Investigation of Ecological Footprint of Academicians According to Different Variables

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to calculate and evaluate the ecological footprints of the academicians in terms of various variables. The survey method was used in the study. Data were collected from academicians (149 males, 57 female) working at a state university in the South-eastern Anatolia of Turkey during the 2017-2018 academic year. The web-based “Ecological Footprint Calculation Tool” with four sub-dimensions (food, travel, housing, other) was used as data collection tool in the research. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were used to analyse the data. In paired comparisons, t-test was used for independent groups and ANOVA was used for the comparison of more than two groups. The average ecological footprint value of the participants was calculated in terms of global hectares and the carbon footprint was calculated in tons. According to the results, it was determined that most of the academicians were not knowledgeable about the ecological footprint, they were not members of any non-governmental organizations related to the environment, and did not participate in social and sports activities related to the environment. The average ecological footprint value of academicians was determined above Turkey’s and global average. It was revealed that there was no significant difference among the groups in terms of gender, knowledge of the ecological footprint, being a member of any non-governmental organization related to environment, academic title, participating in social and sports activities related to environment, age and faculty variables.

Keywords

• Ecological footprint,academicians,environment,environmental education

Kaynakça

1. Akıllı, H., Kemahlı, F., Okudan, K., & Polat, F. (2008). Ekolojik ayak izinin kavramsal içeriği ve Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi’nde bireysel ekolojik ayak izi hesaplaması. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(15), 1-25.
2. Akyüz, Y., Atış, E., Çukadar, M., & Salalı, E. (2016). Akademisyenlerin ekolojik etkilerinin incelenmesi: E.Ü. Ziraat Fakültesi örneği. XII. Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 1427-1436, 25-27 Mayıs 2016, Isparta.
3. Başoğul, Y. (2018). Adıyaman Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi akademisyen ve idari personelin ekolojik ve karbon ayak izinin belirlenmesi. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 6(3), 464-470.
4. Çelik-Coşkun I., & Sarıkaya, R. (2014). Investigation of ecological foot print levels of classroom teacher candidates. Turkish Studies-International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(5), 1761-1787.
5. Çolakoğlu, E. (2010). Haklar söyleminde çevre eğitiminin yeri ve Türkiye’de çevre eğitiminin anayasal dayanakları. TBB Dergisi, 88, 151-171.
6. Eren, Ö., Parlakay, O., Hilal, M., & Bozhüyük, B. (2017). Ziraat Fakültesi akademisyenlerinin ekolojik ayak izinin belirlenmesi: Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi örneği. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 138-145.
7. Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8. Gottlieb, D., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Haim, A. & Kissinger, M. (2012). The ecological footprint as an educational tool for sustainability: A case study analysis in an Israeli public high school. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(1), 193-200. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.03.007

