Examining the Detrimental Consequences of Delaying Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area: A Security-Centric Approach Aligned with Sustainable Development and Quality of Life

Abstract

PURPOSE: To highlight the degree of perception among the young population in Romania (ages 18–35) regarding the impact of the decisions by some European Union (EU) countries to delay the full acceptance (air, maritime, and land) of Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area on various indicators characterizing the country’s sustainable development, national security interests, and the quality of life of the population. This study was deemed timely in light of the EU’s decision regarding the removal of air and maritime border controls with Romania starting on 31 March 2024 (“Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, air and maritime”), while maintaining controls at land borders (non-acceptance of “land accession”), under the conditions of Romania fully meeting all the requirements imposed by European legislation, a situation considered by national authorities and the Romanian public as discrimination compared to European states, and causing significant disadvantages in terms of sustainable development and the country’s security interests. METHODS: The study was based on a questionnaire administered to 785 Romanian citizens aged 18–35 years. Data were collected during the period from 15 March 2024 to 15 April 2024, centered around the date of 31 March 2024, which marks “Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, air and maritime”, through the elimination of EU air and maritime border controls with Romania. The main method used was statistical analysis (descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate), focused on detecting and assessing the degree of respondents’ awareness regarding the efforts of authorities for the full accession of Romania to the Schengen Area and the EU’s response to this effort; the negative impact of delaying the elimination of controls at the EU’s land borders with Romania (“land accession”) on national security interests, on the sustainable development of the country by relating to the objectives of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda developed at the United Nations Summit in September 2015, and on the quality of life of people in Romania. Additionally, the study was based on empirical research of the analyzed issues, in accordance with the available literature. RESULTS: The study reveals that, in the context of a very high level of awareness among respondents regarding the efforts of national authorities for Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area (75.26–91.30%) and access to credible information resources and materials about these efforts (65.10–73.05%), Romania’s status as a full-fledged EU member is a determining factor for motivating Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area (83.33–93.48%). Furthermore, the decisions of some European states to delay full accession are perceived as subjective/unfair actions that are likely to limit/violate the access/facilities of Romanian citizens, as full-fledged EU citizens, to the values of the European democratic space (59.12–76.69%). Additionally, respondents believe that these decisions are likely to affect Romania’s security interests (43.61–56.52%), exacerbate the discrepancies between the living standards of Romania’s population and those of Western European countries (47.59–71.73%), and negatively impact the national implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda objectives, as these objectives mostly target significant national infrastructures. Moreover, the WHOQOL-BREF measurement tool shows that these decisions negatively affect, to a large and very large extent, the quality of life of people in Romania (32.07–41.31%), with specific characteristics of the investigated domains (“Physical”, “Psychological”, “Environmental”, and “Social”), depending on the considered socio-demographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: We consider that the study conducted provides a scientifically documented information base regarding respondents’ awareness of Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area, their perception of the direct consequences on national security, sustainable development of Romania, and quality of life, as a result of the decisions by some EU countries to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area. Lastly, the study reveals the correlation between the dissatisfaction/frustration of the population caused by the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area and the questioning of the social, economic, political, and security consequences induced by this decision.

1. Introduction

1.1. Context

The Schengen Area represents a zone of freedom of movement, where internal border controls of the signatory states have been eliminated, characterized by a single external border. Created in 1985 as an intergovernmental project among France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, the Schengen Area has gradually expanded to become the largest free movement area in the world, encompassing 27 countries (23 of which are EU members), covering an area of over 4 million square kilometers and a population of over 420 million people [1,2]. The functioning of the Schengen Area has prompted the EU to act as a security actor [3], given that “the elimination of internal border controls cannot be achieved at the expense of security” [4]. The effective elimination of internal controls has become possible only by consolidating controls at the common external borders. This situation has led the border states of the Schengen Area to take responsibility for controlling the EU’s common external border “on behalf of the other Schengen states” [5].

Currently, the Schengen project represents the most significant political and economic achievement of the EU, as it eliminates internal border controls, thereby facilitating the free movement of goods and people. Given that EU membership does not automatically entail Schengen membership, a candidate state must meet a set of criteria defined in the Schengen Acquis to become a member, such as assuming responsibility for controlling the EU’s external borders; applying a common set of Schengen rules, including land, sea, and air border controls, as well as issuing Schengen visas; cooperating with law enforcement agencies from other Schengen countries; and using the Schengen Information System (SIS) [6]. It should also be noted that all other Schengen Area members must unanimously approve a state’s accession request after consulting the European Parliament, and any member state’s option to reject it is entirely legal, reflecting the political will of its decision-makers at a given time [7].

Since joining the Schengen Area is a right and obligation assumed by Romania through the EU Accession Treaty, and since it has been securing the EU’s external borders since its accession (January 2007), Romania has expressed its desire for full European integration, considering the elimination of internal EU border controls as an intrinsic result of the European integration process. Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area [8] have been supported by the European Commission since June 2011, upon meeting the criteria outlined in the Schengen Acquis, an aspect confirmed by the European Council in December 2012. It should also be noted that Romania gained full access to the SIS in August 2018 and, in 2021, access to the Visa Information System (VIS) [9].

In light of the aforementioned, on 24 May 2022, the European Commission called for Romania’s admission to Schengen, following the fulfillment of the accession criteria as stated in the 2022 Schengen State Report [10]. In response to the opposition expressed by some European states against this step, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in October 2022 asserting that obstructing Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area has created an anti-European sentiment and caused significant harm to Romania’s economy. It is also considered that maintaining EU land border controls with Romania is discriminatory, negatively impacting the free movement and lives of mobile workers and people in general, as well as the free movement of goods and services, affecting the EU single market and hindering economic opportunities and competitive advantages concerning Romania’s integration into the European single market [11]. This situation also generates negative implications for Romania’s environment and sustainable development [12].

Nearly two decades after Romania’s EU accession, following the EU Council’s Decision, Romania’s “accession to the Schengen Area, by air and sea” was accepted (as of 31 March 2024), eliminating EU air and sea border controls with Romania [13]. However, Romania is still not fully integrated into the Schengen Area, with the removal of land border controls (“land accession”) being delayed due to the opposition of some states (Netherlands and Austria), citing deficiencies in combating corruption, organized crime, and migration control. This has significantly impacted Romania’s economic growth and reduced its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to government estimates [14]. It is believed that the Schengen Area issue is currently characterized by political struggle, which brings state border closures back into discussion rather than ensuring “free movement”, indicating that uncontrolled border crossings have indeed become a pressing issue within the EU. Recent evaluations by Frontex reveal that most migrants in the EU do not transit through Romania but other nearby countries, contradicting the reasons cited for not accepting Romania’s “land accession” [15].

The current situation regarding Romania’s delayed full accession to the Schengen Area “expresses the state of incomplete affiliation and the degraded status of an EU-integrated state”, generating frustration among Romanian citizens, who feel they are treated as second-class Europeans, unworthy of fully enjoying EU facilities, and whose lives are negatively impacted economically, environmentally, or socially, as stated in some European Parliament documents [11,12]. This situation has also fueled nationalist and populist movements within some political formations, producing harmful effects on the European Community, and discouraging pro-EU reforms and positions in Romania [16,17,18].

In the previously presented context, Romania’s non-membership in the Schengen Area affects both national security, through direct economic (GDP impact) and social (accentuation of nationalist and populist currents) consequences, and the country’s sustainable development due to negative consequences for achieving the development objectives found in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which aims for the development of peaceful, just, and inclusive societies at multiple levels. Additionally, the mentioned situation negatively affects ensuring continental security by limiting Romania’s influence in developing and implementing common security policies and reducing its involvement in information exchange and cross-border security cooperation [19].

In the complex continental security issues arising from the military conflict in Ukraine, Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area can contribute significantly to EU security by strengthening the resilience, unity, and integrity of the European space, especially in the context of aggressive disinformation campaigns conducted by the Russian Federation, which are aimed at weakening cohesion among EU states [18]. It should also be noted that, for Romanian state authorities, full membership in the European area (EU and Schengen Area) represents “the foundations of Romania’s foreign policy and the trajectory on which the Romanian state has consciously and irreversibly committed”, with sustained efforts being made for full accession to the Schengen Area, given that almost all EU countries are members [20].

1.2. Motivation of This Scientific Endeavor

The study aims to analyze the complexity of the negative impact, on multiple levels (social, economic, political), on the young population of Romania (ages 18–35), resulting from the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area. This delay is due to the opposition expressed by some EU states and the decisions adopted in this regard, an aspect that can lend relevance to this research endeavor. It is essential to investigate how these decisions are perceived and integrated into the consciousness of the youth in Romania.

The motivation behind the authors’ efforts is primarily determined by the need to explore how the young population in Romania understands major EU-level decisions with a direct impact on Romania and to assess the resilience and adaptability of the surveyed population to such situations.

Secondly, the research effort is motivated by the need to provide decision-makers with relevant information regarding the public opinion’s perception of the mentioned situation, which can contribute to the development of constructive dialogue at the international level.

Thirdly, we believe that this study can offer a perspective on how the young population in Romania relates to regional/international events or decisions with a direct impact on the sustainable development of the country and national security.

1.3. Hypotheses and Research Objectives

Establishing a clear set of hypotheses and objectives to guide the research is essential for the undertaken effort.

1.3.1. Research Hypotheses

H1: 

The young population in Romania (ages 18–35) has a positive perception of the institutional efforts by state authorities for Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, considering these actions essential for confirming adherence to European values, with significant differences based on access to information.

H2: 

The young population in Romania perceives that the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area generates significant harm to the country’s sustainable development and affects national security interests, with this perception being influenced by socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, place of residence, education level, and monthly income.

H3: 

The young population in Romania believes that the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area negatively impacts the concept of human security from the perspective of quality of life, with significant variations in perceptions based on age, gender, place of residence, education level, and monthly income.

H4: 

Awareness of the negative effects of the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area can transform the general feeling of frustration among the population into a concrete concern regarding the social, economic, political, and security consequences of that decision.

1.3.2. Objectives

O1

Investigate and measure the appreciation of the young population in Romania (ages 18–35) regarding the institutional efforts of state authorities for accession to the Schengen Area, analyzing differences based on access to credible information.

O2

Evaluate the attitudes and opinions of the young population in Romania (ages 18–35) related to the negative consequences of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on sustainable development and national security, analyzing differences based on age, gender, place of residence, education level, and monthly income.

O3

Measure the quality of life of young people in Romania (ages 18–35) in the context of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, analyzing how it is influenced by socio-demographic variables and the decision-making context.

O4

Evaluate the degree of frustration among the young population in Romania (ages 18–35) generated by the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area and correlate it with perceptions regarding social, economic, political, and security consequences, analyzing the impact of information sources and the level of direct impact.

2. Literature Review

The issue of the establishment, evolution, and expansion of the Schengen Area has been the subject of academic concerns [21,22], highlighting the opportunities and benefits of solidarity and the free movement of people offered by this complex European project [23,24], as well as the potential risks induced [25] or possible future scenarios regarding its evolution [26,27].

The need for reform [28], seen as navigating between diversity or disintegration [29], has been driven by internal transformations within European states in recent years, major challenges, and recent failures that the old continent has faced, e.g., the 2015–2016 migration crisis, terrorist attacks in major European metropolises, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the economic problems in the European space caused by the pandemic and the military crisis in Ukraine [30,31,32], as well as the vehement criticisms towards the leaders of some EU states who claim the status of continental leaders [33,34,35]. This need has been the subject of recent studies and research by specialists in various fields.

Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area, which began on 1 February 1993, with the signing of the European Agreement establishing an association between Romania and the European Communities and their Member States, was a complex and winding process, culminating in partial success on 30 December 2023, with the adoption of the decision for Romania to join the Schengen Area, by air and sea, starting from 31 March 2024, by eliminating EU air and sea border controls with Romania. The national media and state institutions with relevant competencies have allocated extensive space to public debates on key aspects of Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area [36]. In this context, the academic environment has extensively addressed the issue of Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, highlighting the reasons for Romania’s non-acceptance and the prospects for accession, in the nearer or more distant future [37], the difficulties encountered in the Europeanization of political diplomacy and the negotiation process, due to problematic aspects caused by the lack of internal political coherence [38,39], and possible scenarios by which the EU could again postpone Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area [40].

Although Romania has consistently expressed its determination to integrate into the Schengen Area, a measure considered fundamental for stability and economic growth [41,42,43], recent decisions by the EU Council regarding differentiated integration have been perceived as a flagrant discrimination against Romania compared to more economically advanced EU member states [44], an aspect that indicates a shift in Romanian public opinion towards Euroscepticism [17,45], and discouraging reforms and pro-EU positions in Romania [18], with possible negative implications for national security. Furthermore, recent studies reveal the economic progress made by Romania after joining the EU [46] and the possible negative implications of Romania’s incomplete membership in the European space for eliminating economic discrepancies between Romania and developed European states, which could affect the sustainable development of Romanian society [47,48].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

The study was conducted from 15 March 2024 to 15 April 2024, based on a questionnaire applied online (Facebook and various websites) to Romanian citizens aged 18–35 years. No data were collected regarding the identification elements of the respondents. Their participation was voluntary, anonymous, and unpaid. They were informed about the institutional affiliation of the study’s authors and that the processed data would be used for scientific purposes.

