Doğa Yanlısı Davranış Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, doğa yanlısı davranışları belirleme adına geliştirilmiş olan Doğa Yanlısı Davranış Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlamasını yapmaktır. Yöntem: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması için 371 kişi çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. İlgili ölçeğin Türk kültürüne uygunluğu Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiştir. Bulgular: Toplamda 18 maddeden oluşan ölçeğin 4 alt boyutu (Bireysel Faaliyet, Bitki Ekimi, Kolektif Faaliyet, Yaban Hayatı) bulunmaktadır. Yapılan analizler neticesinde, ölçeğin genel Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlık katsayısının ,85; bireysel faaliyet alt boyutunun ,73, bitki ekimi alt boyutunun ,86, kolektif faaliyet alt boyutunun ,71 ve son olarak yaban hayatı alt boyutunun ,61 olduğu bulunmuştur. Eş zamanlı geçerlilik Çevreci Davranış Ölçeği, Yeni Çevresel Paradigma Ölçeği, Genelleştirilmiş Özyetki Ölçeği ve Warnick-Edinburg Mental İyi Oluş Ölçeği ile pozitif korelasyonlarla desteklenmiştir. Sonuç: Doğa Yanlısı Davranış Ölçeğinin Türkiye’de kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Doğa yanlısı davranışlar
• çevreci davranış
• doğayı koruma
• ölçek
• uyarlama

Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Form of the Pro-Nature Conservation Behavior Scale

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to adapt the Pro-Nature Conservation Behavior Scale, which was developed to identify pro-nature conservation behaviors, into Turkish. Method: For the validity and reliability study, 371 participants were included in the study. The suitability of the scale for Turkish culture was tested with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Results: The scale, which consists of 18 items in total, has 4 sub-dimensions (Individual engagement, planting, collective engagement , wildlife). Overall Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was .85; .73 for the individual engagement factor, .86 for the planting factor, .71 for the collective engagement factor and .61 for the wildlife factor, and convergent validity was supported by positive correlations with the Environmental Behavior Scale, the New Ecological Paradigm Scale, the Generalized Self-Esteem Scale and the Warnick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Scale. Conclusion: Pro-Nature Conservation Behavior Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used in Türkiye.

Keywords

• Pro-nature behavior
• pro-environmental behavior
• nature conservation
• scale
• adaptation

References

1. Abrahms B, Carter NH, Clark-Wolf TJ, Gaynor KM, Johansson E, McInturff A et al. (2023) Climate change as a global amplifier of human–wildlife conflict. Nat Clim Chang, 13:224-234.
2. Adewuyi FA, Knobel P, Gogna P, Dadvand P (2023) Health effects of green prescription: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Environ Res, 236:116844..
3. Ahuti S (2015) Industrial growth and environmental degradation. Int Educ Res J, 1:5-7.
4. Ak S (2008) İlköğretim öğretmen adaylarının çevreye yönelik bilinçlerinin bazı demografik değişkenler açısından incelenmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi). Bolu, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi.
5. Alcock I, White MP, Wheeler BW, Fleming LE, Depledge MH (2014) Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban areas. Environ Sci Technol, 48:1247-1255.
6. Allen JB, Ferran JL (1999) Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and pro-environmental, behavior. A Test of Geller’s actively caring hypothesis. Environ Behav, 31:338-353.
7. Annerstedt M, Währborg P (2011) Nature-assisted therapy: systematic review of controlled and observational studies. Scand J Public Health, 39:371-388.
8. Arbuthnot J (1977) The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge. Environ Behav, 9:217-232.

