Yer Bağlılığı ve Risk Algısı Kavramları Arasındaki İlişki

Year 2018, Volume: 6 Issue: 4, 1377 - 1390, 01.08.2018

İpek Güler , Elif Kutay Karaçor

https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.402347

Cited By: 5

Abstract

Yer bağlılığı insan, zaman, yaşanılan
çevreye duyulan bağ,  güven duygusu gibi
etmenlerin birbirileriyle olan etkileşimi sonucu ortaya çıkmış olan bir
kavramdır. Çevresel riskler yüzünden yaşadıkları çevreyi terk etmek zorunda
kalan ve sonrasında duydukları bağlılıktan dolayı geri dönme isteği göstermiş
insanlar üzerinde ilk araştırmalar yapılmıştır. Bu durum yer bağlılığının risk
algısı üzerinde etkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Risk kavramı ise bir afet
sonucunda can, mal, çevresel kayıpların meydana gelme olasılığı iken risk
algısı da bu durumun sezgisel olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Genellikle çevresel
tehdit oluşumunda ve hemen sonrasında ortaya çıktığı fakat zamanla azaldığı
görülmektedir. Yer bağlılığı ve risk algısı arasındaki ilişki hakkında az
sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır. Scopus veri tabanının sistematik bir şekilde
araştırılması sonucunda yer bağlılığı ve risk algısını doğrudan ele alan 13
adet çalışma (2004-2017) saptanmıştır. Bu araştırma sonuçlarına göre yer
bağlılığı ve risk algısı arasında hem pozitif hem de negatif ilişki
bulunmaktadır. Sonuçlar özellikle şunları göstermektedir:  (1) risk algısı ve yer bağlılığı arasında
pozitif ilişki vardır; genel olarak farklı risk türlerine maruz kalmış yer
bağlılığı yüksek olan bireylerin risk algısı daha güçlüdür; (2) risk algısı ve
yer bağlılığı arasında negatif ilişki vardır; yere olan bağlılık arttıkça güven
duygusu da artmaktadır ve riskleri algılama seviyeleri düşmektedir; (3) yer
bağlılığı ve riskle başa çıkma arasında pozitif ilişki vardır; yere olan
bağlılıkları yüksek olan bireyler yaşadıkları çevreye karşı sorumluluk ve
koruyucu davranışlar sergilemektedirler ve riskle başa çıkmaya da
isteklidirler; (4) yer bağlılığı ve riskle başa çıkma arasında negatif ilişki
vardır; güçlü bir yer bağlılığı olan bireyler çevresel riskler ile karşı
karşıya kaldıklarında yer değişikliği yapmak istemezler, riskleri göz ardı
ederler ve felaketten sonra riskli bölgelere dönme olasılıkları çok yüksektir.
Bu çalışma ile yer bağlılığı ve risk algısı arasındaki ilişkinin daha önceden
yapılan araştırmalara göre hangi faktörlerden etkilendiği ve ilişki
sonuçlarının neler olduğunun belirlenmesi ile ulusal literatüre katkı
sağlanması amaçlanmaktadır. 

Keywords

Yer Bağlılığı, Risk Algısı, Riskle Başa Çıkma

The Relationship Between Place Attachment And Risk Perception Concepts

Abstract

Place attachment is a concept that has emerged as a result of interaction with factors such as person, time, bond to the living environment, confidence. Various researches have been conducted on people who have had to leave their environment due to environmental risks and who have shown desire to return because of the bond they have afterwards. This suggests that the impact of place attachment on the risk perception. The concept of risk is the probability of life, property, environmental losses occurring in a disaster, while the perception of risk is intuitive. It usually appears in the immediate aftermath of environmental threats but appears to diminish over time. There are few studies on the relationship between place attachment and risk perception. As a result of a systematic investigation of the Scopus database, 13 studies (2004-2017) were conducted that place attachment and risk perception. According to the results of this research, there is a positive and negative relationship between place attachment and risk perception. Acording to results, there is a positive relationship between risk perception and place attachment; the risk perception of individuals with high place attachment who are generally exposed to different risk types is stronger. There is a negative relationship between risk perception and place attachment ; as the place attachment increases, the confidence level also increases and the levels of risk perception decrease. There is a positive relationship between place attachment and risk coping ; individuals with high place attachment exhibit responsibility and protective behaviors towards the environment they live in and are eager to cope with risk. There is a negative relationship between place attachment and risk coping; individuals with strong place attachmnet do not want to relocate when they are exposed to environmental risks, they ignore the risks and the likelihood of returning to the risky regions after the disaster is very high. There appears to be an inconsistency between the perceptions and actions of those who have strong place attachment in the literature investigations that address place attachment and environmental risks. The aim of this study is to determine the factors that affect the relationship between the place attachment and risk perception and the results of the relationship and to contribute to the national literature.

