Environmental Communication Scale (ECS): A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The behaviors of individuals within society change over time, and these behaviors are expected to change for psychological and sociological reasons. Many people shape their behaviors through communication, and it can be said that communication is generally between individuals and about issues that concern people. In this context, environmental issues are included in communication, and it has recently become necessary to measure this situation. The Environmental Communication Scale (ECS),which was developed by Kassing et al. (2010) to draw attention to environmental issues and to measure environmental communication, is intended to contribute to the national literature by adapting it to Turkish and to measure the environmental communication perceptions of individuals in society by using this scale in the national literature. In this context, the main question of the research was “What are the antecedents and successors of environmental communication, and can the environmental communication scale be translated into Turkish.” Within the scope of the research, an application was made to faculty members (N=424) working at universities in Istanbul, and the collected data were analyzed with AMOS 26 and SPSS 25 programs. In the results of the analysis, it was determined that the relevant scale was a 20-item measurement tool and was a valid and reliable scale consisting of 3 sub-dimensions "application, rejection, and approval". As a result of the research, it was determined that the Environmental Communication Scale was a scale that could be adapted to the Turkish language, thus contributing to the national literature and completing the research as original research.

Keywords

• Communication
• Environment
• Environmental Communication
• Scale Adaptation
• Validity
• Reliability

Çevresel İletişim Ölçeği (ÇİÖ): Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bireylerin toplum içerisindeki davranışları zamanla değişmekle birlikte bu davranışların psikolojik ve sosyolojik nedenlerden dolayı değişmesi beklenir. Birçok insan iletişim yoluyla davranışlarını şekillendirmekte olup iletişimin genel olarak bireyler arasında ve insanları ilgilendiren konular hakkında olduğu söylenebilir. Bu kapsamda çevresel konuların iletişime dâhil edilmesi söz konusudur ve bu durumun ölçülmesi son zamanlarda bir gereklilik haline gelmiştir. Çevresel konulara dikkat çekmek ve çevresel iletişimi ölçmek amacıyla Kassing vd., (2010) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan Çevresel İletişim Ölçeği (ÇİÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanmak suretiyle ulusal literatüre katkı sağlamak ve bu ölçeğin ulusal literatürde kullanılmasıyla toplum bireylerin çevresel iletişim algılarını ölçümlemek-ölçmek amaçlanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda araştırmanın temel sorusu “çevresel iletişimin ardıl ve öncülleri nelerdir ve Çevresel İletişim Ölçeği Türkçeleştirilebilir mi” olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında İstanbul’daki üniversitelerde görev yapmakta olan akademisyenlere (N=424) yönelik uygulama yapılmış, toplanan veriler AMOS 26 ve SPSS 25 programlarıyla analiz edilmiştir. Analiz bulgularında ilgili ölçeğin 20 maddelik bir ölçüm aracı olduğu ve “uygulama, reddetme ve onaylama” olarak 3 alt boyuttan oluşan geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda Çevresel İletişim Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanabilir bir ölçek olduğu belirlenerek ulusal literatüre katkı sağlanmış ve özgün bir araştırma olarak araştırma tamamlanmıştır.

Keywords

• İletişim
• Çevre
• Çevresel İletişim
• Ölçek Uyarlaması
• Geçerlik
• Güvenirlik

References

1. Adebayo, T. S., Özkan, O., & Eweade, B. S. (2024). Do energy efficiency R&D investments and information and communication technologies promote environmental sustainability in Sweden? A quantile-on-quantile KRLS investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 440, 140832.
2. Agyapong, B., Brett-MacLean, P., Burback, L., Agyapong, V. I. O. & Wei, Y. (2023). Interventions to reduce stress and burnout among teachers: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(9), 5625.
3. Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E. & Nowak, P. (1982). Measuring environmental concern: The new environmental paradigm scale. The Journal of Environmental Education, 13(3), 39-43.
4. Albright, J. J., & Hun Myoung, P. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, and SAS/STAT CALIS. Working Paper. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University.” http://www.indiana.edu/~statmath/stat/all/cfa/index.html
5. Armour, K. C., Proistosescu, C., Dong, Y., Hahn, L. C., Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., Pauling, A. G., ... & Gregory, J. M. (2024). Sea-surface temperature pattern effects have slowed global warming and biased warming-based constraints on climate sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(12), e2312093121.
6. Backes, D. (1995). The biosocial perspective and environmental communication research. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 147-163.
7. Balcı, A. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
8. Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I., Martinez, L., McCowen, T., Murphy, K. & Myers, N. (2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 106(8), 2483-2489.

