Kutsal Emanet Bilinci: Türkiye’de Geleneksel Değerlerin Çevresel Duyarlılık Üzerindeki Etkisi

Öz

Araştırma, bireysel değer yönelimlerinin Türkiye’de çevresel duyarlılık üzerindeki etkisini inceleyen nicel bir çalışmadır. European Social Survey 10. tur Türkiye verisi kullanılmış, 4272 katılımcı üzerinden hiyerarşik çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Bağımlı değişken olarak “doğaya ve çevreye özen göstermek önemlidir” ifadesiyle ölçülen çevresel duyarlılık alınmış, bağımsız değişkenler ise Schwartz’ın Temel İnsan Değerleri Kuramı’na dayalı değer maddeleridir. Cinsiyet, eğitim düzeyi ve bölge demografik kontrol değişkenleri olarak modele dâhil edilmiştir. Sadece demografik değişkenlerin yer aldığı model anlamlı bulunmamış, değer yönelimlerinin eklendiği ikinci model anlamlı çıkmış ve çevresel duyarlılığın yaklaşık yüzde 49’unu açıklamıştır. Bulgulara göre sadakat, geleneklere uymak, yardımseverlik ve başarıyı önemseme çevresel duyarlılığı en güçlü pozitif yönde yordayan değerlerdir. Güvenli çevrede yaşama isteği, güçlü devlet vurgusu, eğlenmeyi önemseme, macera ve heyecan, farklı insanları anlama ve eşitlik de anlamlı ve pozitif yordayıcılar olarak bulunmuştur. Buna karşılık maddi zenginliğe verilen önem çevresel duyarlılığı anlamlı biçimde ve negatif yönde yordamaktadır. Sonuçlar, çevresel duyarlılığın yalnızca özgeci ve evrenselci değerlere değil aynı zamanda gelenek, sadakat, güvenlik ve başarı gibi farklı motivasyonel zeminlere de dayandığını göstermektedir. Bu durum, Türkiye bağlamında çevreye duyarlı tutumların hem kendini aşma hem de koruma yönelimli değerlerden beslendiğine işaret etmektedir. Çalışma, tek maddelik çevresel duyarlılık ölçeği, kesitsel veri yapısı ve dinî değişkenlerin modele dâhil edilmemesi gibi sınırlılıklara sahiptir. Gelecek araştırmaların çok maddeli ölçekler, boylamsal tasarımlar ve dinî değişkenleri içeren genişletilmiş modeller kullanması önerilmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Din Psikolojisi
• Değerler
• Çevresel duyarlılık
• Schwartz
• Avrupa Sosyal Araştırması

The Consciousness of Sacred Trust: The Impact of Traditional Values on Environmental Concern in Türkiye

Öz

The article is a quantitative study examining how individual value orientations shape environmental concern in Türkiye. It uses the 10th round of the European Social Survey Türkiye sample with 4272 participants and applies hierarchical multiple linear regression. Environmental concern is measured with a single Likert-type item (“it is important to care for nature and the environment”), while independent variables are Schwartz-based value items, with gender, education, and region as controls. The model including only demographics is not significant, whereas adding value orientations makes the model significant and explains about 49% of the variance in environmental concern. The strongest positive predictors are loyalty, tradition, benevolence, and valuing achievement. Security, strong government, fun, adventure, understanding different people, and equality also show significant positive effects. In contrast, placing high importance on material wealth predicts lower environmental concern. Overall, environmental concern in Türkiye is grounded not only in self‑transcendence values but also in tradition, loyalty, security, and achievement, indicating multiple motivational bases for pro‑environmental attitudes. The study is limited by its single‑item environmental measure, cross‑sectional design, and the absence of religious variables in the model, and it recommends future longitudinal studies with multi‑item scales and the inclusion of religious factors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psychology of Religion
• Values
• Environmental Awareness
• Schwartz
• European Social Survey

