Evaluation of Relation between Sustainability Life Knowledge and Applying Status in Future Health Professionals: An University Sample

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate healthcare students’ knowledge about sustainable living and determine the level of inference of this knowledge in their daily routines. Methods: The data collection tool was developed by researchers as a Likert-type survey. All data were collected online (via Google Forms). The survey includes two sections: “general information” and “sustainable living”. Various scientific statistical analyses were used to evaluate the data. Results: 374 voluntary students participated in this study. Most participants (82.90%) declared they have adopted a mixed nutrition model. When their knowledge about the footprints of food was asked, 80.90% of them declared “true” for the definition of “carbon footprint”, this value was 65.00% for the “water footprint”, 63.60% for the “energy footprint”, and 60.40% for the “nitrogen footprint”. When the student’s lifestyle behaviors and knowledge status were evaluated, a positive relationship was found between the participant’s knowledge and level of inferred status for using environmentally friendly electronic machines, keeping nature clean, waste management, and using the motor vehicle. Participants -who had a higher level of knowledge status than others- had better adaptation status of these sustainable living components. Conclusion: Although increasing knowledge about sustainable living increases adaptation of related matters as a lifestyle behavior, there is a need for undergraduate courses, political initiative, education programs, public service advertisements, etc. to increase both knowledge and level of commitment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainability
• planet health
• knowledge
• attitudes
• practice

Geleceğin Sağlık Profesyonellerinin Sürdürülebilir Yaşam Bilgi ve Uygulama Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkinin Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Üniversite Örneği

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma sağlık alanında lisans eğitimi alan öğrencilerin sürdürülebilir yaşam bilgi düzeylerini ve bu bilgiyi uygulamaya yansıtma durumlarını değerlendirmeyi hedeflemiştir. Yöntem: Veri toplama aracı araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen, likert tipi bir anket formudur ve veriler çevrimiçi olarak (Google Forms) toplanmıştır. İlgili anket formunun “genel bilgiler” ve “sürdürülebilir yaşam” olmak üzere iki bölümü mevcuttur. Verilerin değerlendirilmesinde çeşitli istatistiksel analizler uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırmaya gönüllü 374 öğrenci katılmıştır. Katılımcıların büyük bir kısmı (%82,90) karışık beslenme modelini benimsediklerini beyan etmişlerdir. Besinlerin ayak izleri hakkındaki bilgi düzeyleri sorgulandığı zaman %80,20’si “karbon ayak izi”, %65,00’ı “su ayak izi”, %63,60’ı “enerji ayak izi” ve %60,40’ı ise “nitrojen ayak izi” terimlerinin açıklamalarına “doğru” beyanında bulunmuşlardır. Bireylerin yaşam tarzı alışkanlıkları ve bilgi düzeyleri incelendiği zaman çevre dostu elektronik cihaz kullanımı, çevreyi temiz tutma, atığa uygun çöp kovası kullanımı ve motorlu taşıt kullanımı davranışları ile bilgi düzeyleri arasında önemli bir ilişki olduğu görülmüş ve ilgili konularda bilgiye sahip kişilerin davranış olarak benimseme düzeyleri daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Sürdürülebilir yaşam belirleyicileri hakkında bilgi düzeyi yüksek olan katılımcıların sürdürülebilir yaşam tarzı alışkanlıklarına sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Ancak, hem bilgi hem de uygulama düzeylerinin arttırılmasına yönelik lisans dersleri, ülke politikası, eğitim programları, kamu spotu vb. girişimlere gereksinim vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilirlik
• gezegen sağlığı
• bilgi
• tutum
• uygulama

