Turkey's Environment vs. Economic Growth Dilemma: Unpacking Perceptions and Influential Factors

Abstract

This study analyzes the determinants of individuals' perceptions towards the dichotomy of achieving economic growth and environmental preservation in Turkey. Using logistic models, the study investigates the impact of various socio-economic and socio-demographic factors such as material well-being, life satisfaction, age, gender, education level, employment status, settlement type, religiosity, and political view on individuals' attitudes towards prioritizing the environment. The results of logistic regression analysis, based on a sample of 1.935 participants obtained using the World Values Survey, wave 7, indicate that individuals with higher material well-being and life satisfaction in Turkey tend to prioritize the environment over growth. The findings of this study confirm the neoclassical perspective on environment for the Turkish cohort, which indicates the environment can be accepted as a luxury good. Additionally, it is found that individuals aged 60 and above, part-time workers and retirees, those who do not identify as religious, highly educated individuals, those with more children, and individuals with a left-wing ideology are more inclined to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth compared to each category's reference group. On the other hand, no statistically significant differences based on settlement type (urban-rural dichotomy) or sex were detected in prioritizing environmental preservation over economic growth. The findings of the study indicate that, in designing Turkey's macro-level growth and environmental policies, socio-economic and demographic disparities need to be taken into consideration.

Keywords

• Environmental protection
• Economic growth
• Turkey
• Post-materialism
• Policy Preference

Türkiye'nin Çevrenin Korunması-Büyüme İkilemi: Algıların ve Etki Eden Faktörlerin Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de ekonomik büyümenin sağlanması ve çevrenin korunması dikotomisi konusunda bireylerin tutumlarının belirleyicilerini analiz etmektedir. Çalışmada, lojistik modeller yardımıyla, maddi refah, yaşam memnuniyeti, yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim seviyesi, istihdam durumu, yerleşim yeri, dindarlık ve politik görüş gibi çeşitli sosyo-ekonomik ve sosyo-demografik faktörlerin bireylerin çevreyi önceliklendirme tutumlarına etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Dünya Değerler Araştırması, 7 Etap verilerini kullanarak elde edilen 1,935 katılımcılı örneklem kullanılarak yapılan lojistik regresyon analizi sonuçları, Türkiye’de daha yüksek maddi refaha ve yaşam memnuniyetine sahip bireylerin büyüme yerine çevreyi önceliklendirme eğilimlerinin daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmanın bulguları, Türkiye örneklemi için neoklasik yaklaşımın çevrenin bir lüks mal olarak kabul edilebileceği görüşünü desteklemektedir. Bununla beraber, 60 yaşın üzerindeki bireyler, yarı zamanlı çalışanlar ve emekliler, kendini dindar olarak tanımlamayan, yüksek eğitimli, daha fazla çocuğu olan ve sol ideolojiye sahip bireylerin, her kategorinin referans grubuna kıyasla ekonomik büyüme yerine çevresel korumaya öncelik verme eğiliminde oldukları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Diğer taraftan, çevrenin korunmasını önceliklendirmede, referans gruplara kıyasla yerleşim yerine (kent-kır dikotomisi) veya cinsiyete dayalı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar tespit edilememiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, Türkiye'nin makro düzeydeki büyüme ve çevre politikası dizaynlarında, sosyoekonomik ve demografik farklılıkların dikkate alınması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