وعي الأمانة المقدسة: أثر القيم التقليدية في الاهتمام البيئي في تركيا

Öz

تتناول هذه المقالة دراسة كمية تستكشف كيف تشكل توجهات القيم الفردية مستوى الاهتمام البيئي في تركيا. تعتمد الدراسة على العينة التركية من الجولة العاشرة من «المسح الاجتماعي الأوروبي» (ESS) التي تضم 4272 مشاركًا، وتستخدم الانحدار الخطي المتعدد الهرمي. تم قياس الاهتمام البيئي بواسطة بند واحد من نوع ليكرت («من المهم العناية بالطبيعة والبيئة»)، في حين تمثل بنود القيم المستندة إلى نموذج شوارتز المتغيرات المستقلة، مع إدخال الجنس، ومستوى التعليم، والمنطقة كمتغيرات ضابطة. لم يكن النموذج الذي يضم المتغيرات الديموغرافية فقط ذا دلالة إحصائية، بينما أصبح النموذج دالًا بعد إضافة توجهات القيم، واستطاع تفسير نحو 49٪ من التباين في الاهتمام البيئي. أقوى المتنبئات الإيجابية كانت الولاء، والتقليد، والإحسان، وإعطاء أهمية للإنجاز. كما أظهرت متغيرات الأمان، والدولة القوية، وحب المرح، والمغامرة، وفهم الأشخاص المختلفين، والمساواة آثارًا إيجابية دالة إحصائيًا. في المقابل، كان إعطاء أهمية كبيرة للثروة المادية متنبئًا بانخفاض مستوى الاهتمام البيئي. عمومًا، يتأسس الاهتمام البيئي في تركيا ليس فقط على قيم «تجاوز الذات» بل أيضًا على قيم التقليد، والولاء، والأمن، والإنجاز، مما يشير إلى وجود أسس دافعية متعددة للمواقف المؤيدة للبيئة. تعاني الدراسة من بعض الحدود؛ من ذلك الاعتماد على مقياس أحادي البند للاهتمام البيئي، وتصميمها المقطعي، وغياب المتغيرات الدينية في النموذج، وتقترح دراسات مستقبلية طولية تستخدم مقاييس متعددة البنود وتستوعب العوامل الدينية.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• علم نفس الدين
• القيم
• الوعي البيئي
• شوارتز
• المسح الاجتماعي الأوروبي

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, Wasim vd. “Schwartz Personal Values, Theory of Planned Behavior and Environmental Consciousness: How Tourists’ Visiting Intentions Towards Eco-Friendly Destinations Are Shaped?” Journal of Business Research 110 (Mart 2020), 228-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.040
2. Balundė, Audra vd. “Sustainability in Youth: Environmental Considerations in Adolescence and Their Relationship to Pro-environmental Behavior”. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (02 Kasım 2020), 582920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582920
3. Batool, Nusrat vd. “Theory of Planned Behavior and Value-Belief Norm Theory as Antecedents of Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Evidence from the Local Community”. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 34/5 (03 Temmuz 2024), 693-709. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2023.2205912
4. Bhattacharyya, Asit vd. “Determinants of Pro-environmental Behaviours – A Cross Country Study of Would-be Managers”. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal 14/2 (Mayıs 2020), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v14i2.5
5. Bouman, Thijs vd. “Environmental Values and Identities at the Personal and Group Level”. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42 (Aralık 2021), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.022
6. Choon, Shay Wei vd. “How Do Different Values Affect Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Happiness?” Issues and Perspectives in Business and Social Sciences 4/1 (26 Ocak 2024), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.33093/ipbss.2024.4.1.2
7. Dias, Narcisa Maria Oliveira Carvalho vd. “Exploring Associations between Attitudes towards Climate Change and Motivational Human Values”. Climate 8/11 (19 Kasım 2020), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8110135
8. Doherty, Thomas vd. “Environmental Identity-Based Therapies for Climate Distress: Applying Cognitive Behavioural Approaches”. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist 17 (2024), e29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1754470X24000278