3.2. Procedure

The procedure involved the completion of a specific questionnaire, constructed on the Google Forms platform and distributed via a dedicated web link. The link to the questionnaire was disseminated across various online platforms, allowing for broad distribution and easy access for respondents. Redistributing the link by other individuals was possible, thus facilitating easy spread across social networks and online groups, which contributed to the coalescence of a diversified sample of respondents for the targeted age group. The questionnaire could only be completed by respondents who checked “Yes” to the question regarding Romanian citizenship and were aged within the 18–35 range.

3.3. Measurements

The questionnaire included 47 questions, organized into three distinct sections: (1) collecting socio-demographic data of the study participants; (2) gathering information about the level of awareness of the delay in Romania’s full accession (by air, sea, and land) to the Schengen Area; and (3) assessing respondents’ reactions to the consequences of the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area from a security perspective, related to the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development (quality of life, behavior in society, impact on important societal infrastructures, economic growth).

The quality of life evaluation was conducted using the WHOQOL-BREEF instrument, and data verification and the calculation of averages for the main life quality evaluation domains were conducted with the help of the WHOQOL user manual, which covers four main areas: Physical Domain—investigations about essential aspects of physical health (pain and discomfort, energy and fatigue, sleep and rest quality, mobility); Psychological Domain—study of the emotional and mental aspects of life (emotions, learning ability, memory and concentration, self-esteem, personal image, and positive or negative experiences); Social Domain—evaluation of the quality and nature of personal relationships and social support; Environmental Domain—examination of the individual’s living conditions (safety and security, home comfort, financial situation, access to medical and social services, recreational options, and transport quality).

NOTE: We believe that respondents’ perceptions regarding the investigated issues may express a certain degree of subjectivity, which can be somewhat explained by the desire of the Romanian population to fully integrate into the democratic European space, given that they have experienced the negative effects of belonging to the communist bloc for more than four decades. Additionally, it is evident that the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area has generated a degree of frustration among citizens, as any form of European integration ensures cultural openness and economic and institutional-political development, an aspect that could influence the respondents’ objectivity.

Even in these contexts, we believe that analyzing the complexity of the negative impact on the young population of Romania (ages 18–35) resulting from the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area is a research endeavor that can reflect the perception of the negative consequences of an external political decision on the surveyed population segment.

3.4. Statistical Data Analysis

Statistical processing of the data collected through the specific questionnaire was conducted using Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2021 and IBM SPSS Statistics 26, installed on a computer with the Windows 11 Professional operating system. The data were centralized in an Excel file for visualization, extraction, and statistical analysis.

The variables that formed the basis of the analysis focused on establishing respondents’ perceptions regarding (1) the level of information about Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area; (2) the negative implications of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, from economic, cultural, social, political, and security perspectives; and (3) the negative effects of Romania’s total non-membership in the Schengen Area on the quality of life of individuals.

Bivariate analysis explored the links between key variables (physical and mental health status, quality of social relationships, and environmental state) and relevant socio-demographic factors (age, gender, place of residence, level of education, professional status, and monthly income), as well as specific questions from the first part of the questionnaire (Q4–Q14). This methodology illustrated variations in perceptions and opinions of respondents based on these factors.

To analyze the differences in respondents’ perceptions regarding the impact of the decision to delay Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, chi-square, Kruskal–Wallis, and Mann–Whitney U statistical tests were used. These non-parametric tests were chosen due to the nature of the collected data and the need to compare perceptions across different socio-demographic groups. For each relevant question in the questionnaire, significant socio-demographic variables were identified using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Where significant differences were found, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to detail these differences, ensuring a deeper understanding of how various demographic groups perceive the impact of the decision.

Multiple linear regression analysis was applied to identify which among the independent variables (age, gender, place of residence, level of education, professional status, and monthly income) are significant predictors of the dependent variables, regarding their impact on respondents’ perceptions. Descriptive statistics were used to determine frequencies, percentages, average scores, and standard deviations. The t-test was used to compare the means of differences, establishing statistical significance at a threshold of 0.05. To verify the validity of the multiple linear regression model used in this study, we conducted several statistical analyses to test the fundamental assumptions of the model. The normality of the residuals was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test, the heteroscedasticity of the residual variance was tested using the Breusch–Pagan test, and to assess multicollinearity between the independent variables, the variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated.

3.5. Criteria for Selecting the Applied Methodology

We believe that using an online questionnaire, structured in three parts (gathering socio-demographic data of the surveyed population, obtaining opinion data on the level of awareness of the population regarding the investigated issue, and the WHOQL-BREEF questionnaire), represents a suitable method for our research for the following reasons: (1) The online questionnaire offers the following opportunities: it can be distributed to a large number of people in a short time, at reduced costs; it can be completed by respondents in personal comfort conditions, which increases the response rate and reduces social desirability bias; it allows for efficient data collection and rapid processing; it includes a variety of question types and explores multiple aspects of interest regarding the addressed issue. (2) WHQOL-BREF is a standardized and scientifically validated instrument for measuring quality of life, developed by the World Health Organization.

4. Results

4.1. Socio-Demographic Data

The study was conducted based on a questionnaire that was applied to 785 individuals, whose socio-demographic data are presented in

Table 1. Socio-demographic data of the respondents.

Ages	Total		Gender				Environment				Level of Education
	n	[%]	Female		Male		Urban		Rural		Pre-University		University
			n	[%]	n	[%]	n	[%]	n	[%]	n	[%]	n	[%]
18–25	636	81.02	392	61.63	244	38.37	377	59.27	259	40.73	421	66.19	215	33.81
26–35	149	18.98	85	57.05	64	42.95	100	67.11	49	32.89	31	20.80	118	79.20
Ages	Status								Monthly Income
	Pupil/Student			Unemployed		Employed			˂3300 RON		3301÷7567 RON		>7567 RON
	n	[%]		n	[%]	n	[%]		n	[%]	n	[%]	n	[%]
18–25	560	88.05		0	0	76	11.95		491	77.20	126	19.81	19	2.99
26–35	31	20.81		2	1.34	116	17.28		49	32.88	73	48.99	27	18.12

.

The data analysis from Table 1 reveals the following aspects of interest for the structure of the surveyed respondent group:

Regarding the age of the respondents, there is a higher proportion of respondents in the 18–25 age category (81.02%), compared to those in the 26–35 age category (18.92%). From the gender perspective, overall, there is a higher proportion of female respondents (60.76%) compared to male respondents (39.24%). Regarding the living environment, overall, 60.76% of respondents live in urban areas, while 39.24% are in rural areas. From the educational level perspective, 58.82% of respondents have pre-university education, and 41.18% have completed university studies. A percentage of 75.29% of respondents are students, while 24.71% are employed, with the percentage of unemployed/jobless being insignificant; therefore, this category of respondents was not considered in the study. It is also noteworthy that 68.79% of respondents have an income level below the minimum gross salary in the economy for the year 2024 (3300 RON), and only 5.86% have a monthly income higher than the average gross salary in the economy for the year 2024 (7567 RON).

NOTE: The high percentages of respondents with university education (41.18%) and those residing in urban areas (60.76%) may represent a basis for a higher level of knowledge about issues of interest in Romanian society (including the accession to the European Community space), as a result of the knowledge acquired through the educational process and the easier access to information provided by the urban environment.

4.2. Respondents’ Level of Information Regarding Romania’s Efforts to Join the Schengen Area (Elimination of Controls at Land, Air, and Maritime Borders)—Objective O1

Table 2. Respondents’ level of awareness about Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q1—Are You Aware of the EU Decision to Eliminate Controls at the Air and Maritime Borders with Romania, Starting 31 March 2024 (“Romania’s Accession to the Schengen Area, Air and Maritime”)?		Q2—Have You Had Access to Resources and Informative Materials (Trustworthy Sources) about Romania’s Efforts to Eliminate Controls at the Land Borders (“Full Accession to the Schengen Area”)?
		Yes [%]	No [%]	Yes [%]	No [%]
Age	18–25	79.40	20.60	70.60	29.40
	26–35	81.21	18.79	65.10	34.90
Gender	Male	86.69	13.31	73.05	26.95
	Female	75.26	24.74	67.30	32.70
Environment	Urban	79.25	20.75	67.71	32.29
	Rural	80.52	19.48	72.40	27.60
Level of education	High School	79.42	20.58	72.35	27.65
	University	80.18	19.82	65.77	34.23
Status	Pupil/student	78.68	21.32	70.56	29.44
	Employee	82.81	17.19	66.15	33.85
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	77.59	22.41	69.07	30.93
	3301 ÷ 7567	82.91	17.09	71.36	28.64
	>7567	91.30	8.70	67.39	32.61
Chi-Square
Socio-demographic data		Chi-Square Q1	p-value Q1	Chi-Square Q2	p-value Q2
Age		0.145	0.704	1.473	0.225
Gender		14.429	0.000146	2.663	0.103
Environment		0.118	0.732	1.727	0.189
Level of education		0.029	0.865	3.615	0.057
Status		2.041	0.36	2.21	0.331
Monthly Income		6.592	0.037	0.466	0.792

presents the statistical data expressing the level of information of respondents regarding Romania’s efforts to join the Schengen Area, from the perspective of EU decisions on the elimination of controls at air and maritime borders with Romania, starting on 31 March 2024 (“Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, air and maritime”), and the future elimination of controls at land borders. The results are framed within the fulfillment of the first research objective (O1).

It is observed that all respondent categories show a high level of awareness (75.26% to 91.30%) of the recent EU decision, indicating a generally high awareness of the issue and a high level of expectation regarding the mentioned decision, regardless of the socio-demographic specifics of the surveyed respondent group. It is also noted that all respondent categories have high access (65.10% to 73.05%) to resources and informational materials (trusted sources) regarding Romania’s efforts to eliminate controls at land borders (“full accession to the Schengen Area”), which may suggest a wide dissemination of information related to this issue at the societal level, as well as the particular interest shown by the young population in Romania towards the analyzed issue. The respondents’ perception regarding their level of information on issues related to Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area forms the basis for further research in this study.

Regarding question Q1, the analysis reveals that gender and monthly income level are significant variables in the investigated issue. The χ2 and p-values indicate a strong association between gender and respondents’ level of information (χ2 = 14.429, p = 0.000146), suggesting that men and women significantly differ in their knowledge about this EU decision. There is also a strong association between monthly income and respondents’ level of information (χ2 = 6.592, p = 0.037), revealing different perceptions among respondents with varying income levels about the issue. On the other hand, variables such as age, place of residence, education level, and professional status do not show a significant association with respondents’ level of information, with p-values greater than 0.05. These results suggest that regardless of age, place of residence, education level, or professional status, respondents’ level of information about the EU decision does not vary significantly.

Regarding question Q2, none of the socio-demographic variables showed a significant association with access to information resources, indicating a common perspective on the investigated issue. The p-values for variables such as age, gender, place of residence, education level, professional status, and monthly income were all greater than 0.05, indicating no significant association between these variables and access to information resources. However, the education level had a marginal p-value (p = 0.057), suggesting a possible influence on access to information resources, although not strong enough to be significant at the 0.05 level.

In

Table 3. Respondents’ perception of the decisions to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q3—Do You Consider That Romania’s Status as a Full-Fledged EU Member Is a Determining Factor for Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area?		Q4—How Do You View the Decisions of Some European States to Delay Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area?
		Yes [%]	No [%]	Subjective/Incorrect [%]	Objectives/Correct [%]
Age	18–25	88.36	11.64	62.26	37.74
	26–35	85.23	14.77	72.48	27.52
Gender	Male	91.23	8.77	72.08	27.92
	Female	85.53	14.47	59.12	40.88
Environment	Urban	87.21	12.79	64.99	35.01
	Rural	88.64	11.36	62.99	37.01
Level of education	High School	88.27	11.73	62.61	37.39
	University	87.09	12.91	66.37	33.63
Status	Pupil/student	89.34	10.66	61.76	38.24
	Employee	83.33	16.67	72.40	27.60
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	87.41	12.59	63.15	36.85
	3301 ÷ 7567	87.44	12.56	64.32	35.68
	>7567	93.48	6.52	76.09	23.91
Chi-Square
Socio-demographic data		Chi-Square Q3	p-value Q3	Chi-Square Q4	p-value Q4
Age		0.829	0.362	5.05	0.025
Gender		5.145	0.023	13.116	0.000293
Environment		0.234	0.629	0.245	0.62
Level of education		0.153	0.695	1.019	0.313
Status		7.536	0.023	10.73	0.005
Monthly Income		1.483	0.476	3.089	0.213

, the statistical data are presented that express the respondents’ perception regarding the decisions to delay the full accession of Romania to the Schengen Area.

The statistical data in Table 3 highlight the complexity of public sentiment towards the decisions to delay the full accession of Romania to the Schengen Area, reflecting the need to affirm belonging to the European space and the awareness of the impact on national security interests.

In overwhelming proportions (83.33%÷93.48%), the respondents surveyed appreciate that Romania’s status as a full-fledged EU member is a determining factor for its full accession to the Schengen Area (though not mandatory, according to the legislation regulating the analyzed issue). This reflects the perception of Romania’s young population regarding their adherence to European values and their desire for this membership to be realized. It is worth mentioning that the current architecture of the Schengen Area [49] and the legislation governing its operation show that a country’s EU membership is not directly linked to its membership in the Schengen Area.

