrOJQJ^Jh#OJQJ^Jh1GOJQJ^JhIOJQJ^JhM?OJQJ^JhyRPOJQJ^J'<<==s=====?>R>e>>????D@K@@@@ A-A=AAAA*C3C5C DDD DĺĺİĦ~~tj`jh3OJQJ^JhM5OJQJ^Jh#;bOJQJ^JhtOJQJ^JhxOJQJ^Jh-XjOJQJ^JhJ$OJQJ^Jh `OJQJ^Jh|m{OJQJ^Jh_OJQJ^Jh8OJQJ^JhNOJQJ^JhY0OJQJ^Jh1GOJQJ^JhFmOJQJ^Jh:OJQJ^J" DBDuDDDDDDDEEEEEFFF$FFFGGGGGHHHHII I*IrIIIJJ!J"J*J>J\JKKL\Lĺ⏰{{hOJQJ^JhiOJQJ^JhJ$OJQJ^Jhb[OJQJ^JhM5hM5OJQJ^JhW^OJQJ^Jh6UOJQJ^JhX OJQJ^JhUsOJQJ^Jh-A'OJQJ^JhM5OJQJ^Jh3OJQJ^Jh[<OJQJ^J.RL]L^LLLNOP8R9RX[__PQ $dha$gd_^ $da$gd3 $da$gd}dgdW>2 $da$gdj $da$gdR\L]L^LmLnLLLLLLLMM0NP¸߮߆|rdrZPZhA6OJQJ^Jh0OJQJ^Jh h H*OJQJ^Jh OJQJ^Jh?OJQJ^Jh},OJQJ^Jh#OJQJ^Jhy{OJQJ^JhgOJQJ^JhmOJQJ^JhP0OJQJ^JhW>2hW>25OJQJ^JaJhW>25OJQJ^JaJhW>2OJQJ^JhVNOJQJ^JhWhOJQJ^J>PBPDPJPMPPP"QlQpQQQQQQ7R8R9RCRRRRRRRRRRJS`SbSSITJTTTTTU4VԢzmczch8^OJQJ^Jh8^h8^OJQJ^Jh4OJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh9OOJQJ^JhcJOJQJ^JhP0OJQJ^Jh}OJQJ^Jh3OJQJ^JhXOJQJ^JhA6OJQJ^JhyHOJQJ^Jh0OJQJ^JhFE!hFE!H*OJQJ^JhFE!OJQJ^J&4V6V:VhVVW0X1XXXXYYYZ&Zt[[[[[;\E\U\V\+].]]]]]]][^^ _?_@____ηؙ؅؅{{qh4OJQJ^JhkOJQJ^Jh ^hOJQJ^Jh2frOJQJ^JhNvOJQJ^Jh~POJQJ^JhpOJQJ^Jh OJQJ^JhhNhhNOJQJ^JhhNOJQJ^Jh8^OJQJ^JhaGOJQJ^JhOJQJ^Jh.OJQJ^J(Thirdly and in according with previous mentioned, Croatian government and public authorities, NGOs and media will have to put much more efforts to get better efficiency in campaigns about climate change if real goal is to have well informed and educated citizens. For that it would be needed to clarify and openly presented what are roles and responsibilities of each social actor and institutions in this process, and within which timeline they should fulfil their goals. All interested stakeholders should use good position of high levels of self-reported concern for environment and climate change, and help to transform that in actual behaviour. Old Chinese proverb said: The best time for plant a tree was ten years ago. Next best time is now. Results from survey Climate Change A Public Opinion Poll in Croatia send us the same message. __څ5OPȊʊ̊ЊҊފĺ}uquququqgaga]gaghFE! hFE!0JjhFE!0JUh-jh-UhhOJQJ^JaJhOJQJ^JaJhi6OJQJ^JaJhD$OJQJ^JaJhhYOJQJ^JhD$OJQJ^Jh3OJQJ^JaJh,h36OJQJ^JaJh3OJQJ^Jh}OJQJ^JUhP0OJQJ^J Dra~en `imleaa Senior Assistant at Institute of Social Science Ivo Pilar     PAGE  PAGE 14 ̊ΊЊh]hgdO &`#$gd< $dha$gd_^hhOJQJ^JaJh-hFE! hFE!0JjhFE!0JUhhY0JmHnHu,1h/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No List4 @4 OFooter  !.)@. O Page NumberW1cdd '*!*+/v48<A"BQDRD]D^DDDFOH8J9JO-P T T[W\WkWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0X00@0X00@0X00@0X00@0@0@0@0@0@0X00|1cdd+/v48]DWWWWWWWW00X00 Z00 Z00 Z00 Z00Z00Z00 0 000000000 %%%( L (R-5< D\L>P4V_03456789:;<>?@DGRL1=F2 !(!!8@0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK1 OLE_LINK211WccW<+U+\+B+K+l +D+.B+ ++"+ +D+B+A, ,TA,B,\0B,D,, OB,,.@ ,D ,D ,4B ,+B ,sB,/B,d=@, s{M'MN$N&N+N0N6N1O8O PPPPgQtQzQQ\WbWcWjWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWdgH0 2  ACDF#"%"]-_-00n1p1445555;6=699AAC CCCMMPQ W!WkWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW33333333333333333333333WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWnLL ^`o(. ^`5hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.nL3>_ #>jG3X@f X o } f XY8VXVN?Bp FE!D$[$-A'},(-K/0P0Y011f1W>2M5i6":G:<[<%=A >M?4A1GyHcJ.J}KLNhNyRP~PR%U6U?UiW:XYhYw\=]]:]e ^W^ `Ana#;b}g ^h-Xj"mFmwlm2frRnr")s$x6_z|m{q }~VG~kv:.bs;OK]8_OT}pA6x-LDb[ -"x8^iO}2??I9O46vr3W.4n&,?)e-{_^fw^"q}U^,O3e*tr_J$  0Q*dd} X-aGm gF3Nv HXyn'v bUs2E<03g4j3&y{k7g@XMN1O1P T\WW0@0V0@0Z0@0@0UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial"1hdžxȦ! I#? I#?!4dWW2qHX ?_^2.Analysis and evaluation of the survey results Dra~en `imleaaDra~en `imleaa Oh+'0  4@ ` l x0Analysis and evaluation of the survey results Draen imleaNormalDraen imlea33Microsoft Office Word@@"U@x}l I՜.+,0  hp   Ivo Pilar?#W' /Analysis and evaluation of the survey results Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\^_`abcdfghijkloRoot Entry F f2lq1TableIA'WordDocument.SummaryInformation(]DocumentSummaryInformation8eCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q