Keywords

Place Attachment, Risk Perception, Risk Coping

References

• [1] Anonim, (4 Şubat 2018). [Online]. Erişim: https://www.scopus.com/
• [2] H. Arslan, “Afet Sonrası Yeniden Yapılanma Sürecinin Yere Bağlılık, Yer Değiştirme ve Bilişsel Haritalama Olguları Açısından İrdelenmesi,”. Doktora Tezi, Mimarlık, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2009.
• [3] S. De Dominicis, F. Fornara, U. G. Cancellieri, C. Twigger-Ross ve M. Bonaiuto, “We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive coping behaviours,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 43, ss. 66-78, 2015.
• [4] C. L. Twigger-Ross ve D. L Uzzell, “Place and identity processes,” Journal of environmental psychology, c. 16, s. 3, ss. 205-220, 1996.
• [5] M. V. Giuliani, (2003). “Theory of attachment and place attachment. na.,” Psychological theories for environmental issues, 1. Baskı, Farnham, İngiltere: Ashgate Yayıncılık, 2003, böl. 5, ss. 137-170.
• [6] L. Scannell, ve R. Gifford, “The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior,” Journal of environmental psychology, c. 30, s. 3, ss. 289-297, 2010.
• [7] TDK, (12 Ekim 2016). [Online]. Erişim: http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bts&arama=kelime&guid=TDK.GTS.57fde2e8a037f2.01961550
• [8] T.C. Başbakanlık Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD), Risk Tanımı, Ankara, Afet ve Acil Durumlara İlişkin Temel Mevzuat, 2015.
• [9] P. Slovic, “Perception of risk,” Science, c. 236, s. 4799, ss. 280-285, 1987.
• [10] P. E. Gustafson, “Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives,” Risk Analysis, c. 18, s. 6, ss. 805-811, 1998.
• [11] R. Raaijmakers, J. Krywkow ve A. van der Veen, “Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation,” Natural hazards, c. 46, s. 3, ss. 307-322, 2008.
• [12] R. Fazio ve M. Zanna, “Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency1,” Advances in experimental social psychology, c. 14, ss. 161-202, 1981.
• [13] D. L. Uzzell, “The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental problems,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 20, s. 4, ss. 307-318, 2000.
• [14] I. L Stefanovic, “The contribution of philosophy to hazards assessment and decision making,” Natural Hazards, c. 28, s. 2-3, ss. 229-247, 2003.
• [15] P. J. Baan ve F. Klijn, “Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands,” International Journal of River Basin Management, c. 2, s. 2, ss. 113-122, 2004.
• [16] V. T. Covello, “Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication,” Journal of Health Communication, c. 1, s. 8, ss. 5-8, 2003.
• [17] P. W. Schultz, “Conservation means behavior,” Conservation Biology, c. 25, s. 6, ss. 1080-1083, 2011.
• [18] R. Gifford, L. Scannell, C. Kormos, L. Smolova, A. Biel, S. Boncu, … ve F. G. Kaiser, “Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: an 18-nation study,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 29, s.1, ss. 1-12, 2009.
• [19] J. Hatfield, ve R. F. S. Job, “Optimism bias about environmental degradation: the role of the range of impact of precautions,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 21, s.1, ss. 17-30, 2001.
• [20] M. Bonaiuto, S. De Dominicis, F. Fornara, U. G. Cancellieri ve B. Mosco, Flood risk: the role of neighbourhood attachment. Na, 2011.
• [21] D. K. Bird, G. Gísladóttir ve D. Dominey-Howes, “Different communities, different perspectives: issues affecting residents' response to a volcanic eruption in southern Iceland.” Bulletin of Volcanology, c. 73, s. 9, ss. 1209-1227, 2011.
• [22] R. Garcìa-Mira, J. E. Real ve J. Romay, “Temporal and spatial dimensions in the perception of environmental problems: An investigation of the concept of environmental hyperopia,” International Journal of Psychology, c. 40, s. 1, ss. 5-10, 2005.
• [23] M. Bonaiuto, S. Alves, S. De Dominicis ve I. Petruccelli, “Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and agenda,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 48, ss. 33-53, 2016.
• [24] N. M. Radcliffe ve W. M. P. Klein, “Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparative optimism: differential relations with the knowledge and processing of risk information and beliefs about personal risk,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, c. 28, s. 6, ss. 836-846, 2002.