9. Ardahan F (2012) Etkileyici zekâ ve yaşam doyumu arasındaki ilişkinin doğa sporu yapanlar günlükte incelenmesi. Pamukkale Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 3:20-33.
10. Barbett L, Stupple EJ, Sweet M, Schofield MB, Richardson M (2020) Measuring actions for nature—development and validation of a pro-nature conservation behaviour scale. Sustainability, 12:4885.
11. Barrows PD, Richardson M, Hamlin I, Van Gordon W (2022) Nature connectedness, nonattachment, and engagement with nature's beauty predict pro-nature conservation behavior. Ecopsychology, 14:83-91.
12. Barut Aİ, Demir A, Ballıkaya E, Çifçi F (2019) Doğa yürüyüşü ve yamaç paraşütü sporu yapan bireylerin yaşam doyumu ve özyeterliklerinin incelenmesi. Spor Eğitim dergisi, 3:137-145 .
13. Bektaş F, Kural B, Orçan F (2017) Doğaya bağlılık ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Niğde Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri dergisi, 11:77-86.
14. Bektaş F, Şirin EF (2018) Yeni çevresel paradigma ölçeği ile dağcıların çevreye yönelik tutumlarının değerlendirilmesi. Türk Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 1:20-26.
15. Bennett JL, Piatt JA, Van Puymbroeck M (2017) Outcomes of a therapeutic fly-fishing program for veterans with combat-related disabilities: A community-based rehabilitation initiative. Community Ment Health J, 53:756-765.
16. Bollen KA (1989) A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res, 17:303-316.
17. Bryman A, Cramer D (2002) Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A Guide For Social Scientists. London, Routledge Press.
18. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P et al. (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486:59-67.
19. Chiarle M, Geertsema M, Mortara G, Clague JJ (2021) Relations between climate change and mass movement: Perspectives from the Canadian Cordillera and the European Alps. Glob Planet Change, 202:103499.
20. Christmas S, Wright L, Morris L, Watson A, Miskelly C (2013) Engaging people in biodiversity issues. Final report of the Biodiversity Segmentation Scoping Study, London, UK, Simon Christmas Ltd.
21. Ciscar JC, Iglesias A, Feyen L, Szabó L, Van Regemorter D, Amelung B et al. (2011) Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 108:2678-2683.
22. Clark C, Paunovic K (2018) WHO environmental noise guidelines for the European region: a systematic review on environmental noise and quality of life, wellbeing and mental health. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 15:2400.
23. Coffey KA, Hartman M ve Fredrickson BL (2010) Deconstructing mindfulness and constructing mental health: Understanding mindfulness and its mechanisms of action. Mindfulness, 1:235-253.
24. Çakır B, Karaarslan G, Şahin E, Ertepınar H (2015) Adaptation of nature relatedness scale to Turkish. Elementary Education Online, 14:1370-1383.
25. DeVellis RF (2017) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 4nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
26. DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT (2021) Scale Development: Theory and Applications 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
27. Drouin M, McDaniel BT, Pater J, Toscos T (2020) How parents and their children used social media and technology at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and associations with anxiety. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 23:727-736.
28. Dunlap RE, Mertig AG (1995) Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? J Soc Issues, 51:121-137.
29. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1978) The “new environmental paradigm”. J Environ Educ, 9:10-19.
30. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scaleJ Soc Issues, 56:425-442.
31. Durazzo A, Lucarini M, Plutino M, Lucini L, Aromolo R, Martinelli E. et al. (2021) Bee products: A representation of biodiversity, sustainability, and health. Life, 11:970.
32. Easterling W, Apps M (2005) Assessing the consequences of climate change for food and forest resources: a view from the IPCC. Clim Change, 70:165-189.
33. Erten S (2005) Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarında çevre dostu davranışların araştırılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28:91-100.
34. Evans, GW, Palsane MN, Lepore SJ, Martin J (1989) Residential density and psychological health: the mediating effects of social support. J Pers Soc Psychol, 57:994-999.
35. Goldman D, Yavetz B, Pe'er S (2006) Environmental literacy in teacher training in Israel: Environmental behavior of new students. J Environ Educ, 38:3-22.
36. Gosselin F, Callois JM (2018) Relationships between human activity and biodiversity in Europe at the national scale: Spatial density of human activity as a core driver of biodiversity erosion. Ecol Indic, 90:356-365.