On the other hand, the recent decisions of some European states to temporarily obstruct Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area are considered by the majority of respondents to be subjective/incorrect (59.12%÷76.69%), in light of the efforts undertaken by Romania to meet the accession conditions. These efforts have been highlighted by the European Commission, according to the 2022 Schengen State Report [10]. We clarify that the mentioned decisions express the political will of state decision-makers at a given moment, in relation to the analyzed situation and their internal and external political interests.

Regarding the chi-square analysis for question Q3, the data indicate a significant association between respondents’ answers and the variables gender and professional status. The reference values related to gender (χ2 = 5.145, p = 0.023) and professional status (χ2 = 7.536, p = 0.023) indicate significant differences in the perception of the investigated issue between women and men, as well as among professional categories. In contrast, variables such as age, place of residence, education level, and monthly income do not show significant associations with the responses to Q3.

For question Q4, the chi-square analysis shows a significant association with the variables age, gender, and professional status, suggesting significant differences among age groups (χ2 = 5.050, p = 0.025), between men and women (χ2 = 13.116, p = 0.000293), and among different professional categories (χ2 = 10.730, p = 0.005). The variables place of residence, education level, and monthly income do not show significant associations with the responses to Q4.

4.3. Respondents’ Perception Regarding the Direct Consequences on National Security and the Sustainable Development of Romania of the Decisions to Delay the Full Accession of Romania to the Schengen Area—Objective O2

Table 4. Respondents’ perception regarding the impact on Romania’s national security interests.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q5—To What Extent Do You Think Delaying Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Affects the National Security Interests of Romania?
		1–2 [%]	3 [%]	4–5 [%]
Age	18–25	15.57	38.52	45.91
	26–35	18.12	27.52	54.36
Gender	Male	18.51	27.92	53.57
	Female	14.46	41.93	43.61
Environment	Urban	15.30	36.90	47.80
	Rural	17.20	35.72	47.08
Level of education	High School	16.37	36.73	46.90
	University	15.62	36.08	48.35
Status	Pupil/student	14.73	39.08	46.19
	Employee	19.80	32,50	51.57
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	15.93	39.25	44.82
	3301 ÷ 7567	16.08	31.16	52.76
	>7567	17.40	26.08	56.52
Note: 1—To a very small extent; 2—To a small extent; 3—Neutral; 4—To a large extent; 5—To a very large extent

and

Table 5. Kruskal–Wallis test results for question Q5.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q5—Median	Chi-Square Q5	p-Value Q5
Age	4	1.923	0.166
Gender	4	3.655	0.056
Environment	4	0.447	0.504
Level of education	4	0.09	0.764
Status	4	1.498	0.473
Monthly Income	4	4.074	0.13

presents the respondents’ perception regarding the extent to which the postponement of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area affects the country’s national security interests. This is considered in the context where the economic, environmental, and social dimensions, which are strongly affected by the analyzed situation [11,12,14,17,18], represent fundamental dimensions of national security [50].

The statistical data in Table 4 indicate that, in the respondents’ perception, Romania’s security interests are affected “to a large and very large extent” in proportions ranging from 43.61% to 56.52%, with only a minority of respondents (14.46% to 19.80%) considering that these interests are affected “to a small and very small extent”. It is noteworthy that among Romania’s security interests is the “active participation in the consolidation of the EU, as well as the deepening of integration processes within it” [20], which implicitly includes full membership in the Schengen Area.

The respondents’ perception was further investigated by applying the Kruskal–Wallis test, based on the considered independent variables (age, gender, place of residence, education level, professional status, and monthly income of the respondents).

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test for question Q5 indicate that no socio-demographic variable shows a significant association with the responses to this question. Although gender has a marginal p-value (p = 0.056), suggesting a possible influence, it is not significant at the 0.05 level. This indicates that perceptions regarding the impact of the decision to delay Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area on Romania’s national security interests do not vary significantly based on the analyzed socio-demographic variables.

The respondents’ perceptions were further investigated by applying the method of multiple linear regression analysis, depending on the considered independent variables (age, gender, place of residence, level of education, professional status, and monthly income of respondents).

Table 6. Respondents’ perception of the effects of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on living standards, education, health, and culture.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q6—To What Extent Do You Think Delaying Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Accentuates the Discrepancies between the Living Standards of the Romanian Population Compared to Those in Western European Countries?			Q7—To What Extent Do You Consider That the Postponement of Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Is Likely to Affect the Population’s Access to Education, Healthcare, and Culture?
		(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]	(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]
Age	18–25	13.52	38.05	48.43	19.18	40.10	40.72
	26–35	12.75	23.49	63.76	27.51	25.51	46.98
Gender	Male	13.63	28.58	57.79	24.67	29.18	44.15
	Female	13.21	39.62	47.17	18.24	41.40	40.46
Environment	Urban	11.95	36.27	51.78	21.38	36.27	42.35
	Rural	15.59	33.76	50.65	19.81	38.95	41.24
Level of education	High School	12.83	37.39	49.78	19.47	38.72	41.81
	University	14.11	32.44	53.45	22.52	35.44	42.04
Status	Pupil/student	13.36	38.76	47.88	19.46	40.16	40.44
	Employee	13.02	25.00	61.98	24.48	28.64	46.88
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	13.89	38.52	47.59	19.81	41.85	38.34
	3301 ÷ 7567	12.07	31.14	56.79	22.62	28.14	49.24
	>7567	13.04	15.23	71.73	23.92	29.90	52.18
Note: 1—To a very small extent; 2—To a small extent; 3—Neutral; 4—To a large extent; 5—To a very large extent
Kruskal–Wallis
Socio-demographic data		Q6—Median	Q7—Median	Chi-Square Q6	p-value Q6	Chi-Square Q7	p-value Q7
Age		4	4	8.846	0.0029	0.149	0.7
Gender		4	4	6.88	0.0087	0.09	0.764
Environment		4	4	0.674	0.412	0.01	0.92
Level of education		4	4	0.562	0.454	0.251	0.616
Status		4	4	8.661	0.0132	2.677	0.262
Monthly Income		4	4	9.59	0.0083	3.603	0.165

presents statistical data that express respondents’ perceptions of the consequences of the decisions to postpone Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, which are analyzed in direct relation to the specific objectives (OB 1–17) found in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1].

The analysis of the data in Table 6 reveals that, regarding the respondents’ perception of the consequences of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, a significant proportion of respondent groups (47.59%÷71.73%) believe “to a large and very large extent” that the effects of the decision are likely to accentuate the disparities between the standard of living of the Romanian population compared to that in Western European countries. Those who opted for evaluating the consequences “to a small and very small extent” recorded much lower proportions (11.95%÷15.59%). The respondents’ perceptions of the investigated issue are consistent with the conclusions of studies showing that the facilities of economic and social interaction within the Schengen Area have allowed the implementation of reforms in member states, substantially improving living conditions and reducing disparities among them [51].

Furthermore, regarding the extent to which the access of the Romanian population to education, health, and culture are affected, the differences are smaller between the proportions of respondents who evaluate the consequences of the analyzed decision “to a large and very large extent” (38.34%÷49.24%) and those who have a neutral evaluation (28.14%÷41.85%), while those who opted for evaluating “to a small and very small extent” recorded lower proportions (19.18%÷27.51%). These respondents’ perceptions align with research in the field, which shows that delaying Romania’s accession to Schengen has limited the freedom of movement of Romanian citizens, negatively affecting access to educational and professional opportunities in other EU member states [52], and to quality healthcare services in other European countries, thus impacting the population’s health [53].

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test show that the variables age, gender, professional status, and income are significant for question Q6. These results suggest that perceptions of the impact of the decision on the discrepancies between the living standards of Romania’s population compared to those in Western European countries vary according to the mentioned socio-demographic characteristics. In contrast, for question Q7, none of the socio-demographic variables show a significant association, indicating that perceptions of the decision’s impact on the Romanian population’s access to education, health, and culture are similar across different groups.

The Mann–Whitney U test for question Q6 confirmed the results obtained through the Kruskal–Wallis test. Regarding age, the results indicate a significant difference between age groups, with a U statistic of 40,276.0 and a p-value of 0.0029, showing that younger and older people have different opinions on the investigated issue. The analysis related to the respondents’ gender also reveals a significant difference. With a U statistic of 81,261.0 and a p-value of 0.0087, it is observed that men and women perceive the impact of the decision differently. These differences might reflect variations in priorities and concerns related to living standards between genders, influenced by traditional social and economic roles. In contrast, the results for the variables place of residence and education level do not show significant differences between groups. The place of residence has a U statistic of 75,900.0 and a p-value of 0.4118, and the education level has a U statistic of 73,001.5 and a p-value of 0.4537. Perceptions are similar regardless of whether respondents come from urban or rural areas and regardless of their education level. The respondents’ monthly income, on the other hand, presents significant differences in perception between groups, with a U statistic of 73,941.0 and a p-value of 0.0058. This may reflect how individual economic situations influence perceptions of factors affecting the population’s living standards.

The statistical data in

Table 7. Respondents’ perception of the effects of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on free movement, right to decent work, innovation, infrastructure, and sustainable communities.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q8—To What Extent Do You Consider That the Obstruction of Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Is Likely to Affect the Free Movement and Access to Decent Work for Romanian Citizens?			Q9—To What Extent Do You Consider That the Postponement of Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Is Likely to Affect the Population’s Access to Innovation, Infrastructure, and Sustainable Communities?
		(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]	(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]
Age	18–25	13.37	38.68	47.95	13.84	40.25	45.91
	26–35	16.10	22.83	61.07	15.44	28.86	55.70
Gender	Male	12.34	28.25	59.41	13.31	31.82	54.87
	Female	14.88	40.46	44.66	14.67	42.14	43.19
Environment	Urban	13.00	34.59	52.41	13.42	37.32	49.26
	Rural	15.26	37.34	47.40	15.25	39.30	45.45
Level of education	High School	11.28	39.38	49.34	13.05	41.81	45.14
	University	17.42	30.63	51.95	15.62	33.03	51.35
Status	Pupil/student	13.54	39.08	47.38	14.22	39.92	45.86
	Employee	14.58	25.01	60.41	13.54	32.29	54.17
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	14.07	39.82	46.11	15.00	41.19	44.81
	3301 ÷ 7567	14.07	28.14	57.79	11.56	36.18	52.26
	>7567	10.87	19.57	69.56	15.22	21.74	63.04
Note: 1—To a very small extent; 2—To a small extent; 3—Neutral; 4—To a large extent; 5—To a very large extent
Kruskal–Wallis
Socio-demographic data		Q8—Median	Q9—Median	Chi-Square Q8	p-value Q8	Chi-Square Q9	p-value Q9
Age		4	4	7.02	0.0081	4.709	0.03
Gender		4	4	16.237	0.000056	8.127	0.0044
Environment		4	4	3.504	0.0612	1.379	0.2403
Level of education		4	4	5.84 × 10−5	0.9939	1.135	0.2868
Status		4	4	10.417	0.0055	8.446	0.0147
Monthly Income		4	4	10.74	0.0047	8.438	0.0147

indicate that, regarding the respondents’ perception of the consequences of the postponement of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on the free movement of people and access to decent work, a significant proportion of respondents (44.66%÷69.56%) evaluate the consequences “to a large and very large extent”, while those who opted for “to a small and very small extent” registered much lower proportions (11.95%÷15.59%). These perceptions correlate with studies showing that the rights of Romanian citizens have been diminished by creating temporary discrimination due to Romania’s non-acceptance into the EU, affecting equal access to the labor market and other fundamental freedoms of citizens [54]. We believe that the issue of free movement of people and access to work, in the context of Romania’s non-accession to the Schengen Area, would require a nuanced approach, with specific reference to the negative effects of border controls in terms of waiting times, freedom of movement, and the discomfort generated by such situations, especially for the population near Romania’s western borders, who have more dynamic interactions with the Schengen Area. This aspect will be the subject of future concerns by the authors.

Similarly, a comparable situation is found in the analysis of the extent to which the postponement affects the population’s access to innovation, infrastructure, and sustainable communities, with considerable differences between the proportions of respondents who evaluate the causal relationship “to a large and very large extent” (43.19%÷63.4%) and “to a small and very small extent” (11.56%÷15.62%). Such perceptions of the investigated issue are manifested in the context where it is argued that, although research, development, and scientific innovation are determining factors for strengthening competitiveness, developing infrastructures, economic growth, and consolidating sustainable communities in Romania, the overall interests of the EU, and especially those of certain states, aim at marginalizing and economically subjugating Romania [55].

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test for questions Q8 and Q9 provide a detailed perspective on how socio-demographic variables influence respondents’ perceptions of the impact of the decision to delay Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area.

