The Relationship between Religiosity, Environmental Orientation and Environmental Behaviors: An Empirical Study with Turkish and British Muslim Samples

Öz

This article examines the relationship between environmental orientation, behaviour, and religiosity. It also deals with the relations between environmental orientations, behaviours and socio-demographic variables, such as, gender, country and age. The correlational survey method and the questionnaire technique are used for research. The sample covers 342 people ranging from ages 16 to 74. 26% (N= 90) of the sample are British Muslims and 74 % (N= 252) are Turkish Muslims. “Environmental Orientation Scale”, “Environmental Behaviour Scale”, and “Religiosity Scale” measures are applied. The findings indicate that religiosity has a positive effect on ‘environmental stewardship’ and ‘waste management’ however it has no relation to ‘environmental  ominion’ and ‘active environmentalism’. In addition, the findings demonstrate that the age and the environmental dominion factors were more effective on environmental behaviour rather than religiosity. The implications of these results and the suggestions for future research are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Religiosity,Environmentalism,Global Warming,Environmental Orientation Scale,Environmental Behaviour Scale,Waste Management

Dindarlık, Çevreci Yönelim ve Çevreci Davranışlar Arasındaki İlişki: Türk ve İngiliz Örneklemler Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Makale, bireylerin çevreye karşı yönelimleri, çevreci davranışları ve dindarlık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi ele almaktadır. Ayrıca makalede söz konusu değişkenlerin cinsiyet, ülke ve yaş gibi değişkenlerle ilişkisi de araştırılmaktadır. İlişkisel tarama modeli ve anket tekniği bu araştırmada kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu yaşları 16 ile 74 arasında değişen 342 kişidir. Grubun %26’sı (N= 90) İngiliz ve %74’ü (N= 252) ise Türk Müslümanlardan oluşmaktadır. Çevreye Karşı Yönelim Ölçeği, Çevreci Davranış Ölçeği, Dindarlık Ölçeği veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre dindarlık ‘emanet görme’ ve ‘israftan kaçınma’ boyutları üzerinde etkili iken ‘sahip olma’ ve ‘aktif çevrecilik’ boyutları üzerinde ise dindarlığın anlamlı bir etkisi tespit edilememiştir. Ayrıca bulgular, yaş ve ‘sahip olma’ boyutunun çevreci davranışlarda dindarlıktan daha etkili olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dindarlık,Çevrecilik,Küresel Isınma,Çevreci Yönelim,Çevreci Davranışlar Ölçeği

Kaynakça

1. Abdul-Matin, I. Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet. San Francisco: Berrett Kohler Publisher, 2010.
2. Arbuckle M. B. - D. M. Konisky. “The role of religion in environmental attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly, 2015, 96 (5), p. 1244-63.
3. Ayten, Ali. Empati ve Din [Empathy and Religion], İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2010.
4. ----------. “‘Sahip Olma’ mı ‘Emanet Görme’ mi? Çevre Bilinci ve Dindarlık Üzerine Bir Araştırma [Possession or Custodianship: An Empirical study on the relationship between environmental orientation, environmental behaviours and religiosity].” Din Bilimleri Akademik Araştirma Dergisi, 2010, 10 (2), p. 203-33.
5. ----------. “Kimlik ve din: İngiltere’deki Türk gençleri üzerine bir araştirma [Identity and religion: A Study on Turkish youngs in England].” Çukurova Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2012, 12 (2), p. 101- 119.
6. Boyd, H. H. “Christianity and the Environment in the American Public.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1999, 38 (1), p. 36-44.
7. Callicot, J. B. “Multicultural Environmental Ethics.” Daedalus, 2001, 130 (4), p. 77-98.
8. Carman, C. J. “Dimensions of Environmental Policy Support in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly, 79 (4), 1998, p. 717-33.

9. Des Jardins, J. R. Çevre Etiği: Çevre Felsefesine Giriş [Environmertal Ethics: Introduction to Environmental Philosophy]. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2006.
10. Eckberg, D. L. - T. Blocker. “Christianity, Environmentalism, and the Theoretical Problem of Fundamentalism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1996, 35 (4), p. 343-55.
11. Eckberg, D. L. - T. J. Blocker. “Varieties of Religious Involvement and Environmental Concern: Testing the Lynn White Thesis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1989, 28 (4), p. 509-17.
12. Fromm, E., To have or to be. London: Abacus, 1987.
13. Guth, J. L. - J. C. Green - L. A. Kellstedt - C. E. Smidt. “Faith and the Environment: Religious Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Environmental Policy.” American Journal of Political Science, 1995, 39 (2), p. 364-82.
14. Hand, C. M. - K. D. van Liere. “Religion, Mastery-Over-Nature, and Environmental Concern.” Social Forces, 1984, 63 (2), p. 555-70.
15. Hayes, B. C. - M. Marangudakis. “Religion and Environmental Issues Within Anglo-American Democracies.” Review of Religious Research, 2000, 42 (2), p. 159-74.
16. Hintikka, J. - T. Koskela - O. Kontula - K. Koskela - H. Koivumaa-Honkanen - H. Viinamaki. “Religious Attendance and Life Satisfaction in the Finnish General Population.” Journal of Psychology and Theology, 2001, 29 (2), p. 158-64.
17. Ignatow, G. “Cultural Models of Nature and Society: Reconsidering Environmental Attitudes and Concern.” Environment and Behaviour, 2006, 38, p. 441-61.
18. Izzi Dien, M. The Environmental Dimensions of Islam. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 2000. Kanagy, C. L. - H. M. Nelsen. “Religion and environmental Concern: Challenging the Dominant Assumption.” Review of Religious Research, 1995, 37 (1), p. 33-45.
19. Kanagy, C. L. - F. K. Willits. “A ‘Greening’ of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample.” Social Science Quarterly, 1993, 74 (3), p. 674-83.
20. Kirman, M. A. “Religious and secularist views of the nature and the environment.” The Journal of İnternational Social Research, 2008, 1 (3), p. 268-77.
21. Konisky, D. M. - J. Milyo - L. E. Richardson. “Environmental Policy attitudes: Issues, geographical scale, and political trust.” Social Science Quarterly, 2008, 89 (5), p. 1066-1085.
22. Nasr, S. H. İnsan ve Tabiat [The Human Being and Nature]. İstanbul: Yeryüzü Yayınları, 1982.
23. Owens, A. L. - J. R. Videras. Culture and Public Goods: The Case of Religion and the Voluntary Provision of Environmental Quality. Mimeo: Hamilton College, 2006.
24. Taylor, S. E. - L. A. Peplau - D. O. Sears. Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006. Tsimpo, C. - Q. Wodon. “Faith affiliation, religiosity, and attitudes towards the environment and climate change.” The Review of Faith - International Affairs, 2016, 14 (3), p. 51-64.
25. Tucker, M. E. - J. A. Grim. “Introduction: The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology.” Daedalus, 2001, 130 (4), p. 1-22.
26. White, L. Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science, 1967, 155 (3767), p. 1203-7. Woodrum, E. - Hoban T. “Theology and Religiosity Effects on Environmentalism.” Review of Religious Research, 1994, 35 (3), p. 193-206.
27. Wuthnow, R. Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves. Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1991.
28. Yazid, Y. Faith-Based Environmentalism: A Case Study of Islamic-Based Environmental Organisations in the United Kingdom. Kuala Lumpur: ISS, 2008.