Ecological Footprint Awareness of Generation Z: A Case Study of Selçuk University Faculty of Science

Abstract

Achieving a sustainable ecosystem requires a harmonious relationship between biological capacity and ecological footprint. However, in today's rapidly industrializing world, population growth and lack of awareness about ecological footprints negatively impact biological capacity. Consequently, global ecological limits have been exceeded, straining the planet's carrying capacity. Human dominance over nature drives biodiversity loss and contributes to climate change, disrupting ecosystem balance, overconsuming natural resources, and causing environmental degradation. Industrialization and rapid urbanization have significantly increased resource consumption, leading to a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions—central to the carbon footprint and primary causes of climate change—that critically affect air quality, ecosystem stability, and biodiversity protection. Environmental factors directly influence human well-being, economic activities, and the health of all living organisms while reshaping the ecological order. This study aims to provide a fresh perspective on ecological awareness and inspire actionable steps in terms of building a sustainable ecosystem through a survey assessing the ecological literacy of Selcuk University Faculty of Science (SUFS) students. The survey reveals students' environmental awareness levels while examining its impact on their ecological behaviors. The general evaluation shows that SUFS students exhibit high awareness levels in the Ecological Footprint Awareness scale; however, scores related to recycling and transportation are lower than other dimensions. This indicates that targeted training for recycling and transportation is necessary to enhance overall awareness levels regarding ecological footprints. The findings will serve as a valuable resource for identifying strategies to improve environmental consciousness while emphasizing individuals' roles in fostering a sustainable future.

Keywords

• Ecological footprint
• biological capacity
• sustainability in the ecosystem
• climate change
• ecological awareness

References

1. UNESCO, Biodiversity and Climate Change, https://www.unesco.org/en/climate-change/biodiversity, Accessed 27 Oct 2022.
2. M. Wackernagel, A. Galli, An overview on ecological footprint and sustainable development a chat with Mathis Wackernagel, International Journal of Ecodynamics 2 (1) (2007) 1–9.
3. Global Footprint Network, Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010, Accessed 13 Oct 2010.
4. J. Kitzes, A. Peller, S. Goldfinger, M. Wackernagel, Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts, Science for Environment and Sustainable Society 4 (1) (2007) 1–9.
5. D. Öztok, D. Tapan, Turkey's Ecological Footprint Report, Worldwide Fund for Nature-Turkey, (2012), https://www.wwf.org.tr/?1378/turkiyeninekolojikbilancosu, Accessed 24 Dec 2023.
6. Global Footprint Network, Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity (2022), https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=223&type=BCpc,EFCpc, Accessed 27 Oct 2022.
7. M. A. Tekindal, G. Zabzun, Z. Özel, M. Demirsöz, M. Tekindal, Awareness scale for reducing ecological footprint: A validity and reliability study, European Journal of Science and Technology (27) (2021) 439–445.
8. Ö. Keleş, N. Uzun, S. Özsoy, Measuring and evaluating preservice teachers' ecological footprints, Ege Journal of Education 9 (2) (2008) 1–15.

9. H. Akıllı, F. Kemahlı, K. Okudan, F. Polat, The content of ecological footprint concept and calculation of individual ecological footprint in the Akdeniz University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Akdeniz University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences 15 (2008) 1–25.
10. Ö. Eren, O. P. Parlakay, M. Hilal, B. Bozhüyük, Determination of the ecological footprint of the agricultural faculty academicians: The case of Mustafa Kemal University, Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpaşa University 34 (2) (2017) 138–145.
11. Ş. Sivrikaya, Investigation and evaluation of ecological footprint awareness levels of science and Turkish teacher candidates, Master's Thesis Akdeniz University (2018) Antalya.
12. B. Eren, A. Aygün, D. Chabanov, N. Akman, Ecological footprint score in engineering students, International Journal of Engineering and Technology Research 1 (1) (2016) 7–12.
13. Ş. Eraslan, D. Seçme, Awareness level of the faculty of architecture students' ecological footprint, Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences 25 (3) (2021) 481–491.
14. F. K. Duman, E. Atabek-Yiğit, Ecological footprint awareness of students in faculty of sport sciences, Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, 27 (4) (2022) 265–280.
15. S. Çıkrık, M. Yel, Determination of ecological footprint awareness levels of preservice biology teachers, Social Sciences 14 (6) (2019) 2999–3008.
16. M.E. Hopton, D. White, A simplified ecological footprint at a regional scale, Journal of Environmental Management 111 (2012) 279–286.
17. M. Demirkol, İ. Aslan, Ecological footprint awareness levels of classroom teachers, Journal of Computer and Education Research 9 (18) (2021) 904–928.
18. T. Karakaş, Ö. Keleş, Determining the ecological footprint awareness levels of science teacher candidates, Anatolian Teacher Journal 7 (2) (2023) 116–134.
19. T. K. Yıldız, H. Ulusoy, S. Sarıçoban, Determining the ecological footprint awareness and environmental literacy levels of students in the faculty of health sciences, Journal of the Institute of Health Sciences Cumhuriyet University 8 (3) (2023) 476–483.
20. D. Yıldız, Y. Şenay, Determining the trends of forestry engineering students in reducing ecological footprint, Muş Alparslan University Journal of Agriculture and Nature 4 (2) (2024) 63–75.
21. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Aderese Dayalı Kayıt Sistemi, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Genclik-2021-45634, Accessed 17 May 2022.
22. W. L. Neuman, Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 3rd Edtion, Pearson, Boston, 1997.
23. N. Shrestha, Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis, American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics 9 (1) (2021) 4–11.