9. Farrar, Donald E. - Glauber, Robert R. “Multicollinearity in Regression Analysis: The Problem Revisited”. The Review of Economics and Statistics 49/1 (Şubat 1967), 92. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937887
10. Franco, Chiara - Ghisetti, Claudia. “What Shapes the ‘Value-Action’ Gap? The Role of Time Perception Reconsidered”. Economia Politica 39/3 (Ekim 2022), 1023-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-022-00282-8
11. Hoffmann, Roman vd. “Behavioral Barriers Impede Pro-Environmental Decision-Making: Experimental Evidence from Incentivized Laboratory and Vignette Studies”. Ecological Economics 225 (Kasım 2024), 108347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108347
12. Ives, Christopher vd. “The Role of Religion in Shaping the Values of Nature”. Ecology and Society 29/2 (2024), art10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES15004-290210
13. Ives, Christopher D. - Kidwell, Jeremy. “Religion and Social Values for Sustainability”. Sustainability Science 14/5 (Eylül 2019), 1355-1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00657-0
14. Karslı, Necmi. “Genç ve Yetişkinlerde Çevre Bilinci ve Dindarlık”. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 52 (30 Haziran 2022), 57- 78. https://doi.org/10.17120/omuifd.1063694
15. Lee, Seojin Stacey vd. “Pro-Environmental Behavior on Electric Vehicle Use Intention: Integrating Value-Belief-Norm Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior”. Journal of Cleaner Production 418 (Eylül 2023), 138211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138211
16. Mouchrek, Najla vd. “Investigating Environmental Values and Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Behaviors Among College Students”. Consilience 26 (07 Haziran 2023). https://doi.org/10.52214/consilience.vi26.10153
17. Öztürk, Mustafa. “Response of Educational Research in Turkey to the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development”. Asia Pacific Education Review 19/4 (Aralık 2018), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9554-5
18. Pelcher, Jamee vd. “An Evaluation of the Environmental Values, Beliefs, Norms, and Behaviors of Sport Management Students in Higher Education Institutions”. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 24/8 (27 Kasım 2023), 1687-1703. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-2022-0279
19. Portus, Rosamund vd. “Exploring the Environmental Value Action Gap in Education Research: A Semi-Systematic Literature Review”. Environmental Education Research 30/6 (02 Haziran 2024), 833-863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2314060
20. Preston, Jesse L - Baimel, Adam. “Towards a Psychology of Religion and the Environment”. Current Opinion in Psychology 40 (Ağustos 2021), 145- 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.013
21. Primc, Kaja vd. “How Does Schwartz’s Theory of Human Values Affect the Proenvironmental Behavior Model?” Baltic Journal of Management 16/2 (10 Mart 2021), 276-297. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-08-2020- 0276
22. Razzaghi Borkhani, F. vd. “Explaining Farmers’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors Toward Plant, Soil and Water Conservation in Iran: An Application of Value–Belief–Norm Theory”. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 20/3 (Mart 2023), 2539-2550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04568-z
23. Schaefer, Anja vd. “Individual Values and SME Environmental Engagement”. Business & Society 59/4 (Nisan 2020), 642-675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317750134
24. Schwartz, S. H. “Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations”. . . Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons from the european social survey. ed. R. Jowell vd. ::::161-193. Sage, 2007.
25. Sobotová, Beáta vd. “Dragons in Action: Psychological Barriers as Mediators of the Relationship Between Environmental Value Orientation and Pro‐ Environmental Behaviour”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 55/3 (Mart 2025), 156-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.13083
26. Stern, Paul C. “New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior”. Journal of Social Issues 56/3 (Ocak 2000), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
27. Tuna, Muammer. “Türkiye’de Çevreye İlişkin Toplumsal Eğilimler: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz”. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi 10/2 (2007).
28. Wagner, Udo - Strobl, Sophie. “Consumers’ Value Systems in the Consumption of Sustainable Groceries: An Intercultural Study”. Corporate Responsibility, Sustainability and Markets. ed. Cláudia Simões vd. 9-30.
29. Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-79660-0_2
30. Wesley Schultz, P. - Zelezny, Lynnette. “Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes: Evidence for Consistency Across 14 Countries”. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19/3 (Eylül 1999), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0129