Türkiye’nin ilk iklim kanununa yönelik kamuoyu algıları, dezenformasyon, bilgi düzeyi ve destekleme niyeti analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de 9 Temmuz 2025’te yürürlüğe giren ilk İklim Kanunu’na yönelik kamuoyu algısını analiz etmek ve bireylerin kanunu destekleme niyetlerini belirleyen bilişsel, normatif ve bilgi temelli faktörleri ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma, iklim yasalarına verilen desteğin yalnızca çevresel duyarlılık veya iklim değişikliğine inanma düzeyiyle açıklanıp açıklanamayacağını sorgulamayı hedeflemektedir.

Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Araştırma nicel bir tasarıma sahiptir. Türkiye genelinde 926 katılımcıdan çevrim içi anket yöntemiyle toplanan veriler, Kısmi En Küçük Kareler Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (PLS-SEM) kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Modelde bilgi düzeyi, dezenformasyon algısı, güven, iklim değişikliğine inanç, toplumsal beklenti ve İklim Kanunu’nu destekleme niyeti arasındaki doğrudan ve dolaylı ilişkiler test edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Analiz sonuçları, İklim Kanunu’nu destekleme niyetinin en güçlü belirleyicisinin toplumsal beklenti olduğunu göstermektedir. Toplumsal beklenti, kanuna ilişkin bilgi düzeyi arttıkça güçlenmekte; olumsuz görüşler ve dezenformasyon algısı yükseldikçe zayıflamaktadır. Güven, iklim değişikliğine yönelik inancı güçlü biçimde şekillendirirken, iklim inancının destek niyeti üzerindeki doğrudan etkisi sınırlı kalmakta ve bu etki büyük ölçüde toplumsal beklenti üzerinden dolaylı olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bulgular, rasyonel bilgi ile normatif algıların birlikte işlediğini göstermektedir.

Pratik uygulamalar: Sonuçlar, iklim politikalarının toplumsal kabulünü artırmak için teknik düzenlemelerden ziyade bilgilendirme, şeffaflık ve güven inşasına dayalı kamu iletişimi stratejilerinin önemine işaret etmektedir. Özellikle dezenformasyonla mücadeleye yönelik hedefli iletişim politikaları kritik görünmektedir. Sosyal çıkarımlar: Çalışma, iklim yasalarının toplumsal meşruiyetinin bireysel çevresel duyarlılıktan çok, toplumda oluşan ortak beklenti ve algılanan kamusal fayda üzerinden şekillendiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Özgünlük/Değer Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin ilk İklim Kanunu bağlamında kamuoyu desteğini ampirik olarak inceleyen ilk çalışmalardan biri olup, iklim politikalarına yönelik desteği bilgi, güven ve toplumsal beklenti etkileşimi üzerinden açıklayan bütüncül bir model sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Davranışsal niyet
• iklim kanunu
• kamuoyu algısı
• Türkiye’de iklim politikaları

Ethical Statement

Malatya Turgut Özal Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Araştırma Etik Kurulu'nun 17.07.2025 tarih ve 37 sayılı toplantısında etik açıdan uygun bulunmuştur (E-Belge Sayı No: E-35841939-050-316517, E-Belge Tarihi: 21.07.2025).

Analysis of public perceptions, disinformation, information level, and intention to support regarding Türkiye's first climate law

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to analyze public perception of Türkiye's first Climate Law, which came into effect on July 9, 2025, and to identify the cognitive, normative, and knowledge-based factors that determine individuals' intentions to support the law. The study aims to investigate whether support for climate laws can be explained solely by environmental awareness or belief in climate change.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The research has a quantitative design. Data collected from 926 participants across Türkiye via an online survey were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The model tested direct and indirect relationships between knowledge level, perception of misinformation, trust, belief in climate change, societal expectation, and intention to support the Climate Law.

Findings: The analysis results show that the strongest determinant of the intention to support the Climate Law is societal expectation. Societal expectation strengthens as the level of knowledge about the law increases; it weakens as negative opinions and perception of misinformation increase. While trust strongly shapes belief in climate change, the direct impact of climate belief on support intention remains limited and largely emerges indirectly through societal expectations. The findings demonstrate that rational information and normative perceptions operate together.

Practical applications: The results point to the importance of public communication strategies based on information, transparency, and trust-building, rather than technical regulations, in increasing societal acceptance of climate policies. Targeted communication policies aimed at combating disinformation appear particularly critical. Social implications: The study reveals that the societal legitimacy of climate laws is shaped more by shared societal expectations and perceived public benefit than by individual environmental sensitivity.

Originality/Value: This study is one of the first to empirically examine public support in the context of Türkiye's first Climate Law, offering a holistic model that explains support for climate policies through the interaction of information, trust, and societal expectations.

Keywords

• Behavioral intention
• climate law
• public perception
• climate policies in Türkiye

Ethical Statement

The Malatya Turgut Özal University Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee found this study ethically acceptable at its meeting dated July 17, 2025, and numbered 37 (E-Document Number: E-35841939-050-316517, E-Document Date: July 21, 2025).