• Çevrenin Korunması
• Büyüme
• Türkiye
• Post-materyalizm
• Politika Tercihi

References

1. Abou-Chadi, T. & Kayser, M. (2017). It’s not easy being green: why voters punish parties for environmental policies during economic downturns. Electoral Studies, 45, 201–207. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.10.009
2. Asai, K., Borgonovi, F., & Wildi, S. (2022). Understanding how economic conditions and natural disasters shape environmental attitudes: A cross-country comparison to inform policy making. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers, (280), 0_1-75.
3. Bakaki, Z., & Bernauer, T. (2018). Do economic conditions affect public support for environmental policy?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 66-78.
4. Burleson, S. E., & Thoron, A. C. (2014). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and its relation to learning and achievement. Gainesville: Department of Agricultural Education and Communication.
5. Brechin, S. R., & Kempton, W. (1994). Global environmentalism: a challenge to the postmaterialism thesis?. Social science quarterly, 75(2), 245-269.
6. Brundtland, G. H. (1985). World Commission on Environment and Development. Environmental Policy and Law 14(1), 26–30.
7. Cui, L., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Wen, W., & Han, M. S. (2021). Predicting determinants of consumers' purchase motivation for electric vehicles: An application of Maslow's hierarchy of needs model. Energy Policy, 151, 112167.
8. Del Saz Salazar, S., & Pérez y Pérez, L. (2021). Exploring the differential effect of life satisfaction on low and high-cost pro-environmental behaviors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 277.

9. Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., Guagnano, G.A., 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ.Behav. 30, 450 – 471.
10. Dunlap R.E. & Jones R.E. (2002). Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In Dunlap RE, Michelson W (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 482–524., Greenwood: Westport.
11. Dunlap, Riley E., and Mertig. A. (1995). "Global Concern for the Environment: Is Affluence a Prerequisite?" Journal of Social Issues, 51: 121-137
12. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1997). Global environmental concern: An anomaly for postmaterialism. Social science quarterly, 78(1), 24-29.
13. Escario, J. J., Rodriguez-Sanchez, C., Valero-Gil, J., & Casaló, L. V. (2022). COVID-19 related policies: The role of environmental concern in understanding citizens’ preferences. Environmental Research, 211, 113082.
14. Franzen, A. (2004). Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations, contemporary insights. kZfss—Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 56, 201-203. doi:10.1007/s11577-004-0023-2
15. Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European sociological review, 26(2), 219-234.
16. Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in medicine, 27(15), 2865-2873.
17. Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen (Eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: Round Seven - Country-Pooled Datafile Version 5.0. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. doi:10.14281/18241.20
18. Ignatow, G. (2005). Economic dependency and environmental attitudes in Turkey, Environmental Politics, 14:5, 648-666, DOI: 10.1080/09644010500257946
19. Inglehart, R. (1977[2015]). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton University Press.
20. Inglehart, R., & Abramson, P. R. (1994). Economic security and value change. American political science review, 88(2), 336-354.
21. Jefferson, G. H., Tanaka, S., & Yin, W. (2013). Environmental regulation and industrial performance: Evidence from unexpected externalities in China. Available at SSRN 2216220.
22. Jones, C. R., Kaklamanou, D., & Lazuras, L. (2017). Public perceptions of energy security in Greece and Turkey: Exploring the relevance of pro-environmental and pro-cultural orientations. Energy Research & Social Science, 28, 17-28.
23. Kayser, M. & Grafström, C. (2016). The Luxury Goods Vote: Why Left Governments are Punished More for Economic Downturns, 10.13140/RG.2.2.24409.31841
24. Kahn, M. E., & Kotchen, M. J. (2011). Business cycle effects on concern about climate change: the chilling effect of recession. Climate Change Economics, 2(03), 257-273.
25. Kenny, J. (2020). Economic conditions and support for the prioritisation of environmental protection during the Great Recession. Environmental Politics, 29(6), 937-958.
26. Kneese, A. V. (1971). Environmental pollution: Economics and policy. The American Economic Review, 61(2), 153-166.
27. Korkmaz, M. (2018). Public awareness and perceptions of climate change: differences in concern about climate change in the West Mediterranean region of Turkey. Applied Ecology & Environmental Research, 16(4).
28. Luechinger, S. (2009). Valuing air quality using the life satisfaction approach. Economic Journal, 119, 482–515.
29. Maslow, A., & Lewis, K. J. (1987). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Salenger Incorporated, 14(17), 987-990.
30. Martinez-Alier, J. (1995). The environment as a luxury good or “too poor to be green”?. Ecological economics, 13(1), 1-10.
31. Mayer, A., & Smith, E. K. (2017). Rethinking Economic Conditions and Environmental Attitudes: Macroeconomic Effects, Individual Experiences, and Subjectivity. Social Currents, 4(4), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496516670185
32. McLeod, S. (2007). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Simply psychology, 1(1-18).
33. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. H., Randers, J. & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report to The Club of Rome. Google Scholar, 91, 2.
34. Mildenberger, M. & Leiserowitz, A. (2017). Public opinion on climate change: Is there an economy–environment trade-off? Environmental Politics, 26:5, 801-824, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1322275
35. Nordhaus, W. D. (1974). Resources as a Constraint on Growth. The American Economic Review, 64(2), 22-26.
36. Nordhaus, W. D. (1977). Economic growth and climate: the carbon dioxide problem. The American Economic Review, 67(1), 341-346.
37. Nguyen, H. V., Le, M. T. T., Pham, C. H., & Cox, S. S. (2022). Happiness and pro-environmental consumption behaviors. Journal of Economics and Development.
38. Ozil , E. V., Ugursal İ., Akbulut, U. & Ozpinar, A. (2008) Renewable Energy and Environmental Awareness and Opinions: A Survey of University Students in Canada, Romania, and Turkey, International Journal of Green Energy, 5:3, 174-188, DOI: 10.1080/15435070802107025
39. Perraillon, M. C. (2019). Interpreting model estimates: marginal effects. University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Nova School of Business and Economics Lisbon, Portugal.
40. Raworth, K. (2019). Simit Ekonomisi 21. Yüzyıl İktisatçısı Gibi Düşünmenin Yedi Yolu (1st ed.) (Trans. Akın Emre Pilgir), İstanbul: Tellekt.
41. Redhanz, K., and D. Maddison. (2005). Climate and Happiness. Ecological Economics, 52: 111–125.
42. Rehdanz, K. & Maddison, D. (2008). Local environment quality and life-satisfaction in Germany, Ecological Economics, 64, 787–797
43. Rockström, J., vd. (2009a). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.
44. Rockström, J., vd. (2009b). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society, 14(2).
45. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., Moomaw, W. R., & Grandcolas, P. (2019). World scientists' warning of a climate emergency. BioScience. ff10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
46. Silva, J., F. de Keulenaer & N. Johnstone (2012). Environmental Quality and Life Satisfaction: Evidence Based on Micro-Data", OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9cw678dlr0-en.
47. Schmitt, M. T., Aknin, L. B., Axsen, J., & Shwom, R. L. (2018). Unpacking the relationships between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecological economics, 143, 130-140.
48. Suzer, O. (2015). A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs other major certification systems. Journal of environmental management, 154, 266-283.
49. Schlosberg, D. & Craven, L. (2019). From Postmaterialism to Sustainable Materialism, Sustainable Materialism: Environmental Movements and the Politics of Everyday Life (Oxford, 2019; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Sept. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841500.003.0002, accessed 15 Sept. 2023.
50. Schor Juliet B. 2014. Climate Discourse and Economic Downturns: The Case of the United States, 2008–2013. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 13:6–20.
51. Scruggs, L., & Benegal, S. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession?. Global environmental change, 22(2), 505-515.
52. Tümer, E. T., Tümer, E. K., & Kozal, Ö. E. (2023). İklim Değişikliği Farkındalığı ve Kurum Algısı: Avrupa Ülkeleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz. Fiscaoeconomia, 7(2), 1511-1535. Doi: 10.25295/fsecon.1263231
53. United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations.
54. Queiroz, P., Garcia, O. F., Garcia, F., Zacares, J. J., & Camino, C. (2020). Self and nature: Parental socialization, self-esteem, and environmental values in Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3732.
55. Welsch, H. (2002). Preferences over prosperity and pollution: environmental valuation based on happiness surveys, Kyklos, 55, 473–494.
56. Welsch, H. (2005), Environment and happiness: valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data, Ecological Economics, 58, 801–813.
57. Williams, R. (2012). Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. The Stata Journal, 12(2), 308-331.
58. Wright, R. E. (1995). Logistic regression. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 217–244). American Psychological Association.
59. Wong, T. K. Y., & Wan, P. S. (2011). Perceptions and determinants of environmental concern: The case of Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 19(4), 235-249.
60. Wroe, A. (2015). Economic Insecurity and Political Trust in the United States, American Politics Research, 44(1), 131-163, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x15597745.