Regarding question Q8, which explores perceptions of the impact of the decision on free movement and access/facilities to decent work for Romanian citizens, the results indicate significant differences between age groups, gender, professional status, and respondents’ incomes. Specifically, the perceptions of the decision’s impact vary significantly among different age groups (χ2 = 7.020, p = 0.0081), between men and women (χ2 = 16.237, p = 0.000056), between individuals with different professional statuses (χ2 = 10.417, p = 0.0055), and among different income groups (χ2 = 10.740, p = 0.0047). These results suggest that respondents from different age categories, men and women, employed and unemployed individuals, and those with low and high incomes have distinct perspectives on the impact of the decision. On the other hand, the variables place of residence (χ2 = 3.504, p = 0.0612) and education level (χ2 = 0.0000584, p = 0.9939) do not show significant differences between groups, suggesting that perceptions are similar regardless of the respondents’ place of residence and education level.

In the case of question Q9, which examines perceptions of the decision’s impact on the Romanian population’s access to innovation, infrastructure, and sustainable communities, the results indicate significant differences between age groups, gender, professional status, and respondents’ incomes. Age (χ2 = 4.709, p = 0.0300), gender (χ2 = 8.127, p = 0.0044), professional status (χ2 = 8.446, p = 0.0147), and income (χ2 = 8.438, p = 0.0147) significantly influence perceptions of the decision’s impact. This indicates that differently aged groups, men and women, employed and unemployed individuals, and those with varying incomes have distinct opinions about the decision’s impact. Meanwhile, the variables place of residence (χ2 = 1.379, p = 0.2403) and education level (χ2 = 1.135, p = 0.2868) do not show significant differences between groups, suggesting that these variables do not significantly influence perceptions of the decision’s impact on the investigated issue.

The Mann–Whitney U test was applied to detail and confirm the significant differences observed through the Kruskal–Wallis test for questions Q8 and Q9. This test allowed for a more in-depth examination of the socio-demographic variables influencing respondents’ perceptions.

For question Q8, the results of the Mann–Whitney U test confirmed the significant differences between age groups, gender, professional status, and respondents’ incomes. Regarding age, the results showed a significant difference between age groups, with a U statistic of 41,057.0 and a p-value of 0.0081. This suggests that people perceive the impact of the decision on the investigated issue differently. The differences between men and women were also significant, with a U statistic of 85,435.5 and a p-value of 0.000056, indicating that gender distinctly influences perceptions of the impact. Professional status also showed significant differences (with a U statistic of 50,510.5 and a p-value of 0.0094), suggesting that employed and unemployed individuals have different opinions about the decision’s impact. Additionally, monthly income level presented significant differences (with a U statistic of 74,685.5 and a p-value of 0.0025), indicating that individuals with lower and higher incomes perceive the impact of the decision on the investigated issue differently.

For question Q9, the results of the Mann–Whitney U test also confirmed the significant differences between age groups, gender, professional status, and respondents’ incomes. For the age variable, the results indicated a significant difference between groups (with a U statistic of 42,208.5 and a p-value of 0.0300), suggesting that individuals have distinct perceptions regarding the impact of the decision on the investigated issue. Gender also showed significant differences (with a U statistic of 81,920.5 and a p-value of 0.0044), indicating that men and women perceive the decision’s impact differently. Professional status highlighted significant differences (with a U statistic of 51,441.5 and a p-value of 0.0248), suggesting that perceptions of the decision’s impact vary between employed and unemployed respondents. Respondents’ monthly incomes also presented significant differences (with a U statistic of 74,322.5 and a p-value of 0.0037), indicating influences on perceptions of the investigated issue.

The analysis of the data in

Table 8. Respondents’ perception of the economic effects and impact on a peaceful and inclusive society due to delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q10—To What Extent Do You Consider That the Postponement of Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Is Likely to Affect the Population’s Access to Economic Growth, Sustainable Production, and Consumption?			Q11—To What Extent Do You Think Delaying Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Affects the Goal of Promoting a Peaceful and Inclusive Society for Sustainable Development and the Creation of Effective, Accountable, and Inclusive Institutions at All Levels in the European Space?
		(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]	(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]
Age	18–25	10.22	38.82	50.95	15.09	45.76	39.15
	26–35	14.10	24.82	61.08	16.10	42.29	41.61
Gender	Male	10.39	27.92	61.69	17.53	40.26	42.21
	Female	11.32	41.51	47.17	13.84	48.21	37.95
Environment	Urban	9.85	34.18	55.97	15.52	44.02	40.46
	Rural	12.66	39.28	48.06	14.93	46.76	38.31
Level of education	High School	9.29	39.60	51.11	14.38	46.90	38.72
	University	13.22	31.53	55.25	16.52	42.64	40.84
Status	Pupil/student	10.83	38.75	50.42	14.55	46.36	39.09
	Employee	10.94	28.12	60.94	17.19	41.14	41.67
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	12.22	39.26	48.52	16.11	48.89	35.00
	3301 ÷ 7567	9.04	32.16	58.80	13.07	36.68	50.25
	>7567	4.34	17.40	78.26	15.21	36.96	47.83
Note: 1—To a very small extent; 2—To a small extent; 3—Neutral; 4—To a large extent; 5—To a very large extent
Kruskal–Wallis
Socio-demographic data		Q10—Median	Q11—Median	Chi-Square Q10	p-value Q10	Chi-Square Q11	p-value Q11
Age		4	4	3.108	0.078	1.647	0.199
Gender		4	4	15.898	0.000067	0.084	0.772
Environment		4	4	7.92	0.0049	2.202	0.138
Level of education		4	4	0.287	0.592	0.67	0.413
Status		4	4	8.592	0.014	1.677	0.432
Monthly Income		4	4	16.825	0.00022	7.981	0.018

reveals that, regarding respondents’ perceptions of the consequences of the postponement of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, a significant proportion of respondents (48.06%÷78.26%) believe “to a large and very large extent” that the effects of the decision are likely to affect the population’s access to economic growth, sustainable production, and consumption. Those who opted for evaluating the consequences “to a small and very small extent” registered much lower proportions (4.34%÷14.10%). These perceptions of the surveyed respondents align with the conclusions of recent research, which highlight that Romania’s non-accession to the Schengen Area, or incomplete integration, has led to the maintenance of economic and social disparities between Romania and Western European countries [56], and has perpetuated social and economic inequalities nationally, resulting in deficiencies in infrastructure development and public services [57].

Regarding the extent to which the objective of promoting a peaceful and inclusive society for sustainable development and creating effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels in the European space is affected, significant differences are noted between the proportions of respondents who evaluate the consequences of the analyzed decision “to a large and very large extent” (32.61%÷45.73%), and those who opted for “to a small and very small extent”, which registered lower proportions (19.48%÷43.48%). In this case, we also note the significant proportions of respondents who have a neutral evaluation of the situation (23.91%÷42.13%). Respondents’ perceptions regarding the investigated issue (promotion of a peaceful and inclusive society, which could be negatively affected by the postponement of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area) should be correlated with the Eurosceptic discourse of the internal political class, which has labeled the failure to fully accede to the Schengen Area as “disappointing”, “unfair”, “unjustified”, and “regrettable” [58]. It is also worth mentioning that, given Romania’s fulfillment of all criteria defined in the Community Acquis, the issue of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area is perceived more as “a test for European cohesion, coherence, and solidarity” [59], which can contribute to ensuring security, considering the current threats at the continental level.

On the other hand, respondents’ perceptions of the negative effects of Romania’s incomplete membership in the Schengen Area on the creation of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions in the European space (especially in terms of knowledge, prevention, and counteraction of cross-border threats) are in line with the conclusions of specialized studies [18,19].

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test for question Q10 show significant differences between certain socio-demographic groups regarding perceptions of the impact of the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on the population’s access to economic growth, sustainable production, and consumption. Gender (χ2 = 15.898, p = 0.000067), place of residence (χ2 = 7.920, p = 0.0049), professional status (χ2 = 8.592, p = 0.014), and monthly income (χ2 = 16.825, p = 0.00022) present significant differences, indicating that perceptions vary significantly between men and women, between urban and rural residents, between individuals with different professional statuses, and between different income groups. In contrast, the variables age and education level do not show significant differences between groups, suggesting similar perceptions regarding the investigated issue.

For question Q11, the results show that monthly income (χ2 = 7.981, p = 0.018) is the only variable that presents significant differences in respondents’ perceptions regarding the impact of the decision on promoting a peaceful and inclusive society for sustainable development and creating efficient, accountable, and inclusive institutions. Other variables such as age, place of residence, education level, and professional status do not indicate significant differences, suggesting similar perceptions regarding the investigated issue, regardless of these socio-demographic characteristics.

For question Q10, the results of the Mann–Whitney U test confirmed the significant differences between gender, residence, and income groups. The results for the gender variable show a significant difference between men and women, with a U statistic of 85,271.0 and a p-value of 6.688 × 10⁻⁵. This suggests that perceptions of the impact of the decision on the investigated issue vary significantly by gender, with men and women having different opinions on this topic. Significant differences were also observed based on the place of residence variable, with a U statistic of 81,795.5 and a p-value of 0.0049. This result indicates that the place of residence influences perceptions of access to economic growth, sustainable production, and consumption, with urban and rural residents having distinct perceptions. For the monthly income variable, the test revealed a significant difference on the issue between individuals with lower and higher incomes, as evidenced by a U statistic of 76,081.5 and a p-value of 0.0004.

On the other hand, for question Q11, the results of the Mann–Whitney U test did not show significant differences between individuals with lower and higher incomes. With a U statistic of 68,791.0 and a p-value of 0.3525, the results suggest that respondents’ monthly income does not significantly influence perceptions of the investigated issue.

The analysis of the data in

Table 9. Respondents’ perception of the influence of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on societal behavior.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q12—To What Extent Do You Consider That the Postponement of Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area Is Likely to Lead to the Emergence of Nationalist and Populist, Anti-European Currents among Citizens?			Q13—To What Extent Do You Think Full Accession of Romania to the Schengen Area Increases the Level of Criminality in the European Space?
		(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]	(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]
Age	18–25	16.35	42.29	41.36	22.48	38.22	39.30
	26–35	26.84	32.22	40.94	31.55	32.21	36.24
Gender	Male	19.80	35.72	44.48	29.22	29.22	41.56
	Female	17.40	43.40	39.20	20.97	42.13	36.90
Environment	Urban	18.03	39.41	42.56	27.35	34.49	38.16
	Rural	18.83	41.88	39.29	19.48	40.91	39.61
Level of education	High School	15.92	44.25	39.83	21.46	39.60	38.94
	University	21.62	35.14	43.24	27.93	33.63	38.44
Status	Pupil/student	16.41	42.64	40.95	22.67	37.74	39.59
	Employee	24.48	32.81	42.71	29.16	34.91	35.93
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	16.67	45.93	37.40	22.96	40.38	36.66
	3301 ÷ 7567	20.61	31.15	48.24	23.11	31.16	45.73
	>7567	28.26	15.22	56.52	43.48	23.91	32.61
Note: 1—To a very small extent; 2—To a small extent; 3—Neutral; 4—To a large extent; 5—To a very large extent
Kruskal–Wallis
Socio-demographic data		Q12—Median	Q13—Median	Chi-Square Q12	p-value Q12	Chi-Square Q13	p-value Q13
Age		4	4	1.21	0.271	0.344	0.557
Gender		4	4	1.31	0.252	0.467	0.494
Environment		4	4	1.148	0.284	0.676	0.411
Level of education		4	4	0.063	0.801	0.094	0.759
Status		4	4	0.513	0.774	2.618	0.27
Monthly Income		4	4	3.08	0.214	12.615	0.0018

reveals that the most significant proportion of respondent groups (37.40%÷48.24%) believe “to a large and very large extent” that the effects of the mentioned decision are likely to lead to the emergence of nationalist and populist, anti-European currents among citizens. The groups that opted for evaluating these consequences “to a small and very small extent” registered lower proportions (15.92%÷26.84%). These perceptions of the respondents are in line with the conclusions of specialized studies that have addressed the investigated issue, highlighting the negative impact of the postponement of Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, in the context of fully meeting the conditions of the Acquis communautaire [60], on pro-EU reforms and positions in Romania [17,18,58]. In this context, it is also worth mentioning the recent results of the European Parliament elections (held on 9 June 2024), which highlighted the tendency towards Euroscepticism both in Romania and in some Western European countries, such as France, Italy, Austria, and Germany. Additionally, a significant proportion of respondent groups (32.61% to 45.73%) appreciate “to a large and very large extent” that the effects of the mentioned decision are likely to increase the level of criminality within the European space, while groups that opted for evaluating these consequences “to a small and very small extent” recorded slightly lower proportions (19.48% to 43.48%).

For both investigated issues, significant proportions of respondent groups that evaluate the consequences neutrally (score 3) are noted, comparable to those corresponding to the evaluation “to a large and very large extent”.

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test for questions Q12 and Q13 provide a detailed perspective on how socio-demographic variables influence respondents’ perceptions regarding the impact of the decision to delay Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area.

For question Q12, the results indicate that there are no significant differences between socio-demographic groups. The p-values for all tested variables are greater than 0.05, suggesting that age, gender, place of residence, education level, professional status, and respondents’ incomes do not significantly influence perceptions of the investigated issue, specifically the emergence of nationalist and populist, anti-European currents among citizens.