• [25] I. Armas, “Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania,”. Risk Analysis, c. 26, s. 5, ss. 1223-1234, 2006.
• [26] F. Bernardo, “Impact of place attachment on risk perception: Exploring the multidimensionality of risk and its magnitude,” Estudios de Psicología, c. 34, s. 3, ss. 323-329, 2013.
• [27] H. J. Stain, B. Kelly, W. J. Carr, T. J. Lewin, M. Fitzgerald ve L. Fragar, “The psychological impact of chronic environmental adversity: Responding to prolonged drought,” Social Science & Medicine, c. 73, s. 11, ss. 1593-1599, 2011.
• [28] D. Burley, P. Jenkins, S. Laska ve T. Davis, “Place attachment and environmental change in coastal Louisiana,” Organization & Environment, c. 20, s. 3, ss. 347-366, 2007.
• [29] M. Gallina ve A. Williams, “Perceptions of Air Quality and Sense of Place among Women in Northeast Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,” International Journal of Social Science Studies, c. 2, s. 3, ss. 67-77, 2014.
• [30] M. Bihari, ve R. Ryan, “Influence of social capital on community preparedness for wildfires,” Landscape and Urban Planning, c. 106, s. 3, ss. 253-261, 2012.
• [31] K. Donovan, A. Suryanto, ve P. Utami, “Mapping cultural vulnerability in volcanic regions: The practical application of social volcanology at Mt Merapi, Indonesia,” Environmental Hazards, c. 11, s. 4, ss. 303-323, 2012.
• [32] M. Bonaiuto, G. M. Breakwell ve I. Cano, “Identity processes and environmental threat: the effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution,” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, c. 6, s. 3, ss. 157-175, 1996.
• [33] Y. Zhang, H.-L, Zhang, J. Zhang ve S. Cheng, “Predicting residents' proenvironmental behaviors at tourist sites: The role of awareness of disaster's consequences, values, and place attachment,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 40, ss. 131-146, 2014.
• [34] B. Kaltenborn, “Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts: A study among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic,” Applied Geography, c. 18, s. 2, ss. 169-189, 1998.
• [35] A. Silver ve J. Grek-Martin, “Now we understand what community really means: Reconceptualizing the role of sense of place in the disaster recovery process,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 42, ss. 32-41, 2015.
• [36] P. Devine-Wright, “Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action,” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, c. 19, s. 6, ss. 426-441, 2009.
• [37] P. Devine-Wright, “Dynamics of place attachment in a climate changed world,” Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications, 1. Baskı. Abingdon, İngiltere: Routledge Yayıncılık, 2014, böl. 13, ss. 165-177.
• [38] R. S. Pirta, N. Chandel ve C. Pirta, “Loss of home at early age: Retrieval of memories among the displacees of Bhakra Dam after fifty years,” Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, c. 40, s. 1, ss. 78-85, 2014.
• [39] E. Chamlee-Wright ve V. H. Storr, “There's no place like New Orleans: Sense of place and community recovery in the Ninth Ward after Hurricane Katrina,” Journal of Urban Affairs, c. 5, s. 31, ss. 615-634, 2009.
• [40] J. J. O'Sullivan, R. A. Bradford, M. Bonaiuto, S. De Dominicis, P. Rotko J. Aaltonen, vd., “Enhancing flood resilience through improved risk communications,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, c. 12, ss. 2271-2282, 2012.
• [41] D. Paton, P. T. Burgelt, ve T. Prior, “Living with bushfire risk: social and environmental influences on preparedness,” Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, c. 23, s. 3, ss. 41, 2008.
• [42] S. Mishra, S. Mazumdar ve S. Damodar, “Place attachment and flood preparedness,”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, c. 30, s. 2, ss. 187-197, 2010.
• [43] E. L. Kick, J. C. Fraser, G. M. Fulkerson, L. A. McKinney ve D. H. De Vries, “Repetitive flood victims and acceptance of FEMA mitigation offers: an analysis with community–system policy implications,” Disasters, c. 35, s. 3, ss. 510-539, 2011.
• [44] H. J. Boon, “Disaster resilience in a flood-impacted rural Australian town,” Natural hazards, c. 7, s. 1, ss. 683-701, 2014.