37. Halofsky JE, Peterson DL, Harvey BJ (2020) Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Fire Ecol, 16:4.
38. Harvey C, Sheffield D, Richardson M, Wells R (2022) The ımpact of a “three good things in nature” writing task on nature connectedness, pro-nature conservation behavior, life satisfaction, and mindfulness in children. Ecopsychology, 15:26-36.
39. Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J Environ Educ, 18:1-8.
40. Hofmann SG (2011) An Introduction to Modern CBT: Psychological Solutions to Mental Health Problems. West Sussex, Wiley.
41. Hoge E, Bickham D, Cantor J (2017) Digital media, anxiety, and depression in children. Pediatrics, 140:76-80.
42. Hood M, Baumann O (2024) Could nature contribute to the management of ADHD in children? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 21:736.
43. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model, 6:1-55.
44. Hughes J, Richardson M, Lumber R (2018) Evaluating connection to nature and the relationship with conservation behaviour in children. J Nat Conserv, 45:11-19.
45. İpar MS (2018) Turistlerin yeşil otel tercihlerine yönelik algıları, çevreci davranış eğilimleri ve davranışsal niyetlerle ilişkisi (Doktora tezi). Çanakkale, Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi.
46. Kahyaoglu M, Yetişir M (2015) A phenomenographic study on the concept of nature and alienation of children from nature. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40:159-170.
47. Kaiser FG, Wölfing S, Fuhrer U (1999) Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. J Environ Psychol, 19:1-19.
48. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. London, Cambridge university press.
49. Keldal G (2015) Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Iyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. J Happiness Well-Being, 3:103-115.
50. Kılıç Ç, Kan A (2020) Çevre sorunlarına yönelik tutum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20:1676-1690.
51. Kotera Y, Lyons M, Vione KC, Norton B (2021) Effect of nature walks on depression and anxiety: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13:4015.
52. Kline RB (2023) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 5th ed. London, Guilford Publications.
53. Larson JM (2018) A partnership with nature. Interdiscip J Partnersh Stud, 5(2):4.
54. Lee J, Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Ohira T, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y (2011) Effect of forest bathing on physiological and psychological responses in young Japanese male subjects. Public Health, 125:93-100.
55. Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D (2017) Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PloS One, 12:e0177186.
56. Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK (2004) Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs, 48:175-186.
57. Mantler A, Logan AC (2015) Natural environments and mental health. Adv Integr Med, 2:5-12.
58. Maund PR, Irvine KN, Reeves J, Strong E, Cromie R, Dallimer M, Davies ZG (2019) Wetlands for wellbeing: Piloting a nature-based health intervention for the management of anxiety and depression. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 16:4413.
59. Mc Michael AJ, Woodruff RE, Hales S (2006) Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet, 367:859-869.
60. Mc Bride O, Murphy J, Shevlin M, Gibson Miller J, Hartman TK, Hyland P et al (2020) Monitoring the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population: an overview of the context, design and conduct of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study. PsyArXiv, doi:10.31234/osf.io/wxe2n.
61. Mehta C, Gandhi K, Patel Y (2022) Climate change: correlation between fossile fuel emission and children’s health. In Environment Conservation, Challenges Threats in Conservation of Biodiversity (Eds M Barwant, VK Manam, AK Nakkella):213-221. Tamilnadu, India, Scıeng Publicatıons 213-221.
62. Migliarese NL (2008) Researching the Child-Nature Connection. California, California State Parks.
63. Mittal I, Gupta RK (2015) Natural resources depletion and economic growth in present era. SOCH- Mastnath Journal of Science and Technology, 10:24-28
64. Moshagen M, Bader M (2023) General power analysis for structural equation models. Behav Res Methods, 56:2901-2922.
65. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2011) Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud, 12:303-322.
66. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2009) The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav, 41:715-740.
67. Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2002) Value structures behind pro-environmental behaviors. Environ Behav, 34:740-756.
68. Perrin JL, Benassi VA (2009) The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? J Environ Psychol, 29:434-440.
69. Poulsen, DV, Stigsdotter UK, Refshage AD (2015) Whatever happened to the soldiers? Nature-assisted therapies for veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder: A literature review. Urban For Urban Green, 14:438-445.
70. Prévot AC, Cheval H, Raymond R, Cosquer A (2018) Routine experiences of nature in cities can increase personal commitment toward biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv, 226:1-8.
71. Pritchard A, Richardson M, Sheffield D, McEwan K (2020) The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. J Happiness Stud, 21:1145-1167.
72. Richardson M, Passmore HA, Barbett L, Lumber R, Thomas R, Hunt A (2020) The green care code: How nature connectedness and simple activities help explain pro‐nature conservation behaviours. People Nat (Hoboken), 2:821-839.
73. Rogerson M, Barton J, Bragg R, Pretty J (2017) The health and wellbeing impacts of volunteering with the wildlife trusts. Essex, Colchester.
74. Rosseel Y (2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw, 48:1-36.
75. Sahlin E, Ahlborg Jr G, Tenenbaum A, Grahn P (2015) Using nature-based rehabilitation to restart a stalled process of rehabilitation in individuals with stress-related mental illness. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 12:1928-1951.
76. Sarıçam H, Şahin SH (2015) Doğayla ilişkili olma ölçeğinin ilk psikometrik bulguları ve öz-aşkınlıkla ilişkisi. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8:267-280.
77. Schäfer A (2014) Technological change, population dynamics, and natural resource depletion. Math Soc Sci, 71:122-136.
78. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online, 8:23-74.
79. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M (1995) Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs (Eds J Weinman, S Wright, M Johnston):35-37. Windsor, UK, NFER-NELSON.
80. Steg L (2023) Psychology of climate change. Annu Rev Psychol, 74:391-421.
81. Steg L, De Groot, JI (2018) Environmental Psychology: An Introduction. Hoboken, Wiley.
82. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S et al. (2007) The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5:1-13.
83. Timur S, Yılmaz M (2013) Çevre davranış ölçeğinin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması. Gazi üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33:317-333.
84. Uldall SW, Poulsen DV, Christensen SI, Wilson L, Carlsson J (2022) Mixing job training with nature-based therapy shows promise for increasing labor market affiliation among newly arrived refugees: results from a Danish case series study. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19:4850.
85. Ulmer JM, Wolf KL, Backman DR, Tretheway RL, Blain CJ, O’Neil-Dunne JP et al. (2016) Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health Place, 42:54-62.
86. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol, 11:201-230.
87. Varambally S, Gangadhar BN (2016) Current status of yoga in mental health services. Int Rev Psychiatry, 28:233-235.
88. Vella EJ, Milligan B, Bennett JL (2013) Participation in outdoor recreation program predicts improved psychosocial well-being among veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder: A pilot study. Mil Med, 178:254-260.
89. Vella EJ, Lyman T, Lovering T (2023) Pilot study: the effects of a mountain wilderness experience on combat veteran psychosocial wellness. Mil Behav Health, 11:54-65.
90. Vining J, Ebreo A (1990) What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environ Behav, 22:55-73.
91. Yakeley J (2018) Psychoanalysis in modern mental health practice. Lancet Psychiatry, 5:443-450.
92. Yeşilay A, Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M (1996) Turkish adaptation of the General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale. https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/%7Ehealth/turk.htm. ( Accessed 03.11.2006)
93. Young J, Watt A, Nowicki P, Alard D, Clitherow J, Henle K et al. (2005). Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodivers Conserv, 14:1641-1661.
94. Zelenski JM, Nisbet EK (2014) Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environ Behav, 46:3-23.
95. Zelenski JM, Dopko RL, Capaldi CA (2015) Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J Environ Psychol 42:24-31.
96. Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen X (2017) Happiness in the air: How does a dirty sky affect mental health and subjective well-being? J Environ Econ Manage, 85:81-94.