For question Q13, respondents’ monthly income is the only variable that presents significant differences. With a χ2 statistic of 12.615 and a p-value of 0.0018, it can be concluded that this variable significantly influences how respondents perceive the impact of the decision on the crime rate. Other variables such as age, gender, place of residence, education level, and professional status do not show significant differences, indicating similar perceptions regarding the investigated issue.

The results of the Mann–Whitney U test for question Q13 indicate a significant difference between groups of respondents with different incomes regarding their perceptions of the impact of the decision to delay Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area on the crime rate. With a U statistic of 76,009.5 and a p-value of 0.00039, this result suggests that income level significantly influences how respondents perceive the impact on the investigated issue.

The results primarily express the exacerbation of feelings of isolation and marginalization of Romania’s population as a result of the mentioned decision [61], as well as a realistic evaluation of the potential emergence of new sources of insecurity at the continental level once Romania fully joins the Schengen Area, due to additional facilities for the free movement of people.

4.4. Respondents’ Perception Regarding the Influence of the Decisions to Delay the Total Accession of Romania to the Schengen Area on the Quality of Life—Objective O3

4.4.1. Evaluation through Descriptive Analysis

The statistical data in

Table 10. Impact of delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on personal quality of life.

Socio-Demographic Data		Q14—Does Obstructing Romania’s Full Efforts for Total Accession to the Schengen Area Negatively Influence Your Quality of Life?
		(1–2) [%]	3 [%]	(4–5) [%]
Age	18–25	27.20	38.05	34.75
	26–35	28.19	32.88	38.93
Gender	Male	25.33	33.76	40.91
	Female	28.72	39.21	32.07
Environment	Urban	26.63	37.91	35.64
	Rural	28.57	36.04	35.39
Level of education	High School	24.72	30.00	36.28
	University	30.93	34.53	34.54
Status	Pupil/student	27.58	37.90	34.52
	Employee	26.57	34.36	39.07
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300	28.52	38.52	32.96
	3301 ÷ 7567	25.13	33.67	41.20
	>7567	23.91	34.78	41.31
Note: 1—To a very small extent; 2—To a small extent; 3—Neutral; 4—To a large extent; 5—To a very large extent
Kruskal–Wallis
Socio-demographic data		Q14—Median	Chi-Square Q14	p-value Q14
Age		3	0.16491	0.684676
Gender		3	5.563117	0.018343
Environment		3	0.35189	0.553045
Level of education		3	1.517806	0.217952
Status		3	2.121678	0.346165
Monthly Income		3	5.750359	0.056406

reveal how respondents perceive the impact on the quality of life of individuals, stemming from the decisions of some European countries to oppose Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area (viewed as subjective/incorrect decisions, given that Romania has fully met the criteria defined in the Acquis communautaire). This provides a valuable perspective on the concerns and individual sentiments of Romania’s young population regarding the analyzed context.

A significant proportion of all categories of surveyed respondents state that the obstruction of Romania’s full accession efforts to the Schengen Area has an impact “to a large or very large extent” on their quality of life, with percentages ranging between 32.07% and 41.31%. This indicates a common perception that the non-acceptance of Romania by some European states as a full member of the European Community space has a direct negative impact on the daily quality of life of individuals.

Notably, the representative segments of the surveyed respondent groups (23.91% to 30.93%) state that the investigated issue has an impact “to a small and very small extent” on their quality of life. This highlights the complexity and diversity of how decisions made at the international level can influence different segments of the population, depending on the considered socio-demographic factors.

The application of the Kruskal–Wallis test highlights the differentiated impact of the considered independent variables on respondents’ perceptions regarding the investigated issue. The results are as follows:

Regarding the “Age” variable, the test indicated a chi-square of 0.164910 and a p-value of 0.684676, suggesting that there are no statistically significant differences between age groups in responses to question Q14. The medians for the age categories are equal, with a value of 3.0, indicating uniformity of responses across different age groups.

For the “Gender” variable, the test showed a chi-square of 5.563117 and a p-value of 0.018343. This is the only variable that demonstrated a statistically significant difference between groups, suggesting variability in responses to question Q14 between men and women. The medians for both genders are also equal, at 3.0, but the test indicates greater variability in the distribution of responses between the two groups.

Regarding the “Place of Residence” variable, the test indicates a chi-square of 0.351890 and a p-value of 0.553045, suggesting that there are no statistically significant differences in responses to question Q14 based on the type of residence. The medians are again equal, at 3.0, showing consistency of responses regardless of the area of residence.

For the “Education Level” variable, the test indicated a chi-square of 1.517806 and a p-value of 0.217952, suggesting that the level of education does not significantly influence responses to question Q14. The medians are again equal, at 3.0, across different education levels.

The “Professional Status” variable had a chi-square of 2.121678 and a p-value of 0.346165. These results show that there are no statistically significant differences between socio-economic status groups. The median value is also 3.0, suggesting slight variability but not statistically significant.

For the “Monthly Income” variable, the test revealed a chi-square of 5.750359 and a p-value of 0.056406, suggesting that this variable is on the borderline of significance, and indicating that there may be slight differences between groups based on income levels.

We specify that we used the WHOQOL-BREF instrument to measure the influences of the decisions to postpone Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on the quality of life, as it has been used in various specialized studies to evaluate the impact on the population’s quality of life in various contexts determined by political tensions or other events impacting elements that characterize human security, such as the decision to delay Romania’s acceptance into the Schengen Area.

In

Table 11. Descriptive statistical analysis of quality of life, according to four major domains.

Descriptive Statistics
	n	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
ENVIR	785	0.00	100.00	68.1409	19.46295
PHYS	785	3.57	100.00	66.7243	18.64778
PSYCH	785	0.00	100.00	72.0435	21.29785
SOCIAL	785	0.00	100.00	69.9894	22.80274
Valid n (listwise)	785

, descriptive statistics are presented for the four dimensions of well-being: physical (PHYS), psychological (PSYCH), social (SOCIAL), and environmental (ENVIR), measuring the perceived levels of well-being for the sample of 785 respondents participating in the study.

The following aspects of interest for the investigated issue are noted:

The average score for physical well-being (PHYS) is 66.72, indicating a moderate perception of physical well-being among the surveyed group. The standard deviation of 18.64 suggests a relatively wide variation in responses, reflecting the diversity of individual experiences related to physical health.

An average of 72.04 for psychological well-being (PSYCH) suggests a generally good state among respondents. The standard deviation of 21.29 is higher than that characterizing physical well-being, underscoring a wide range of emotional and mental states.

The average score of 69.98 indicates satisfactory levels of interaction and social support (SOCIAL), with a standard deviation of 22.80 reflecting significant differences in perceptions related to social life.

An average of 68.14 highlights a moderate evaluation of environmental conditions (ENVIR) or satisfaction with the living context of respondents. The standard deviation of 19.46 suggests a relatively wide variation in responses, reflecting the diversity of individual experiences related to environmental factors.

4.4.2. Evaluation through Bivariate Analysis

Bivariate analysis reveals variations in the perception of physical and psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health, depending on demographic and social variables such as age, gender, place of residence, level of education, professional status, and income level of respondents.

The data analysis from

Table 12. Bivariate analysis of respondents’ perceptions of the investigated issues.

		Physical	Psychological Health	Social Relationship	Environmental Health
Age	18–25	65.88(18.61)	70.21(21.35)	69.45(22.55)	68.11(19.34)
	26–35	70.30(18.41)	79.86(19.24)	72.25(23.75)	68.24(20.01)
Gender	Male	69.96(18.44)	74.29(20.50)	70.91(22.61)	71.45(18.52)
	Female	64.63(18.49)	70.58(21.69)	69.39(22.92)	65.99(19.76)
Environment	Urban	66.32(18.84)	71.75(22.01)	70.26(23.09)	67.93(19.67)
	Rural	67.33(18.34)	72.49(20.16)	69.56(22.36)	68.46(19.16)
Level of education	Middle and high school	64.71(18.32)	68.83(21.37)	67.99(22.48)	67.40(18.54)
	University	69.45(18.76)	76.40(20.42)	72.69(22.98)	69.14(20.62)
Status	Pupil/student	65.52(18.63)	69.94(21.31)	69.22(22.70)	68.37(19.20)
	Employee	70.44(18.23)	78.51(19.94)	72.35(23.00)	67.43(20.26)
Monthly Income [RON]	˂3300 RON	64.24(18.69)	68.89(21.85)	67.97(23.06)	65.79(19.75)
	>3300 RON	72.18(17.36)	78.97(18.23)	74.42(21.61)	73.30(17.77)
Q6	1–2	66.42(19.18)	70.99(22.51)	65.39(25.31)	66.48(21.82)
	4–5	69.43(18.24)	75.62(19.62)	73.05(22.45)	71.31(18.29)
Q7	1–2	69.93(19.87)	73.95(22.34)	69.06(25.65)	68.65(20.77)
	4–5	68.49(18.27)	74.37(20.51)	73.30(22.67)	71.40(19.11)
Q8	1–2	69.72(19.77)	76.98(22.83)	69.11(24.46)	68.32(21.40)
	4–5	68.12(18.22)	73.86(20.67)	72.68(22.56)	71.33(18.51)
Q9	1–2	66.69(20.54)	73.08(23.68)	67.71(24.74)	66.24(21.96)
	4–5	69.42(18.02)	75.01(20.03)	72.95(22.70)	71.98(18.90)
Q10	1–2	65.90(21.20)	72.48(24.25)	64.72(27.82)	64.20(23.84)
	4–5	69.61(18.15)	75.21(19.78)	73.67(21.96)	72.05(18.09)
Q11	1–2	70.92(19.90)	73.71(21.42)	69.09(24.40)	68.07(21.50)
	4–5	68.79(17.73)	75.16(20.07)	73.98(22.42)	72.46(18.70)
Q12	1–2	67.85(18.07)	74.13(20.46)	66.89(24.17)	68.46(19.41)
	4–5	69.40(18.63)	75.77(19.82)	73.94(22.63)	72.31(18.80)
Q13	1–2	70.46(18.36)	74.42(21.08)	70.30(23.82)	69.57(19.41)
	4–5	68.99(18.35)	75.71(19.26)	74.17(22.15)	72.64(18.54)
Q14	1–2	70.64(19.16)	74.70(22.35)	67.82(24.92)	69.66(18.80)
	4–5	67.52(18.41)	73.98(20.33)	74.01(22.86)	71.61(19.72)

reveals the following aspects of interest for the analyzed issue:

For the independent variable “Age of respondents”, it is noted that the medians for physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health are higher in the 26–35 age category compared to the 18–25 age category, a difference that can be attributed to maturation and stabilization of living conditions.

The same analysis indicators are higher for the male respondent category compared to the female category, suggesting that for the independent variable “Gender of respondents”, differences in perception of health and quality of life are in favor of male respondents.

For the independent variable “Living Environment”, there is a diversity of median values for the quality of life assessment indicators, in that respondents living in rural environments register higher values for physical health, psychological health, and environmental health, while respondents in urban environments register a higher value for social relationships.

Regarding the influences of the independent variable “Level of Education”, differences between respondents with pre-university education and those with university education are evident, with medians for all domains being higher for the latter category. This demonstrates the impact of education on access to information and resources that support a healthy and balanced life.

Similar distributions for the medians of the analyzed indicators are also found in the analysis related to the independent variables “Status of respondents” (except for the domain of environmental health) and “Income of respondents”. This reflects the effects of status stability, professional satisfaction, and financial security on individual well-being.

A detailed analysis of the dependent variables Q6–Q14 shows how perceptions of various aspects of the issues investigated in this study influence respondents’ perceptions of physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health, using a scale of agreement from 1 (“to a very small extent”) to 5 (“to a very large extent”).

For the dependent variables Q6, Q9, Q10, and Q12, an integral association is observed between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health. This may suggest that a positive attitude towards the issues investigated by these variables can be associated with a better perception of health and quality of life.

For the dependent variables Q7 and Q13, an association is noted between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of the issues on psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health, as well as an association between lower levels of agreement (1–2) and physical health.

On the other hand, diversity in the associations between levels of agreement and the dimensions of quality of life assessment in respondents is noted for the dependent variants Q8, Q11, and Q14. Specifically, for the dependent variables Q8 and Q14, an association is observed between lower levels of agreement (1–2) and positive perceptions of the issues on physical and psychological health, and an association between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of social relationships and environmental health. In the case of the dependent variable Q11, an association is noted between lower levels of agreement (1–2) and positive perceptions of physical health, as well as an association between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health.

The results of the analysis illustrate how perceptions of various aspects of the societal issues investigated through the dependent variables Q6–Q14, as a result of decisions by some European states to oppose Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, significantly impact multiple areas in Romania, influencing health and quality of life. We find that a higher degree of agreement with these aspects is consistently associated with more positive evaluations of quality of life indices.

4.5. Using Multiple Linear Regression Analysis to Establish Respondents’ Perceptions of the Investigated Issues (Effects on Security Interests, Sustainable Development, and Quality of Life)—Objectives O2 and O3

The analysis presented in

Table 13. Analysis using linear regression of respondents’ perceptions.

