Turizm alanlarına yönelik yer bağlılığı ölçeği geliştirilmesi–geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması

Öz

Yer bağlılığı, insanların mekânlarla kurdukları olumlu duygusal bağ şeklinde ifade edilmektedir. Yer bağlılığı kapsamında geliştirilen ölçekler genel olarak belirli bir yer ve kullanıcıları arasındaki halihazırdaki bağı ölçmek için hazırlanmıştır. Oysa zaman içerisinde fiziksel çevrede meydana gelen değişimlere paralel olarak yer bağlılığında da farklılaşmalar olacaktır. Turizm alanları, mekân kullanımlarında radikal değişimlerin söz konusu olduğu yerlere örnektir. Çalışma kapsamında turizm alanlarına yönelik olarak yer bağlılığı ölçeği geliştirilerek fiziksel çevredeki değişimle yer bağlılığında meydana gelen dönüşümün ortaya koyulması hedeflenmiştir. Çalışma Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları tarafından 29.11.2024 tarih ve 2024-1143 sayılı Etik Kurul İzni kapsamında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarıyla 5’li Likert ölçeği geliştirilmiştir. Pilot uygulama önemli bir turizm alanı olan Şanlıurfa’ da yapılmıştır. Ölçek geliştirilmesi amacıyla Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) için 237 kişi ile ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) için 236 kişi ile uygulama yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin DFA uyum indeksleri tabloda verilmiştir. Ölçek geçerliliği kriterlerine göre Göbeklitepe’nin güncel kullanımıyla ilişkili olarak yer bağlılığı için Kikare uyum iyiliği (3,883), RMR (0,049), GFI (0,875), AGFI (0,803) ve CFI (0,929); Göbeklitepe’nin geçmiş kullanımıyla ilişkili olarak yer bağlılığı için Kikare uyum iyiliği (4,446), RMR (0,082), GFI (0,901), AGFI (0,825) ve CFI (0,896) olarak hesaplanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yer bağlılığı
• turizm alanları
• ölçek geliştirme
• Göbeklitepe
• çevresel psikoloji

Development of Place Attachment Scale for Tourism Areas - Validity and Reliability Study*

Öz

Place attachment is defined as the positive emotional connection that people establish with places. The scales developed within the scope of place attachment are generally prepared to measure the current bond between a particular place and its users. However, in parallel with the changes in the physical environment over time, there will be changes in place attachment. Tourism areas are examples of places where radical changes in the use of space are in question. Within the scope of the study, a place attachment scale has been developed for tourism areas. It is aimed to reveal the transformation that occurs in place attachment with the change in the physical environment. The study was carried out by Ondokuz Mayıs University Social and Human Sciences Researches within the scope of Ethics Committee Permission dated 29.11.2024 and numbered 2024-1143. 5-point Likert scale was developed through validity and reliability studies. The pilot application was conducted in Şanlıurfa, an important tourism area. In order to develop the scale, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted with 237 participants and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted with 236 participants. According to the scale validity criteria, the Chi-square goodness of fit for place attachment in relation to current use of Göbeklitepe was (3.883), RMR (0.049), GFI (0.875), AGFI (0.803) and CFI (0.929); Chi-square goodness of fit for place attachment in relation to past use of Göbeklitepe was calculated as (4.446), RMR (0.082), GFI (0.901), AGFI (0.825) and CFI (0.896).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Place attachment
• tourism landscapes
• scale development
• Göbeklitepe
• environmental psychology

Kaynakça

1. 1. Tuan Y., Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception Attitudes and Values, New York: Colombia University Press, 1974.
2. 2. Casey E., Between Geography and Philosophy: What Does It Mean to Be in the Place-World?, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91 (4), 683-693, 2001.
3. 3. Seamon D., A Way of Seeing People and Place, Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-Behavior Research, (Ed. S. Wapner vd.), New York: Plenum publishers, 157-178, 2000.
4. 4. Relph E., Place and Placeleness, London: Pion Limited, 1976.
5. 5. Knez I., Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207-218, 2005.
6. 6. Lewicka M., Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 209-231, 2008.
7. 7. Altman I., Low S., Place Attachment, New York and London: Springer, 1992.
8. 8. Stokols D., Theory development in environmental psychology, Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-Behavior Research, New York: Plenum Publishers, 269-288, 2000.