9. Bewley, K. & Li, Y. (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. İçinde Advances in environmental accounting & management (201-226): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W., Gerten, D., Heck, V., Lenton, T. M. & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2017). The limits to global‐warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earth's Future, 5(5), 463-474.
10. Briandana, R., & Saleh, M. S. M. (2022). Implementing environmental communication strategy towards climate change through social media in Indonesia. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4), e202234.
11. Brown, N. & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—a dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and business research, 29(1), 21-41.
12. Brulle, R. J. (2010). From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: Environmental communication for civic engagement. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 82-98.
13. Cantrill, J. G. (1998). The environmental self and a sense of place: Communication foundations for regional ecosystem management. Journal of Applied Communication Research 26 (1998), 301-318
14. Chin, Y. S. J., De Pretto, L., Thuppil, V. & Ashfold, M. J. (2019). Public awareness and support for environmental protection—A focus on air pollution in peninsular Malaysia. PloS One, 14(3), e0212206.
15. Cho, H. H., Strezov, V. & Evans, T. J. (2023). A review on global warming potential, challenges and opportunities of renewable hydrogen production technologies. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 35, e00567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00567 Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education, Routledge.
16. Comfort, S. E. & Park, Y. E. (2018). On the Field of Environmental Communication: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. Environmental Communication, 12(7), 862-875. doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1514315
17. Cram, E., Law, M. P., & Pezzullo, P. C. (2022). Cripping environmental communication: A review of eco-ableism, eco-normativity, and climate justice futurities. Environmental Communication, 16(7), 851-863.
18. Crapa, G., Latino, M. E., & Roma, P. (2024). The performance of green communication across social media: Evidence from large‐scale retail industry in Italy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(1), 493-513.
19. Cruz, S. M. & Manata, B. (2020). Measurement of environmental concern: A review and analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 363.
20. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları, Pegem Akademi 2. Baskı. Ankara.
21. De Winter, J. C., & Dodou, D. (2012). Factor recovery by principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood factor analysis as a function of factor pattern and sample size. Journal of applied statistics, 39(4), 695-710.
22. Edú-Valsania, S., Laguía, A. & Moriano, J. A. (2022). Burnout: A review of theory and measurement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1780.
23. Erdem, A. T. (2020). Çalışanların öz yeterlilik algılarının iş yaşam kalitelerine etkisinde iş güvencesizliği algılarının düzenleyici rolü: Vakıf üniversitesi örneği. Gaziantep Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 167-184.
24. Erdem, A. T., & Alav, O. (2023). İletişim isteksizliği ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(3), 1387-1404.
25. Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K. & Sanisoğlu, S. Y. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223.
26. Feng, L. & Liao, W. (2016). Legislation, plans, and policies for prevention and control of air pollution in China: achievements, challenges, and improvements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1549-1558.
27. Finch, K. C., Snook, K. R., Duke, C. H., Fu, K.-W., Tse, Z. T. H., Adhikari, A. & Fung, I. C.-H. (2016). Public health implications of social media use during natural disasters, environmental disasters, and other environmental concerns. Natural Hazards, 83, 729-760.
28. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
29. Geçkil, T. & Tikici, M. (2015). Örgütsel Demokrasi Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 48(4). 41-78. Geng, L., Xu, J., Ye, L., Zhou, W. & Zhou, K. (2015). Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PloS one, 10(5), e0127247.
30. Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro‐environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International journal of psychology, 49(3), 141-157.
31. Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3), 209-220.
32. Guo, B., Wang, Y., Feng, Y., Liang, C., Tang, L., Yao, X. & Hu, F. (2022). The effects of environmental tax reform on urban air pollution: A quasi-natural experiment based on the Environmental Protection Tax Law. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 967524.
33. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Uppersaddle River. In: NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
34. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M. & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 40(3), 414-433.
35. Haltinner, K. & Sarathchandra, D. (2021). Considering attitudinal uncertainty in the climate change skepticism continuum. Global Environmental Change, 68, 102243.
36. Hirsh, J. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(2), 245-248. Janni, M., Maestri, E., Gullì, M., Marmiroli, M. & Marmiroli, N. (2024). Plant responses to climate change, how global warming may impact on food security: a critical review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 14, 1297569.
37. Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (1993). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. NY: University Press of America.