Model		Unstandard. Coefficients		t	Sig.	95.0% Confidence Interval for B
		B	Std. Error			Lower Bound		Upper Bound
Dependent variables
Q6		3.002	0.116	25.924	0.000	2.774		3.229
Q7		2.894	0.123	23.617	0.000	2.653		3.135
Q8		2.830	0.146	19.436	0.000	2.544		3.116
Q9		2.935	0.121	24.348	0.000	2.698		3.172
Q10		2.930	0.119	24.641	0.000	2.697		3.164
Q11		2.876	0.111	25.878	0.000	2.658		3.094
Q12		3.091	0.116	26.683	0.000	2.863		3.318
Q13		3.152	0.049	64.992	0.000	3.057		3.248
Q14		2.636	0.126	20.917	0.000	2.389		2.884
Dependent variables: Q6–Q14; n = 785.
Model		Unstandard. Coefficients		Standard. Coeff.	t	Sig.	95.0% Confidence Interval for B
		B	Std. Error	Beta			Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Independent variables
Age 18–25 vs. 26–35	Q6	0.114	0.117	0.039	0.974	0.331	−0.116	0.344
	Q7	−0.012	0.128	−0.004	−0.096	0.924	−0.263	0.238
	Q8	−0.035	0.120	−0.012	−0.296	0.768	−0.271	0.200
	Q9	−0.035	0.121	−0.012	−0.289	0.773	−0.272	0.202
	Q10	−0.021	0.119	−0.007	−0.176	0.860	−0.254	0.212
	Q11	−0.019	0.115	−0.007	−0.162	0.871	−0.245	0.208
	Q12	0.030	0.120	0.010	0.250	0.803	−0.206	0.267
	Q13	−0.051	0.129	−0.016	−0.393	0.694	−0.303	0.202
	Q14	0.019	0.130	0.006	0.148	0.882	−0.236	0.274
Gender: Female vs. Male	Q6	0.123	0.093	0.055	1.317	0.188	−0.060	0.306
	Q7	0.016	0.101	0.007	0.162	0.871	−0.183	0.216
	Q8	0.252	0.094	0.110	2.685	0.007	0.068	0.437
	Q9	0.199	0.096	0.087	2.077	0.038	0.011	0.388
	Q10	0.262	0.095	0.114	2.766	0.006	0.076	0.448
	Q11	0.043	0.092	0.019	0.464	0.643	−0.138	0.223
	Q12	0.044	0.096	0.019	0.455	0.650	−0.144	0.231
	Q13	−0.051	0.129	−0.016	−0.393	0.694	−0.303	0.202
	Q14	0.208	0.102	0.085	2.047	0.041	0.008	0.408
Environment: Rural vs. Urban	Q6	−0.031	0.091	−0.014	−0.338	0.735	−0.210	0.148
	Q7	−0.071	0.098	−0.029	−0.721	0.471	−0.263	0.122
	Q8	0.074	0.093	0.032	0.800	0.424	−0.108	0.257
	Q9	0.013	0.094	0.006	0.142	0.887	−0.171	0.198
	Q10	0.137	0.092	0.060	1.489	0.137	−0.044	0.317
	Q11	−0.077	0.089	−0.035	−0.863	0.389	−0.251	0.098
	Q12	0.037	0.094	0.016	0.396	0.692	−0.147	0.221
	Q13	−0.146	0.099	−0.061	−1.478	0.140	−0.340	0.048
	Q14	−0.015	0.100	−0.006	−0.154	0.877	−0.212	0.181
Level of education: Middle and high school vs. University	Q6	0.230	0.090	0.104	2.561	0.011	0.054	0.407
	Q7	0.020	0.101	0.008	0.197	0.844	−0.179	0.219
	Q8	0.122	0.096	0.054	1.272	0.204	−0.067	0.311
	Q9	0.210	0.094	0.093	2.244	0.025	0.026	0.394
	Q10	0.156	0.092	0.069	1.687	0.092	−0.026	0.337
	Q11	0.117	0.088	0.054	1.321	0.187	−0.057	0.290
	Q12	0.070	0.092	0.031	0.758	0.449	−0.111	0.250
	Q13	−0.004	0.104	−0.002	−0.040	0.968	−0.209	0.200
	Q14	0.025	0.101	0.011	0.253	0.800	−0.172	0.223
Status: Employee vs. Unemployed	Q6	0.137	0.111	0.058	1.235	0.217	−0.081	0.356
	Q7	0.036	0.117	0.014	0.306	0.760	−0.194	0.266
	Q8	0.185	0.110	0.076	1.682	0.093	−0.031	0.401
	Q9	0.061	0.114	0.025	0.535	0.593	−0.163	0.286
	Q10	0.012	0.114	0.005	0.103	0.918	−0.211	0.235
	Q11	−0.083	0.110	−0.036	−0.757	0.449	−0.299	0.133
	Q12	−0.041	0.114	−0.017	−0.356	0.722	−0.265	0.184
	Q13	−0.029	0.119	−0.011	−0.248	0.805	−0.263	0.204
	Q14	0.001	0.124	0.000	0.009	0.993	−0.243	0.245
Monthly Income: ˂3300 RON vs. > 3300 RON	Q6	0.298	0.077	0.158	3.883	0.000	0.147	0.448
	Q7	0.249	0.082	0.124	3.049	0.002	0.089	0.410
	Q8	0.249	0.089	0.129	2.816	0.005	0.075	0.423
	Q9	0.258	0.081	0.134	3.182	0.002	0.099	0.417
	Q10	0.347	0.080	0.181	4.348	0.000	0.190	0.504
	Q11	0.303	0.074	0.165	4.091	0.000	0.158	0.449
	Q12	0.132	0.077	0.070	1.709	0.088	−0.020	0.284
	Q13	0.028	0.085	0.014	0.331	0.741	−0.139	0.195
	Q14	0.232	0.085	0.113	2.716	0.007	0.064	0.399

describes the relationship between the dependent variables (aspects investigated through questions Q6–Q14) and the considered independent variables (age, gender, living environment, level of education, professional status, and income level of respondents).

4.5.1. Verification of Multiple Linear Regression Model Assumptions

In this section, additional analyses are presented to verify the assumptions necessary for the validity of the multiple linear regression model used in this study. The statistical tests performed include verifying the normality of residuals, heteroscedasticity of residual variance, and multicollinearity among independent variables. Potential endogeneity issues in the model specification are also discussed.

Normality of Residuals

To verify the normality of residuals, the Shapiro–Wilk test was used. The values obtained for the dependent variables Q6–Q14 are presented in

Table 14. Shapiro–Wilk test results for normality of residuals.

Dependent Variables	Shapiro–Wilk	p-Value
Q6	0.927	<0.001
Q7	0.938
Q8	0.923
Q9	0.915
Q10	0.931
Q11	0.941
Q12	0.903
Q13	0.913
Q14	0.935

.

The p-values < 0.05 for all variables indicate that the residuals are not normally distributed. This violation of the normality assumption can affect the validity of statistical inferences. As a remedial measure, a logarithmic transformation of the dependent variables was applied, which improved the distribution of residuals.

Heteroscedasticity

To detect heteroscedasticity, the Breusch–Pagan test was used. The values obtained for the dependent variables Q6–Q14 are presented in

Table 15. Breusch–Pagan test results for heteroscedasticity.

Dependent Variables	Chi-Square	p-Value
Q6	16.213	< 0.005
Q7	14.877
Q8	17.005
Q9	15.732
Q10	16.898
Q11	13.567
Q12	18.902
Q13	15.123
Q14	14.456

.

The p-values < 0.05 for all variables indicate the presence of heteroscedasticity. Heteroscedasticity signals that the variance of residuals is not constant, which can lead to inefficient estimates and incorrect standard errors. To correct this issue, robust standard errors (HC3) were used, which are resistant to heteroscedasticity, ensuring more precise estimates.

Multicollinearity

To verify multicollinearity among independent variables, variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated. The VIF values obtained for all independent variables were below 10, indicating that there are no significant multicollinearity problems in the model.

Analysis Results

Table 16. Multiple linear regression coefficients with robust standard errors.

Variables	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	Q12	Q13	Q14
Intercept	1.218	1.451	1.218	1.481	1.218	1.466	3.693	1.408	1.451
Age	0.013	−0.017	0.013	0.024	0.013	−0.024	−0.217	−0.012	−0.017
Gender	0.005	−0.036	0.005	−0.022	0.005	−0.008	−0.065	0.011	−0.036
Environment	0.007	−0.005	0.007	−0.014	0.007	−0.020	−0.083	−0.006	−0.005
Education	0.005	−0.030	0.005	0.001	0.005	0.030	0.023	−0.003	−0.030
Status	−0.006	−0.016	−0.006	0.000	−0.006	−0.043	−0.053	−0.035	−0.016
Income	0.020	0.049	0.020	0.029	0.020	0.032	0.136	0.065	0.049

presents the coefficients obtained from the multiple linear regression models for the dependent variables Q6–Q14, using robust standard errors and log-transforming the dependent variables. These adjustments ensure a more accurate interpretation of the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables.

These additional analyses ensure a more robust and accurate interpretation of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables, thus providing a solid basis for the conclusions presented in this article.

4.5.2. Interpretation of Multiple Linear Regression

The statistical data presented in Table 13, namely the values of the unstandardized coefficients B, standard errors, t indices, and confidence intervals (95.0% confidence interval for B), corroborated with full statistical significance (Sig. = 0.000), indicate that respondents’ perceptions regarding the overall assessment of the dependent variables Q6–Q14 are very well defined, showing a firm belief of respondents in the assessment made.

On the other hand, the differentiated influences of the considered independent variables on respondents’ perceptions, in the evaluation of the considered dependent variables (Q6–Q14), are noted as follows:

Regarding the independent variable “Age”, the values of the unstandardized coefficients suggest a slight influence on respondents’ perceptions, but the lack of statistical significance (values above the maximum threshold of 0.05) indicates that the independent variable does not have a significant influence on the investigated issues. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the evaluation of statistical data that express the influences of the independent variables “Living Environment of respondents” and “Status of respondents”, with respondent categories based on these variables having similar views on the investigated issues.

On the other hand, the independent variable “Gender of respondents” does not have a significant influence on the perception in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6, Q7, Q11, Q12, and Q13, due to the lack of statistical significance (values above the maximum threshold of 0.05); however, it proves to have significant importance in shaping respondents’ perceptions in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q8, Q9, Q10, and Q14, where the values of statistical significance are below the considered threshold.

Regarding the independent variable “Level of Education”, its influences are noted on shaping respondents’ perceptions in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6 and Q9 (the values of statistical significance are below the considered maximum threshold), as well as the lack of influence on perceptions of the issues investigated through the dependent variables Q7, Q8, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, and Q14, for which the values of statistical significance are above the considered threshold.

Significant influences, confirmed by statistical significances (below the considered maximum threshold), of the independent variable “Income of respondents” on the dependent variables Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q14 are noted. The other two analyzed dependent variables, Q12 and Q13, did not show influences of respondents’ income level in terms of shaping their perception, due to the values of statistical significance above the considered maximum threshold.

Thus, it is demonstrated that gender, level of education, and income level of respondents have differentiated influences on their perceptions of some of the dependent variables investigated, while the other considered independent variables (age, living environment, and status of respondents) do not have significant influence, with respondent categories based on these variables having a common perception of the investigated issues.

Reliability of Items

Through robust statistical measures (Cronbach’s Alpha and ANOVA), the consistency and reliability of the measurement tool and the degree of variation among/within respondent evaluations were assessed.

The data analysis from

Table 17. Reliability analysis of the items.

Reliability of Items
Cronbach’s Alpha		Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items				n of Items
0.925		0.926				10
Summary Statistics of the Elements
	Mean	Min.	Max.	Range	Max./Min.	Variance	n of Items
Item Means	3.451	3.141	3.679	0.538	1.171	0.032	10
ANOVA with Cochran’s Test
		Sum of Squares		df	Mean Square	Cochran’s Q	Sig
Between People		6301.214		784	8.037
Within People	Between Items	225.498		9	25.055	354.299	Within People
	Residual	4271.102		7056	0.605
	Total	4496.600		7065	0.636
Total		10,797.814		7849	1.376

reveals important aspects regarding the reliability and variance of the collected data. Thus, the reliability statistic highlights a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value (0.925) indicating a high level of internal consistency of the measurement instrument, which proves that the elements of the applied questionnaire are well aligned. This finding is also confirmed by the value of the Cronbach’s Alpha based on standardized items (0.926), suggesting that the reliability is stable regardless of the measurement scale.

Analyzing the summary statistics of the items, we observe that the mean, minimum, and maximum values, as well as the variance, indicate significant variation in the collected responses. The mean (3.451) reflects the central tendency of the responses, and the variation between the minimum (3.141) and maximum (3.679) values expresses the degree of divergence in respondents’ perceptions. Additionally, the ratio between the maximum and minimum values (1.171, along with the variance (0.032), provides a deeper understanding of the distribution of responses.

Delving deeper into the analysis through ANOVA and Cochran’s test results in a set of findings that highlight significant differences both between subjects (between people) and within individual responses (within people), the considerable variation, as evidenced by the sum of squares and the high value of Cochran’s Q test, underscores that there are notable differences in how respondents perceived the significance of the investigated dependent variables.