References

1. Adger, W.N. (2006), Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
2. Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
3. Akinwande, M. O., Dikko, H. G., & Samson, A. (2015), Variance inflation factor: as a condition for the inclusion of suppressor variable (s) in regression analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, 5(07), 754-767.
4. Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S., & Finnegan, J. (2020), The impact of strategic climate legislation: Evidence from expert interviews on the UK Climate Change Act. Climate Policy, 21(2), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1819190
5. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007), Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
6. Bernauer, T., & Beiser-McGrath, L. F. (2016), Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 680–683. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2948
7. Bodansky, D. (2016), The legal character of the Paris Agreement. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12154
8. Brulle, R. J. (2010), From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: Environmental communication for civic engagement. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903522397

9. Byrne, B. M. (1994), Testing for the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measuring instrument: A paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29(3), 289-311. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_5
10. Chu, J., Zhu, Y., & Ji, J. (2023), Characterizing the semantic features of climate change misinformation on Chinese social media. Public Understanding of Science, 32(7), 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231166542
11. Cologna, V., & Siegrist, M. (2020), The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101428
12. Cologna, V., Kotcher, J. E., Mede, N. G., Besley, J. C., Maibach, E. W., & Oreskes, N. (2024), Trust in climate science and climate scientists: A narrative review. PLOS Climate, 3(5), e0000400. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000400
13. Cook, J. (2017), Understanding and countering climate science denial. In Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales. 150(2). pp. 207-219.
14. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017), Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
15. Devine, D., Stoker, G., & Jennings, W. (2024), Political trust and climate policy choice: Evidence from a conjoint experiment. Journal of Public Policy, 44(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X23000430
16. Drews, S., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2015), What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Climate Policy, 16(7), 855–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240
17. U.S. (EPA) Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Retrieved July 25, 2025, from https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund (Erişim: 20 Temmuz 2025).
18. Eskander, S., Fankhauser, S., & Setzer, J. (2021), Global lessons from climate change legislation and litigation. Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 2(1), 44–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/711306
19. Fage-Butler, A. (2022), A values-based approach to knowledge in the public’s representations of climate change on social media. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 978670. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.978670
20. Falkner, R. (2016), The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107–1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708
21. Fesenfeld, L. (2025), The effects of policy design complexity on public support for climate policy. Behavioural Public Policy, 9(1), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.3
22. Fielding, K. S., & Hornsey, M. J. (2026), Understanding and reducing the intention–behaviour gap in climate action. Nature Climate Change, 16. 638-647. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02630-z
23. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994), Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.
24. Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019), Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures. Internet research, 29(3), 430-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515
25. Freiling, I., & Matthes, J. (2023), Correcting climate change misinformation on social media: Reciprocal relationships between correcting others, anger, and environmental activism. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107769
26. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015), A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
27. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
28. IPCC, (2023), Sixth Assessment Report – Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
29. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011), Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
30. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., & Ouellette, L. (2012), The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on climate risk perceptions. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
31. Kline, P. (2014), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
32. Kulin, J., & Johansson Sevä, I. (2020). Who do you trust? How trust in partial and impartial government institutions influences climate policy attitudes. Climate Policy, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1792822
33. Kulin, J., Sevä, I. J., & Fairbrother, M. (2024), Political trust and public support for climate policy in Europe: the role of perceptions about politicians’ competence and integrity. Environmental Research Communications, 6(9), 095013.
34. Larsson, J., Matti, S., & Nässén, J. (2020), Public support for aviation policy measures in Sweden. Climate Policy, 20(10), 1305–1321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1759499
35. Leiserowitz, A. (2006), Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Risk Analysis, 77(1-2), 45-72.
36. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017), Beyond misinformation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
37. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011), The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.
38. Nisbet, M. C., & Kotcher, J. (2009), A two-step flow of influence? Science communication and the climate debate. Science Communication, 30(3), 328–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008328797
39. O’Neill, S. J., & Boykoff, M. (2010), Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(39), 151-E151.
40. O'Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009), ‘Fear won't do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Global Environmental Change, 30(3), 355-379.
41. Oberthür, S., & Dupont, C. (2021), The European Union’s international climate leadership: towards a grand climate strategy? Journal of European public policy, 28(7), 1095-1114.
42. Rogelj, J., Den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., ... & Meinshausen, M. (2016), Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 C. Nature, 534(7609), 631-639. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307
43. Schmid-Petri, H., & Bürger, M. (2021), The effect of misinformation and inoculation: Replication of an experiment on the effect of false experts in the context of climate change communication. Public Understanding of Science, 31(2), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211024550
44. Van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015), The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
45. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017), Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
46. Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2024), Corporations and climate change: An overview. WIREs Climate Change, 15(6), e919. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.919
47. Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017), Climate mitigation behaviors of individuals. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
48. Yan, L. (2021), Framing resilience. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 719. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01149-9