Energy biosecurity, as a derivative of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), has been included in the agenda of universities, although the measurement of its impact has not been established. In this sense, the objective of the present study is to confirm the factorial structure of an instrument that measures the impact of the SDGs in universities. A cross-sectional, correlational, psychometric and confirmatory study was carried out with a sample of 100 students, selected for their affiliation with institutions committed to the SDGs. The results show the confirmation of five dimensions related to knowledge and expectations of the SDGs, impact of clean energies, resilience to energy disasters and perception of energy efficiency, as well as 12 items of the nine factors and 27 items reported in the literature and measured by the instrument. The imponderables in the measurement of energy biosecurity are recognized and it is recommended to extend the instrument and the sample to confirm the theoretical structure.

Introduction

The history of energy biosecurity is linked to the development of policies and strategies to protect energy infrastructure and ensure energy supply, while mitigating risks related to national security, the environment, and public health (Wieruszewski & Mydlarz, 2022). This evolution has had increasing importance in recent decades, as energy has become a strategic resource and globalization has made energy systems more interdependent and vulnerable. For much of the 20th century, energy security was primarily focused on securing the supply of fossil fuels, particularly oil, amidst a context of geopolitical tensions (Gilbert et al., 2021). The 1973 oil embargo was a flashpoint that highlighted the vulnerability of oil-dependent economies. Thereafter, countries such as the United States and other members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) began to develop strategic and political reserves to diversify energy sources.

The modern concept of energy biosecurity emerged in parallel with the rise of renewable energy and growing concerns about threats to critical energy infrastructures such as power grids, pipelines and nuclear plants (Le et al., 2020). Energy biosecurity refers to the protection of these infrastructures from biological risks as well as natural and human threats (terrorism, sabotage, cyberattacks, etc.). As renewable energy (such as wind, solar, and biomass) began to gain relevance from the last decades of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, energy biosecurity became more important (Alemu, 2020). These energy sources, although more sustainable, depend on technologically more complex and distributed infrastructures, which makes them vulnerable to various types of threats. In the 21st century, energy biosecurity has expanded to include concerns about climate change and the need to mitigate the environmental impact of energy production (Anderson & Bisanz, 2019). Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires, and winter storms, can disrupt energy supply networks. Nuclear energy infrastructure also faces biological and environmental risks, such as the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Furthermore, the digitalization of energy systems has made critical infrastructures susceptible to cyberattacks (D'Amato, Bartkowski & Droste, 2020). Protecting these infrastructures has become a priority for many countries, with policies seeking to balance the transition to clean energy and the need to protect these critical infrastructures. In particular, energy biosecurity also refers to the production of energy from biomass, a renewable energy source that includes organic waste, plants, and other biological materials (Von Cossel et al ., 2019). While this source is promising, it also presents risks if not managed properly, such as the spread of diseases or soil degradation. Today, energy biosecurity is integrated into global sustainable energy strategies (Froldi, Ferronato & Prandini, 2023). International organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations promote policies that strengthen the resilience of energy systems to biological, climatic and technological threats (see Table 1).

Table 1: Comparison of energy biosecurity dimensions around the SDGs

However, the dimensions of energy biosecurity have not been addressed from the risk perception surrounding the implementation of the SDGs in universities committed to these guidelines (Dili et al., 2022). Therefore, the objective of this work was to compare the theoretical structure of the perceptual dimensions with respect to the empirical observations of this work. Are there differences between the dimensions of energy biosecurity reported in the literature with respect to the dimensions perceived by students enrolled in universities committed to the implementation of the 

SDGs? This paper is based on the premise that the SDGs and energy biosecurity have been disseminated in the media and socio-digital networks, impacting risk perception in older audiences compared to young people (Ouko et al ., 2022) . Consequently, no differences are expected between the literature agenda and the university agenda.