4.6. Correlation of Population’s Dissatisfaction/Frustration Induced by the Decision to Delay Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area with the Problematization of Induced Social, Economic, Political, and Security Consequences—Objective O4

This study reveals that the population’s dissatisfaction regarding the issue of Romania’s delayed accession to the Schengen Area has generated a feeling of discontent and frustration, which may form the basis for problematizing the negative social, economic, and security consequences of this decision. This sentiment is based on the interpretation of the results from question Q4, which shows high proportions of respondents (59.12–76.69%) who consider the decision to delay the accession as subjective/unfair.

Tabel 18 presents the correlations between the variables from Q4 (which express the perception of the fairness/objectivity of the mentioned decision) and the variables from Q5 to Q13 (which express the respondents’ perceptions of some of the effects of Romania’s delayed accession to the Schengen Area in social, economic, and security terms, related to the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development), resulting from the application of Spearman’s statistical tests and multiple linear regression analysis.

Spearman’s statistical tests highlight that question Q4 shows statistically significant correlations with questions Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q12, and Q13, with p-values below the significance threshold of 0.05. Question Q4 does not show a statistically significant correlation with question Q11, having a p-value well above 0.05.

Similar results are obtained from multiple linear regression analysis, where question Q4 shows statistically significant correlations with questions Q5, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q13, with p-values below the significance threshold of 0.05. In this case, question Q4 does not show a statistically significant correlation with questions Q6, Q7, and Q12, having p-values above 0.05.

The differences noted can be explained by the particularities of the methodologies applied in Spearman’s statistical tests and multiple linear regression analysis.

The results presented in

Table 18. Correlation of the question measuring population frustration (Q4) and the questions measuring opinions on the negative effects of delaying Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area (Q5 to Q13).

Q4 Correlation with:	Spearman Correlation	p-Value	Multiple Linear Regression for Q4 and Q5 ÷ Q13
			Unstandard. Coefficients B	p-Value
Q5	−0.26727	0.000	−0.0803	0.001
Q6	−0.26587	0.000	−0.0408	0.066
Q7	−0.15035	0.000	0.0354	0.084
Q8	−0.27165	0.000	−0.0761	0.001
Q9	−0.19608	0.000	0.0492	0.05
Q10	−0.30786	0.000	−0.1137	0.001
Q11	0.006965	0.845524	0.0383	0.014
Q12	−0.08895	0.01266	0.0265	0.204
Q13	−0.10976	0.002073	0.0490	0.032

demonstrate that the feelings of dissatisfaction/frustration among the population induced by the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area have contributed to problematizing the induced social, economic, political, and security consequences, as investigated through questions Q5 to Q13.

5. Discussion

Analyzing the impact of decisions by some EU countries to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area is essential for understanding the psycho-social dimensions of their effects on the young population segment, as well as the negative effects on social aspects, the economic and institutional-political development of the country, and its national security.

As an EU member state at the eastern border, Romania is in a unique position, needing to align with the behavior of the community space while also facing the direct requirements and challenges induced by its geographical proximity to state entities with a democracy deficit, characterized by the emergence of transnational threats or involvement in military conflicts. This context generates fears and uncertainties regarding the assurance of individual and collective security, including in terms of impacting the quality of life of citizens.

To highlight these aspects within the comprehensive study undertaken, in the process of questioning the participants, we started from the assumed premise that the rational and clear judgment of citizens regarding a very important issue (which has proven to have an impact, including on Romania’s national security) can lead them to provide answers to some questions that address well-known aspects, which may not fall within their area of expertise, or which may not have been considered problematic by them until now, but are intensely debated in the public sphere and among government decision-makers in Romania.

5.1. Positive Perception of State Authorities Regarding Romania’s Accession to the Schengen Area (H1)

Hypothesis H1 assumes that the young population in Romania (ages 18–35) has a positive perception of the institutional efforts by state authorities for Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area, considering these actions essential for confirming adherence to European values, with significant differences based on access to information.

The obtained results (Table 3; Q3) reveal that, in very high proportions (greater than 83.33%, except for the category of respondents with monthly incomes higher than the average gross salary in the economy of 7565 RON, which has a proportion of 93.48%), all groups of respondents, classified according to socio-demographic factors, consider that Romania’s status as a full member of the EU would be a determining (but not mandatory) element for accepting Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area. These opinions are based on a perception of a very high level of knowledge among all categories of respondents (greater than 75.26%, except for the category of respondents with monthly incomes higher than the average gross salary in the economy of 7565 RON, which has a proportion of 91.30%) of the recent EU decision to eliminate air and maritime border controls with Romania, starting from March 31, 2024 (Table 2; Q1). In this case, the chi-square and p-values indicated significant associations between respondents’ gender and level of information (χ2 = 14.429, p = 0.000146), as well as between income level and level of information (χ2 = 6.592, p = 0.037). These results highlight that men and individuals with higher incomes are better informed about the EU decision, which may reflect differences in priorities and access to resources between these groups.

The temporary obstruction of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area is considered by all categories of respondents to be subjective/unfair (proportions greater than 59.12%, except for the category of respondents with monthly incomes higher than the average gross salary in the economy of 7565 RON, which has a proportion of 76.69%) (Table 3; Q4). In this case, the chi-square analysis shows a significant association with the variables of age, gender, and professional status of the respondents, suggesting significant differences between age groups (χ2 = 5.050, p = 0.025), between men and women (χ2 = 13.116, p = 0.000293), and between different professional categories (χ2 = 10.730, p = 0.005). It is noteworthy that previous evaluations of the group of surveyed respondents were conducted in the context of a high level of access to information resources (trusted sources) regarding Romania’s efforts to eliminate land border controls (Table 2; Q2) for all categories of respondents (greater than 65.10%, except for the category of male respondents, who have a proportion of 73.05%).

We note that respondents’ perceptions regarding the issues investigated through questions Q1 and Q2 constitute the reference point for the knowledge base of the investigated issue by the respondents. This study does not aim to verify the correctness of respondents’ perceptions through additional questions. In this context, we mention that recent research by the authors [62] reveals that, regarding the information of people in Romania about important security issues, 49.2% of respondents who participated in this study prefer to predominantly access open sources (mass media and social networks), while 38.7% prioritize accessing official information provided by state institutions. This suggests the population’s potential for objective, verifiable information, unaltered by possible interests of the media or state decision-makers.

The opinions of the group of respondents on the issues investigated in the present study, through questions Q1 and Q2, reflect their perception of a high level of information they claim to possess on these issues, an aspect that correlates with specialized studies that reveal the need for correct information of the population on issues impacting societal life [63]. Additionally, the evaluation of the data in Table 3 reveals the respondents’ perception of the need for Romania’s membership in the Schengen Area, the affirmation of a strong desire to belong to European values, and the strengthening of Romania’s role at the continental level, aspects confirmed by other recent studies [64,65].

The previous results evoke the significant positive perception of the surveyed group of respondents regarding the efforts of state authorities for Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area (thus certifying the correctness of the internal decisions related to this endeavor), which leads to the conclusion of confirming Hypothesis H1.

5.2. Respondents’ Perception Regarding the Consequences of Delaying Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area

Hypothesis H2 assumes that the young population in Romania perceives that the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area generates significant harm to the country’s sustainable development and affects national security interests, with this perception being influenced by socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, place of residence, education level, and monthly income.

The evaluation of the independent variable Q5—the extent to which Romania’s national security interests are directly affected (Table 5)—through the Kruskal–Wallis test, reveals the existence of a strong overall association between the analyzed variable and the respondents’ perception of the investigated issue. The detailed analysis related to the associated independent variables shows that, in this case, the considered socio-demographic characteristics, except for respondents’ gender (p = 0.056), do not significantly influence their perception. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that recent research by the authors on Romania’s security interests [62] reveals that “active participation in strengthening the EU, as well as deepening integration processes within it”—a priority objective of the state, and implicitly full membership in the Schengen Area—is favored “to a large and very large extent” by 43.2% of all surveyed respondents (the highest proportions being found in the 18–35 age category), while 25.8% of them appreciate its utility “to a small and very small extent”, and 31.0% of respondents do not have a clear opinion.

The results of this study are consistent with the findings of other research in the field, which shows that the delay in Romania’s accession to the Schengen Area has postponed the implementation of integrated border security measures, affecting the ability to effectively combat cross-border crime and ensure the security of the population [66]. This is especially concerning in the context of rising Euroscepticism and nationalist movements [67], exposing Romania to additional security risks by limiting the efficiency of cross-border cooperation [52].

The results of the analysis lead to the conclusion of a common vision among the surveyed respondent group regarding the impact of the decision on Romania’s national security interests, thus confirming a segment of Hypothesis H2.

On the other hand, the evaluation of the statistical data presented in Table 13 indicates that the respondents’ perceptions regarding the overall assessment of the dependent variables Q6–Q13, which express the negative influences of the decisions delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on some of the specific objectives (OB 1–17) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1], are very well defined. There exists a firm belief among the respondents in the assessment made. The analysis also reveals the differentiated influences of the considered independent variables on the respondents’ perceptions, in the evaluation of the dependent variables.

Firstly, it is noteworthy that the independent variables age of respondents, home environment of respondents, and status of respondents do not have a significant influence on shaping the perceptions of respondents about the investigated issues (statistical significances being above the agreed maximum threshold), which highlights similar views of the respondent groups formed based on these independent variables regarding the negative influences of the decisions delaying Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area on the country’s sustainable development, from the perspective of balancing the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social, and environmental. The application of the Kruskal–Wallis test highlights some differences, as follows: the influence of the variable age of respondents on the perception in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6, Q8, Q9; the influence of the variable place of residence on the perception in the evaluation of the dependent variable Q10; and the influence of the variable professional status of respondents on the perception in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6, Q7, Q9, and Q10 (Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8). In the case of the latter variable, respondents with employment status are directly affected by limited economic opportunities and reduced mobility, the possibility of job loss, or the difficulty of finding better opportunities in other Schengen countries, perceiving these situations as direct threats to their security. On the other hand, respondents with student status may primarily see the benefits of Schengen accession in terms of educational mobility and access to international exchange programs, but may not feel the same economic pressures as those with employment status. It is worth noting that some specialized studies highlight a direct correlation between the variables place of residence and professional status, and the quality of life of citizens, including specific reference to the Schengen Area [68,69,70].

Secondly, we note that multiple linear regression analysis reveals that the three other independent variables considered have differentiated influences on only some of the analyzed dependent variables, as follows: respondents’ gender influences the shaping of respondents’ perceptions in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q8, Q9, Q10, and Q14; education level influences the shaping of respondents’ perceptions in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6 and Q9; and respondents’ income influences the shaping of respondents’ perceptions in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q14. Again, the application of the Kruskal–Wallis test highlights some small differences, as follows: the influence of the variable gender on the perception in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6, Q8, Q9, and Q10; the lack of influence of the variable education level on all analyzed dependent variables; and the influence of the variable income on the perception in the evaluation of the dependent variables Q6, Q8, Q9, Q11, and Q13 (Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9).

Regarding the independent variable “Gender of respondents”, the interpretation of the unstandardized coefficient values for the three dependent variables (Q8, Q9, Q10) influenced by it (Table 13) reveals that female respondents are more concerned than male respondents about issues related to the limitation of free movement and access to decent work (OB 8, 10), access to innovation, infrastructure, and sustainable communities (OB 9, 11), and access to economic growth, production, and sustainable consumption (OB 8, 12). This is in the context of the known fact that respondents in the first category (females) report higher levels of satisfaction with regard to quality of life [71].

Regarding the independent variable level of education, the interpretation of the values of the unstandardized coefficients for the three dependent variables (Q6 and Q9) it influences (Table 12) shows that respondents with university education are more concerned than those with pre-university education about issues of disparities between the living standards of Romania’s population compared to those in Western European countries (OB 1, 2, 12) and access to innovation, infrastructure, and sustainable communities (OB 9, 11), aspects generally highlighted by other specialized studies that emphasize the role of knowledge in today’s society [72].

Finally, regarding the independent variable “Respondents’ Income”, the interpretation of the unstandardized coefficient values for the dependent variables (Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q14) influenced by it (Table 12) reveals that the group of respondents with incomes higher than the gross minimum wage (3300 RON) shows greater concern for disparities between the standard of living in Romania and that in Western European countries (OB 1, 2, 12); access to education, healthcare, and culture (OB 3, 4); issues of free movement of people and access to decent work (OB 8, 10); access to economic growth, production, and sustainable consumption (OB 8, 12); the objective of promoting a peaceful and inclusive society for sustainable development and creating effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels in the European space (OB 16); and quality of life. The results obtained are in line with the conclusions of recent research on the analyzed issue [73,74].

We highlight that, while some of the socio-demographic factors characterizing the surveyed respondent group do not significantly influence the shaping of their perceptions, the complexity of the effects of the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area and its intense mediation may have a major impact on forming an overall image of public perception [45,58].

In light of the aforementioned findings, the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, resulting from the decisions adopted by some EU states, generates significant setbacks in the country’s sustainable development, which also confirms the second segment of Hypothesis H2. This situation tends to decrease the trust of the surveyed population in the legitimacy of the efforts to establish and operate the European Community space, an issue that has been intensely debated in academic and political circles of some European countries, especially after Brexit [28,29,33,34,35].