9. 9. Jorgensen B., Stedman, R., Measuring Sense of Place: Lakeshore Owners' Attitudes Toward their Properties. Wisconsin, 2001.
10. 10. Hidalgo C., Hernández B., Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281, 2001.
11. 11. Giuliani, M. V., Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment, Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues, Editors: Bonnes M., Lee T., Bonaiuto M., 137–170, 2003.
12. 12. Casey E., Between Geography and Philosophy: What Does It Mean to Be in the Place-World?, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91 (4), 683-693, 2001.
13. 13. Prohansky H., Fabian, A., Kaminoff, R., Place identity: Physical world Socialization of the Self, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 53-83, 1983.
14. 14. Williams D., Vaske J., The Measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach, Forest Science, 49 (6), 830-840, 2013.
15. 15. Twigger-Ross C., Bonaiuto M., Breakwell G., Identity theories and environmental psychology, Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues, 203-233, 2003
16. 16. Proshansky H. M., The city and self identity, Environment and Behavior, 10 (2), 147-169, 1978.
17. 17. Stedman R., Is It really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place, Society and Natural Resources, 16, 671-685, 2003.
18. 18. Stokols D., Shumaker, S., People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings, Cognition Social Behavior and The Environment, Editör: Harvey J., 441-488, 1981
19. 19. Raymond C. M., Brown G., Weber D., The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (4), 422–434, 2010.
20. 20. Scannel L., Gifford R., Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1-10, 2010.
21. 21. Seamon D., Place Attachment and Phenomenology: The Dynamic Complexity of Place, Place Attachment Advances in Theory Methods and Applications, Editors: Manzo L., Devine-Wright P., Routledge, 29-44, 2014.
22. 22. Oğuz M. Ö., Terim olarak somut olmayan kültürel miras, Millî Folklor, 100, 5-13, 2013.
23. 23. Stedman R., Amsden B., Beckley T., Tidball K., Photo-based methods for understanding place meanings as foundation of attachment, Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications, Editors: Manzo L., Devine-Wright O., Routledge, 112-124, 2014.
24. 24. Akbulut O., Ekin, Y., Perceptions and attitudes of local people toward film tourism within the context of place attachment: A study in Mugla province-Turkey, Estudios y Perspectives en Turismo, 27, 276-293, 2018.
25. 25. Devine-Wright P. Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 426-441, 2009.
26. 26. Shamai S., Sense of Place: An empiracal measurement, Geoforum, 22 (3), 347-358, 1991.
27. 27. Ramkissoon H., Smith L.D.G., Weiler B., Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism Management, 36, 552–566, 2013.
28. 28. Lewicka M., Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?, Journal of Environmental Psycohogy, 31, 207-230, 2011.
29. 29. Hernandez B., Hidalgo, C., Ruiz C., Theoretical and methodologocical aspects of reseach on place attachment, Editors: Lynne M., Devine-Wright P., Place Attachment: Advences in theory, Methods and Applications, Routledge, 125-137, 2014.
30. 30. DeVellis R. F., Scale Development: Theory and Applications, (4th ed.), SAGE, 2017.
31. 31. Jeong J., Analysis of The Factors And The Roles of Hrd in Organizational Learning Styles As Identified By Key Informants At Selected Corporations in The Republic of Korea, Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Amerika: Texas A&M University, 2004.
32. 32. Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., Sidek, M. M. Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion, In Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing, 2017.
33. 33. Shrestha, N. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis, American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9 (1), 4-11, 2021.
34. 34. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. Exploratory factor analysis, Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, 2014.
35. 35. Fornell, C., Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50, 1981.
36. 36. Sharif Nia, H., Pahlevan Sharif, S., Koocher, G. P., Yaghoobzadeh, A., Haghdoost, A. A., Mar Win, M. T., Soleimani, M. A. Psychometric properties of the death anxiety scale-extended among patients with end-stage renal disease, OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 80 (3), 380-396, 2020.
37. 37. Ernest, O. N., King, B. D., Esther, A., Kwadwo, A. N., AY, A. R., The effect of lean operations in manufacturing on firm performance: the case of manufacturing firms in ACCRA. International Journal of Engineering Research and Reviews, 7 (2), 1-7, 2019.
38. 38. Hair, JR, J.F., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 139-151, 2011.
39. 39. Singh, F., Kaur, M.,Why exporting SMEs switch banks?, Global Business Review, 16 (4), 652-664, 2016.
40. 40. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., Ringle, C. M., Applications of partial least squares path modeling in management journals: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45 (5-6), 320-340, 2012.
41. 41. Sümer N., Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar, Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 3 (6), 49-74, 2000.
42. 42. Cole D., Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 1019-1031, 1987.
43. 43. Anderson J., Gerbing D., The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper dolutions, and goodness-of-fit indicas for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis, Psychometrica, 49, 155-173, 1984.
44. 44. Marsh H., Balla, J. R., McDonald, R. P., Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size, Psychological Bulletion, 103 (3), 391, 1988.
45. 45. Nunnally J., Psychometic Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.