Kaynakça

1. Morelli J. Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of Environmental Sustainability. 2011;1(1):1-9. doi:10.14448/jes.01.0002.
2. Farhud DD. Life style and sustaiable development. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2017;46(1):1-3.
3. Salonen AO, Ahlberg M. Sustainability in everyday life: Integrating environmental, social, and economic goals. Sustainability: The Journal of Record. 2011;4(3):134-142. doi:10.1089/sus.2011.9693.
4. Serra-Majem L, Tomaino L, Dernini S, et al. Updating the Mediterranean diet pyramid towards sustainability: Focus on environmental concerns. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(23):1-20. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238758.
5. Dayi T, Ozturk M, Ozgoren M, Oniz A. Modification of Mediterranean diet pyramid from an island’s perspective. Brazillian Journal of Nutrition. 2022;35:e220025
6. World Health Organization. Environmentally sustainable health systems: A strategic document. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/340375 Yayımlanma tarihi: 2017. Erişim tarihi: 21.10.2022
7. Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M, et al. The environmental of footprint of health care: A global assessment. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(7):271-279. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30121-2.
8. Boyce T, Brown C. Economic and social impacts and benefits of health systems. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/329683 Yayımlanma tarihi: 2019. Erişim tarihi: 21.10.2022

9. Smith NW, Fletcher AJ, Hill JP, McNabb WC. Animal and plant-sourced nutrition: Complementary not competitive. Animal Production Science. 2021;62(8):701-711. doi:10.1071/AN21235.
10. Fresan U, Sabate J. Vegetarian diets: Planetary health and its alignment with human health. Advances in Nutrition. 2019;10(4):380-388. doi:10.1093/advances/nmz019.
11. Marsh K, Zeuschner C, Saunders A, Reid M. Meeting nutritional needs on a vegetarian diet. Australian Family Physician. 2009;38(8):600-602.
12. Leach AM, Emery KA, Gephart J, et al. Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Policy. 2016;61(2016):213-223. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.03.006.
13. Ruini LF, Ciati R, Pratesi CA, Marino M, Principato L, Vannuzzi E. Working toward healthy and sustainable diets: The ‘double pyramid model’ developed by Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition to raise awareness about the environmental and nutritional impact of foods. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2015;2:1-6. doi:10.3389/fnut.2015.00009.
14. Tonini D, Albizzati PF, Astrup TF. Environmental impacts of food waste: Learnings and challenges from a case study on UK. Waste Management. 2018;76(2018):744-766. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.032.
15. Di Stefano V, Durazzo A, Lucarini M. Food waste: Treatments, environmental impacts, current and potential uses. Sustainability. 2022;14:1-2. doi:10.3390/su14010234.
16. Diaz-Ruiz R, Costa-Font M, Lopez-i-Gelats F, Gil JM. Food waste prevention along the food supply chain: A multi-actor approach to identify effective solutions. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 2019;149(2019):249-260. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.031.
17. Hojnik J, Ruzzier M, Ruzzier MK. Transition towards sustainability: Adoption of eco-products among consumers. Sustainability. 2019;11(16):1-29. doi:10.3390/su11164308.
18. Cenci MP, Scarazzato T, Munchen DD, et al. Eco-friendly electonics-A comprehensive review. Advanced Materials Technologies. 2021;7(2):1-34. doi:10.1002/admt.202001263.
19. World Health Organization. Residential heating with wood and coal: Health impacts and policy options in Europe and North America. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/153671 Yayımlanma tarihi: 2015. Erişim tarihi: 23.10.2022
20. Mahmoud M, Ramadan M, Naher S, Pullen K, Olabi AG. The impacts of different heating systems on the environment: A review. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;766:1-43. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142625.
21. Amasuomo E, Baird J. The concept of waste and waste management. Journal of Management and Sustainability. 2016;6(4):88-96. doi:10.5539/jms.v6np88.
22. Johansson C, Lövenheim B, Schantz P, et al. Impacts on air pollution and health by changing commuting from car to bicycle. Science of the Total Environmental. 2017;584-585(2017):55-63. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.145.
23. Rivers N, Saberian S, Schaufele B. Public transit and air pollution (2017). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3049945 Erişim tarihi: 23.10.2022
24. Li C, Luo L, Xue Y, Liu X, Zhang M, Zhang W. Study on the influence of environmental protection investment on GDP in China. In: International Conference on Education, Management and Computer Science (ICEMC 2016); May 27-29, 2016; Shenyang, China. Abstract.