38. Kassing, J. W., Johnson, H. S., Kloeber, D. N. & Wentzel, B. R. (2010). Development and validation of the environmental communication scale. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 1-21.
39. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis: Routledge.
40. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3. Baskı). New York, NY: Guilford.
41. Lange, F. & Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of environmental psychology, 63, 92-100.
42. Letcher, T. M. (2021). Global warming—a complex situation. Climate change, Elsevier.
43. Lezak, S. B. & Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Systems thinking and environmental concern. Journal of environmental psychology, 46, 143-153.
44. MacKenzie, S. B. & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542-555.
45. Madani, K., Rouhani, O. M., Pournazeri, S., Moradi, M. & Sheikhmohammady, M. (2011). Can we rely on renewable energy sources to overcome global warming? Paper presented at the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011: Bearing Knowledge for Sustainability.
46. Mark, J., & Bommu, R. (2024). Tackling Environmental Concerns: Mitigating the Carbon Footprint of Data Transmission in Cloud Computing. Unique Endeavor in Business & Social Sciences, 3(1), 99-112.
47. Merdan, E., & Erdem, A. T. (2024). Hizmet sabotajı ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizi. Denetişim, (31), 75-85.
48. Newton, J. D., Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C. & Sands, S. (2015). Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. Journal of Business Research, 68(9), 1974-1981.
49. Owen, F. K. & Bugay, A. (2014). İletişim Becerileri Ölçeği'nin Gelişirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalişmasi. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education/Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2). 51-64.
50. Özcan, K. & Balyer, A. (2013). Liderlik oryantasyon ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 136-150.
51. Özkubat, S. & Demiriz, S. (2013). Çevreye karşı motivasyon ölçeği’nin okul öncesi öğretmen adayları üzerinde geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 87-114.
52. Park, E. J., Bae, J., Kim, J., Yoon, J. U., Do, W., Yoon, J. P., ... & Cho, A. R. (2024). Reducing the carbon footprint of operating rooms through education on the effects of inhalation anesthetics on global warming: A retrospective study. Medicine, 103(9), e37256.
53. Paul, B. K. (2011). Environmental hazards and disasters: contexts, perspectives and management: John Wiley & Sons.
54. Qayyum, M., Zhang, Y., Ali, M., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2024). Towards environmental sustainability: The role of information and communication technology and institutional quality on ecological footprint in MERCOSUR nations. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 34, 103523.
55. Qian, W., Parker, L., & Zhu, J. (2024). Corporate environmental reporting in the China context: The interplay of stakeholder salience, socialist ideology and state power. The British Accounting Review, 56(1), 101198.
56. Rao, P. H. (2014). Measuring environmental performance across a green supply chain: a managerial overview of environmental indicators. Vikalpa, 39(1), 57-74.
57. Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(4), 327-339.
58. Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R. & Friedlingstein, P. (2009). Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 106(6), 1704-1709.
59. Sümbüloğlu, K. & Sümbüloğlu, V. (2005). Klinik ve Saha Araştırmalarında Örnekleme Yöntemleri ve Örneklem Büyüklüğü. Ankara: Alp Ofset Matbaacılık.
60. Sürdürülebilir Çevre Raporu (2017), http://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/mdg/goal-7/en/, Erişim Tarihi: 03.07.2024
61. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Stratejik Planı, (2024), https://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals-helpdesk/overview/the-sdgs-and-the-fao-strategic/en
62. Thirthar, A. A., Jawad, S., & Abbasi, M. A. (2025). The modified predator–prey model response to the effects of global warming, wind flow, fear, and hunting cooperation. International Journal of Dynamics and Control, 13(1), 1-13.
63. Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., & Lazzini, A. (2020). Greenwashing and environmental communication: Effects on stakeholders' perceptions. Business strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 407-421.
64. Tutar, H. & Erdem, A. T. (2022a). Örnekleriyle bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve SPSS uygulamaları. Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2. Baskı, Ankara.
65. Tutar, H., & Erdem, A. T. (2022b). İşgören yıpranması ölçeği (İYÖ): Ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Journal of Economics, 7(18), 316-336.
66. UNFCCC, (2020). Küresel İklim Eylemi Yıllığı 2020, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/2020_Yearbook_final_0.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 08.07.2024.
67. Van Liere, K. D. & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz's norm‐activation model to yard burning 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8(2), 174-188.
68. Weigel, R. & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10(1), 3-15.
69. Yıldız, K., Sipahioǧlu, Ş. & Yılmaz, M. (2000). Çevre bilimi: Gündüz Eǧitim ve Yayıncılık.
70. Zammitti, A., Santisi, G., Magnano, P. & Di Nuovo, S. (2023). Analyzing Attitudes to Promote Sustainability: The Adaptation of the Environmental Concern Scale (ECs) to the Italian Context. Sustainability, 15(14), 10871.
71. Zhang, Y., Lindell, M. K. & Prater, C. S. (2009). Vulnerability of community businesses to environmental disasters. Disasters, 33(1), 38-57.