Design: A cross-sectional, exploratory, psychometric and confirmatory study was conducted with a sample of 100 students selected based on their affiliation with institutions committed to the SDGs. Instrument. The Energy Biosecurity Perception Scale was used (see Annex A). It includes the following dimensions: 1) Knowledge of the SDGs, 2) SDG Expectations, 3) Infrastructure Security Assessment, 4) Perception of Unsustainable Energies, 5) Impact of Clean Energies, 6) Expectations of Biomass Loss, 7) Resilience to Energy Disasters, 8) Perception of Energy Efficiency, 9) Perception of Energy Cybersecurity. Procedure. Students were invited to participate in focus groups to homogenize the concepts of the instrument (Reid et al., 2019). They were invited to evaluate the items using the Delphi technique (Plowright et al., 2008). They were informed about the objectives and responsibilities of the project (Mitra, 2020). The survey was applied at the university facilities (O'Shea et al., 2024). They were warned that their participation would not be remunerated and would not affect their academic status.

 Analysis: Data was captured in Excel and processed in Google Colab using Python coding (see appendix B). Reliability, adequacy, sphericity, linearity, homoscedasticity, normality, validity, adjustment and residual parameters were estimated.

The analysis of covariances between the factors indicates the contrast of the theoretical structure with respect to the empirical observations (see Fig. 1). The results show values close to unity, which are assumed as evidence of non-rejection of the hypothesis of differences between the theoretical structure and the observations of the present study. In addition, the non-inclusion of other reagents in the empirical structure is inferred.

Figure 1: Covariances between indicators

Structural analysis suggests confirmation of the relationships between the factors and indicators (see Fig. 2). The factor structure includes three cases of overestimation of the relationships between the first indicator of 

knowledge and expectations of the SDGs, as well as the first indicator of the factor related to the perception of energy efficiency. It is recommended to replace the items in order to confirm the five-factor factor structure with its corresponding 15 items.

Figure 2: Confirmatory factor model of energy biosecurity around the SDGs

The fit and residual parameters [x2 = 1626.366 (90 gl) p < 0 xss=removed xss=removed xss=removed>

The contribution of this work to the state of the art lies in the confirmation of a structure of five factors and 12 indicators with respect to the structure of nine factors and 27 indicators reported in the literature on the perception of energy biosecurity. The intersection of biosecurity, energy and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is crucial in the context of the growing global bioeconomy (Meyer et al., 2020). Microalgae play an important role in achieving SDG-6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG-7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG-13 (Climate Action). Implementing a green economy is essential for sustainable development and investment, as seen in the support provided to Mongolia by the United Nations Environment Programme. The production of sustainable aviation fuels is proposed as a solution to reduce aviation’s dependence on liquid fossil fuels, highlighting the importance of clean energy (Fajemisin & Ogunribido, 2018). Innovation in achieving the 17 UN SDGs, including energy-related goals, is crucial for sustainable development. The future of food and agriculture is closely linked to the way energy is produced and distributed, highlighting the need for sustainable energy sources. Renewable energy plays a key role in the total primary energy supply, contributing to sustainable energy practices. Biosecurity and bioforensics are essential components to ensure sustainable practices in nuclear and chemical sciences (Herron et al ., 2021) . Promoting inclusive and sustainable regions is vital to unlock the potential of entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises in the energy sector. Research on the impacts of global change on biodiversity and biosecurity contributes to achieving SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). Companies are focusing on biosecurity, energy consumption and environmentally friendly solutions in their operations, aligning with sustainable development practices. Unlike the state of the art, which states the close relationship between the SDGs and the dimensions of energy biosecurity, this work suggests that only five of the nine dimensions and 12 of the 27 items can be confirmed as a factorial structure. However, it is recognized that the measurement of the unconfirmed dimensions and items may be biased by the lack of dissemination of the SDGs in universities, the focus of universities on some SDGs, or errors inherent to the instrument. Therefore, it is recommended to replace the items that were not confirmed and structure their relationships with the corresponding factors. To this end, increasing the scale and the sample will allow achieving the purpose of confirming the scale.

The objective of this work was to contrast the hypothesis of differences between the theoretical structure and empirical observations related to energy biosecurity derived from the SDGs. The results demonstrate the confirmation of five dimensions with 12 items of nine factors and 27 reagents reported in the consulted literature. Imponderables are recognized in the measurement of energy biosecurity in universities committed to the implementation of the SDGs. It is recommended to extend the instrument and the sample in order to increase the validity of the items and factors in order to confirm their structure.