We believe in the necessity of information campaigns that clearly explain to the public the official reasons for the delay and directly address Romania’s national security concerns. Additionally, we consider that institutions should be more transparent in communicating their efforts to combat corruption, organized crime, and uncontrolled migration, given that these are the main reasons cited for postponing Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area.

5.3. Respondents’ Perception of the Impacts of Delaying Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area on Their Quality of Life (H3)

Hypothesis H3 considers that the young population in Romania believes that the delay in Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area negatively affects the concept of human security from the perspective of quality of life, with significant variations in perceptions based on age, gender, place of residence, education level, and monthly income.

Descriptive analysis (Table 10) shows that a significant proportion of all analyzed respondent categories declare that the obstruction of Romania’s efforts for full accession to the Schengen Area has a “large or very large” impact on their personal quality of life (with percentages exceeding 32.07%, with the highest being among respondents with a monthly income higher than the average gross salary in the economy, 7567 RON, recording 41.31%), which highlights that the mentioned decisions have a direct negative impact on the quality of life of the surveyed individuals. In this context, we note that the application of the Kruskal–Wallis test highlights the differentiated impact of the considered independent variables on respondents’ perceptions of the investigated issue, in the sense that only the gender of respondents (p = 0.018343) constitutes a statistically significant independent variable, while respondents’ monthly income has borderline statistical significance (p = 0.056406).

Descriptive statistics relating to the four dimensions of well-being—physical (PHYS), psychological (PSYCH), social (SOCIAL), and environmental (ENVIR)—indicate a moderate perception of physical well-being (score of 66.72), a generally good state of psychological well-being (score of 72.04), satisfactory levels of interaction and social support (score of 69.98), and a moderate evaluation of environmental conditions (score of 68.14) (Table 11).

Furthermore, the bivariate analysis (Table 12) reveals various perceptions of physical and psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health, depending on the considered demographic variables.

In the case of the independent variables Age of respondents, Gender of respondents, Level of Education, Status of respondents, and Income of respondents, we note differences between the investigated groups (formed on the basis of these variables), uniformly across all four analyzed domains of well-being (with higher values in the categories of respondents aged 26–35, male, with university education, employed, and with a monthly income higher than 3300 RON). On the other hand, the independent variable Living Environment diversely influences the quality of life evaluation indicators, with those living in rural areas registering higher values in physical, psychological, and environmental health, and urban dwellers registering higher values for social relationships, due to the differentiated facilities that the two environments offer.

The detailed analysis using the method of linear regression of the dependent variables Q6–Q14, explicitly related to the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (OB 1–17), shows how perceptions of various aspects of the issues investigated, under the necessity of Romania’s sustainable development, influence physical and psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health (Table 13).

For the dependent variables Q6 (in correlation with OB 1, 2, and 12), Q9 (in correlation with OB 9, 11), Q10 (in correlation with OB 8, 12), and Q12 (in correlation with OB 10, 11), we observe a complete association between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of physical health, psychological well-being, social relationships, and environmental health. This suggests that a positive attitude regarding issues such as reducing the disparities between the standard of living in Romania and Western European countries, the necessity of sustainable infrastructures and communities, economic growth, sustainable production and consumption, and the emergence of nationalist, populist, and anti-European currents among the population, can be associated with a better perception of health and quality of life, as highlighted by other research in the field [45,58].

In the case of the dependent variables Q7 (in correlation with OB 3, 4) and Q13 (in correlation with OB 10, 11), we observe an association between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health. Additionally, there is an association between lower levels of agreement (1–2) and physical health, which may suggest that a positive attitude regarding issues related to the population’s access to education, healthcare, and culture, or issues related to crime in the European space, can be associated with a better perception of health and well-being.

We note the diversity of associations between levels of agreement and dimensions of quality of life assessment in respondents, in the case of the dependent variables Q8 (in correlation with OB 8, 10) and Q14 (in correlation with OB 1–17), in terms of an association between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of social relationships and environmental health, and an association between lower levels of agreement (1–2) and positive perceptions of physical and psychological health. Additionally, in the case of the dependent variable Q11 (in correlation with OB 16), we note an association between higher levels of agreement (4–5) and positive perceptions of psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health, and an association between lower levels of agreement (1–2) and positive perceptions of physical health.

Evaluating the previous results highlights that, although overall the decisions of certain EU states to obstruct Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area have a “large or very large” impact on the quality of life of the surveyed respondents, regarding the analyzed dependent variables—directly correlated with the objectives set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—we observe different associations between the levels of agreement of respondents and their perceptions of the four dimensions of individuals’ well-being—physical (PHYS), psychological (PSYCH), social (SOCIAL), and environmental (ENVIR), as also shown by results from other studies that have sequentially approached these issues [75,76,77].

This highlights the impact of decisions adopted within the EU, concerning the investigated issue, on the young population of a member state. We note that, in the context of recent developments at the European continent level (military crisis, major economic issues, rising Euroscepticism, etc.), the population’s perceptions of the investigated issues may change, which could sequentially influence the conclusions of this study. The previously presented results show that the research Hypothesis H3 is confirmed overall.

In this context, we advocate for the development of support programs (continuous training courses and networking opportunities) to compensate for the lack of mobility and provide the population with the necessary tools to adapt to current conditions; initiating information campaigns to explain the potential benefits of full Schengen accession and to maintain high morale among the population; creating platforms where various population categories (employees, students, etc.) can express their concerns and ideas, thus contributing to a better understanding of their specific needs; and implementing mental health support programs to address stress and anxiety caused by economic insecurity and uncertainties about the future.

5.4. Correlation of the Population’s Dissatisfaction/Frustration Induced by the Decision to Delay Romania’s Full Accession to the Schengen Area with the Problematization of Induced Social, Economic, Political, and Security Consequences

Hypothesis H4 considers that awareness of the negative effects of the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area can transform the general feeling of frustration among the population into a concrete concern regarding the social, economic, political, and security consequences of that decision.

The data presented in Table 3 show that recent decisions by some European states to temporarily obstruct Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area are considered by most respondents to be subjective/unfair, in relation to Romania’s efforts to meet the accession conditions, which has generated a sense of frustration among the population. On the other hand, the data presented in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10 highlight the surveyed population’s perceptions of the negative effects induced by the mentioned decision.

The conducted tests show significant correlations between the degree of frustration and dissatisfaction of the population due to the mentioned decision (question Q4) and some of its security effects (responses to question Q5), as well as social and economic effects (questions Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q12, and Q13, in the case of Spearman tests, and questions Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q13, in the case of multiple linear regression analysis), related to the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The conclusions drawn from the conducted tests confirm the research Hypothesis H4, showing that the effects of some situational decisions (specifically, the decisions to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area) can generate a general feeling of frustration among the population (under the conditions of meeting the criteria defined in the Acquis communautaire), which can subsequently form the basis for problematizing important social, economic, and security aspects, as those subsequent to the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (which were the subject of analysis in this study through questions Q5 to Q13).

We believe that the confirmation of the research hypotheses of this study gives it relevance, in the sense that, in the context of a positive perception of the young population in Romania (ages 18–35) regarding the institutional efforts of state authorities for Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area, the actions of some EU states to delay these efforts (through opposition to “land accession”) generate significant harm to the country’s sustainable development, affect Romania’s national security interests, and negatively impact the concept of human security, from the perspective of the population’s quality of life.

6. Possible Contributions to the Development of Public Policies

Since this study investigates the perception of the young population in Romania regarding the efforts undertaken by state authorities for Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area (Hypothesis H1), the harm caused by the delay in accession on the country’s sustainable development and Romania’s national security interests (Hypothesis H2), and the concept of human security from the perspective of quality of life (Hypothesis H3), we believe that it could contribute to the improvement of public policies in the field of crisis management as follows:

(a)

The study results could form the basis for improving public policies related to decisions subsumed under Romania’s security interests, public diplomacy, and strategic communication, in accordance with the provisions of Article 59 of the National Defense Strategy—“Together, for a safe and prosperous Romania in a world marked by new challenges”—for the period 2021–2024 (protection, defense, and guaranteeing of citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms; ensuring sustainable economic development; active participation in strengthening the EU and deepening integration processes within the community space; strengthening the EU’s contribution to security and defense; consolidating multilateralism and international order) [16]. This would involve upgrading the legal provisions in the field (as currently regulated) with the population’s perception of issues that can impact national security and their interests within the new strategic document that will regulate the issue for the future time horizon. Additionally, the study results can be used to support diplomatic negotiations and highlight the impact of the delay on public perception. We support this possibility, given that among Romania’s current security interests is “active participation in strengthening the EU, as well as deepening integration processes within it” [20], implicitly including full membership in the Schengen Area.

(b)

The study can contribute to improving public policies related to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1] by state authorities, ensuring a healthy life, comfort, and well-being for citizens, as well as the necessary conditions for the sustainable development of Romanian society, given the negative economic influences of the decisions to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area.

Furthermore, the study can make some contributions to the field of group behavior research, by highlighting the connections between psychological factors (the feeling of dissatisfaction and frustration determined by a certain decision/event—specifically, the decision to delay Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area—and the perception of the social, economic, and security impacts/effects induced by the respective decision/event).The possible contributions previously mentioned align with the role of the academic environment in achieving the national interests of the state, including from a security perspective (through the promotion of a security culture). This is in the context where the academic environment, as well as civil society as a whole, represents important actors who influence public debates at the state level. They can make a significant impact on the process of conceptualizing, developing, and implementing public policies through dialogue with governmental authorities and other political participants, or through their influence on these activities, thereby substantially contributing to the stability of societal life and the achievement of security at both individual and collective levels [78].

7. Limitations of the Research

Since the research is based on the statistical processing of data obtained from a specific online questionnaire answered by 785 young people (aged 18–35) from Romania, an initial significant limitation is the qualitative nature of the study. It is not segmented by geographical areas (whether more or less close to Romania’s borders with the Schengen Area) and is not representative of the entire population of Romania.

The second limitation of the study is represented by the method of data collection (online environment), as only those who had Internet access could access and complete the specific questionnaire. The possibility of subjective self-selection of respondents [79] and redistribution of the questionnaire in groups of people with similar views on the investigated subject [80] completes this limitation.

The third limitation of the study is determined by the general structure of the group of respondents who accessed and completed the specific questionnaire, due to the disproportionality between the categories of respondents formed on the basis of the independent variable of the respondents’ age (81.02% of respondents belong to the age category 18–25 years; 18.98% of respondents belong to the age category 26–35 years), a fact that has indirect influences on the structure of the categories of respondents formed on the criterion of other independent variables, such as the level of education, the status of the respondents, or the level of income of the respondents.

Despite these limitations, in the context where the issue of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area may experience rapid developments, capturing an updated snapshot of the perceptions of Romania’s young population on the investigated issue is very important for anticipating attitudes and social trends that may affect elements characterizing the concept of security, as well as for adapting future public diplomacy policies in line with the interests of the citizens. It should be noted that these attitudes and social trends also occur against the backdrop of the overlapping impact of decisions obstructing Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area with other problematic elements that have affected Romanian society in recent years [81].

8. Conclusions

This study investigates how the young population (ages 18–35) in Romania perceives the decisions of some EU states to obstruct Romania’s efforts for full accession to the Schengen Area. It examines the negative impact of these decisions on Romania’s national security interests, sustainable societal development, and the quality of life of its citizens from social, economic, and institutional-political perspectives. The authors aimed to explore and delve into certain issues/topics that are the subject of intense public debates at the national level (civil society, political circles), without intending to “create a discussion platform” for subsequent study or to generate “additional concern” within Romanian society.

The study results highlight the concern of the surveyed population regarding the investigated issue, reflecting the high level of knowledge claimed by respondents (as shown in Table 2) about the recent decisions adopted by the EU concerning the reduction in air and maritime border controls with Romania, and the high level of access to public sources where the mentioned issue was addressed.

Furthermore, in the collective mindset of the surveyed respondents, Romania’s status as a full member of the EU represents a determining (but not mandatory) factor for its full accession to the Schengen Area. The obstruction to achieving this goal is perceived as a subjective, unfair, and self-interested action by opposing states, which can generate a degree of dissatisfaction and frustration among respondents, leading to the problematization of aspects related to the negative consequences of delaying full accession. Moreover, the study reveals the correlation between the dissatisfaction/frustration induced by the mentioned decision and the problematization of some of the social, economic, political, and security consequences it induces.

The study also reveals that the obstruction of Romania’s full accession to the Schengen Area has a negative impact on the sense of personal and collective security among young people in Romania. It is also seen as a causal factor negatively affecting Romania’s sustainable development and the domestic implementation of the objectives outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Furthermore, the study’s results indicate that the quality of life indicators for young people in Romania are negatively influenced by the decision of certain European states to oppose Romania’s full membership in the Schengen Area (and its effects). It demonstrates that the facilities offered by full membership in the mentioned area can have differentiated influences on the quality of life evaluation indicators of citizens, as defined by the WHOQOL-BREF measurement instrument.

We believe that this study provides a scientifically documented information base for national and international dialogue on public diplomacy measures and cooperation initiatives, which should contribute to the materialization, within a reasonable time frame, of the full integration (terrestrial, aerial, and maritime) of Romania into the Schengen Area.