9. Güler, T. (2007). Çevre eğitimi. Yaygın eğitimde çevre eğitimi. Ankara: Türkiye Çevre Vakfı Yayını, (178), 99-116.
10. Janis, A. J. (2007). Quantifying the ecological footprint of the Ohio State University (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio.
11. Juneman, A., & Pane, M. M. (2013). Apathy towards environmental issues, narcissism, and competitive view of the World. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101, 44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.177
12. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
13. Keleş, Ö. (2007). Sürdürülebilir yaşama yönelik çevre eğitimi aracı olarak ekolojik ayak izinin uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
14. Kılıç, S. (2001). Uluslararası çevre hukukunun gelişimi üzerine bir inceleme. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(2), 131-149.
15. Kitzes, J., & Wackernagel, M. (2009). Answers to common questions in ecological footprint accounting. Ecological Indicators, 9(4), 812-817. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.09.014
16. Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2007). Current methods for calculating national ecological footprints accounts. Science for Environment and Sustainable Society, 4(1), 1-9.
17. Lenzen, M., Hansson, C. B., & Bond, S. (2007) On the bioproductivity and land disturbance metrics of the Ecological Footprint. Ecological Economics, 61, 6-10.Marin, M. C. (2004). Sistem yaklaşımıyla ekosistemde enerji ve maddenin dönüşümü ve ekolojik sorunlar. Çevre sorunlarına çağdaş yaklaşımlar - Ekolojik, ekonomik, politik ve yönetsel perspektifler. Marin, M. C. & Yıldırım, U. (Ed). İstanbul: Beta Basım A.Ş.
18. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2015). Ortaokul Çevre Eğitimi Dersi Öğretim Programı. 22.03.2018 tarihinde https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwioxsaHipXhAhUKNhoKHUYsDNEQFjADegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkirikkale.meb.gov.tr%2Fmeb_iys_dosyalar%2F2015_08%2F27110659_evreeitimiretimprogram.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0_L3_9nxjoX2f8aQSYlBSl sayfasından erişilmiştir.
19. O'Gorman, L., & Davis, J. (2013) Ecological footprinting: Its potential as a tool for change in preservice teacher education. Environmental Education Research, 19(6), 779-791. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2012.749979
20. Polat, G. (2012). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf öğrencilerinin öğretim öncesi ve sonrası çevre sorunu ve ekolojik ayak izi anahtar kavramlarıyla ilgili bilişsel yapılarının ortaya konması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
21. Rapport, D. J. (2000). Ecological footprints and ecosystem health: complementary approaches to a sustainable future. Ecological Economics. 32, 381-383.
22. Rees, W. E. (1996). Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Popul. Environ. 17, 195–215.
23. Rees, W. E. (2000). Eco-footprint analysis: Merits and brickbats. Ecological Economics, 32, 371–374.
24. Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4-6), 223-248. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(96)00022-4
25. Tıraş, H. H. (2012), Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve çevre: Teorik bir inceleme. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(2), 57-73.
26. Tosunoğlu, B. T. (2014). Sürdürülebilir küresel refah göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi. HAK-İŞ Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 132-149.
27. Türkiye Erozyonla Mücadele Ağaçlandırma ve Doğal Varlıkları Koruma Vakfı (TEMA). (2006). Dünyanın durumu 2006, Özel konu: Çin ve Hindistan. Başçı, A. (Çeviren) İstanbul: Safa Tanıtım ve Matbaacılık Hizmetleri Ltd.
28. Wackernagel M., Monfreda C., Moran, D., Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S., Deumling, D., & Murray, M. (2005) National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
29. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. BC: New Society.
30. Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Goldfinger, S., & Thomas, M. (2006). The ecological footprint of cities and regions: Comparing resource availability with resource demand. Environment & Urbanization, 18(1), 103-12.
31. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2012a). Yaşayan gezegen raporu. 13 Şubat 2018 tarihinde https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjOnb_siqjhAhXMy6YKHbTLA_QQFjAEegQIBBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpanel.stgm.org.tr%2Fvera%2Fapp%2Fvar%2Ffiles%2Fy%2Fa%2Fyasayan-gezegen-raporu-2012.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3_a4-9BFsjX8KiSo-2Mkxe sayfasından erişilmiştir.
32. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2012b). Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu. 28 Mart 2019 tarihindehttp://www.wwf.org.tr/basin_bultenleri/raporlar/?1412/turkiyeninekolojikayakizibilancosu sayfasından erişilmiştir.
33. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2014). Yaşayan gezegen raporu. 29 Mart 2018 tarihinde https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwii3MWniajhAhWbxcQBHXY9C70QFjADegQIBxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fawsassets.wwftr.panda.org%2Fdownloads%2Fygr_2014_ozet.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3zkGt5PcgKSOzJ6r21tVe0 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
34. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2016). Yaşayan gezegen raporu. 22 Mart 2018 tarihinde https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi3_NeTiqjhAhVhw8QBHbi2AvMQFjACegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fawsassets.wwftr.panda.org%2Fdownloads%2Fyaayan_gezegen_raporu_2016__ozet_.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3IG6v975sACgRzwX8YmfEi sayfasından erişilmiştir.
35. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2017). Doğal hayatı koruma vakfı küresel ayak izi ağı. 30 Mart 2019 tarihinde https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ sayfasından erişilmiştir.
36. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2018). Yaşayan gezegen raporu. 28 Mart 2019 tarihinde https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi3_NeTiqjhAhVhw8QBHbi2AvMQFjACegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fawsassets.wwftr.panda.org%2Fdownloads%2Fyaayan_gezegen_raporu_2016__ozet_.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3IG6v975sACgRzwX8YmfEi sayfasından erişilmiştir.