İklim Değişikliğine Bakış: Endişe, Sorumluluk ve Bilgi Faktörleri Üzerine Bir Analiz

Öz

İklim değişikliği, küresel düzeyde acil müdahale gerektiren çevresel bir kriz olmakla birlikte, bireylerin bu soruna yönelik tutum ve algıları, alınacak önlemlerin etkinliği açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın temel problemi, bireylerin iklim değişikliğine dair bilgi, sorumluluk ve endişe düzeylerinin sosyo-demografik değişkenlere göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğinin belirlenmesi adına, Avrupa Sosyal Araştırması (ESS) kapsamında toplanan veriler üzerinden bireylerin iklim değişikliğine yönelik tutumlarını analiz etmek ve bu tutumların yaş, cinsiyet, istihdam ilişkisi ve çalışma türü değişkenleri çerçevesinde anlamlı bir farklılık gösterip göstermediğini ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma, 34.798 katılımcının verisiyle yürütülmüş olup, yalnızca analiz için uygun ölçek yanıtları dikkate alınmıştır. Bulgular, kadınların iklim değişikliği konusundaki sorumluluk ve endişe düzeylerinin erkeklere göre anlamlı şekilde daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Yaş değişkeni istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olsa da, etkisi oldukça sınırlıdır. İstihdam ilişkisi ve çalışma türü açısından, kamu kurumlarında ve sosyal fayda odaklı işlerde çalışan bireylerin bilgi, sorumluluk ve endişe düzeyleri daha yüksektir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, iklim değişikliğiyle ilgili bireysel tutumların yalnızca bireysel özelliklerden değil, aynı zamanda kurumsal ve istihdam bağlamından da etkilendiğini göstermesi bakımından özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, halen iklim değişikliğinin doğal nedenlere dayandığını düşünen veya kararsız kalan bir kesimin bulunması, iklim politikalarının toplumsal kabule dayanmasını zorlaştırmaktadır. Bu bulgular ışığında, bireylerin iklim krizindeki rolünün dönüştürülmesi için politika yapıcılara, insan kaynakları yönetimine ve kurumsal strateji geliştiricilere yönelik rehberlik sağlayabilecek öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• . İklim Değişikliği Görüşleri
• 2. Adaptasyon
• 3. SKH13
• 4. ESS

Etik Beyan

Yoktur

An Analysis on Climate Change: The Influence of Age, Gender, and Employment on Perspectives

Öz

This study aims to explore individuals’ attitudes toward climate change using data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and examine how these attitudes vary by socio-demographic variables, including age, gender, employment status, and type of occupation. Three key dimensions were analyzed: knowledge level, perception of responsibility, and concern about climate change, based on responses from 34798 participants. Only responses with valid scale values were included in the analysis. The findings reveal that women demonstrate significantly higher levels of perceived responsibility and concern about climate change than men. Although age was statistically significant, its impact was relatively minor. Employment status and job type were meaningful: individuals working in public institutions and socially oriented occupations exhibited higher levels of knowledge, responsibility, and concern. The results also show that, while many feel responsible and worried about climate change, a portion of respondents attribute its causes to natural phenomena and remain uncertain. Attitudes toward climate change are influenced not only by personal traits but also by the structure of employment and institutional affiliation. These findings emphasize the crucial role of the human factor, the principal driver of climate change, in shaping responses and offer valuable insights for individuals, policymakers, and human resources professionals to address implementation challenges.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Climate Change Views
• 2. Adaptation
• 3. SDA 13
• ESS

Etik Beyan

None

Kaynakça

1. Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16(3), 268-281.
2. Anderson, A. (2011). Sources, media, and modes of climate change communication: The role of celebrities. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: climate change, 2(4), 535-546.
3. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2008). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge university press.
4. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience, 1(4), 4.
5. Blocker, T. J., & Eckberg, D. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 841-858.
6. Brechin, S. R., & Bhandari, M. (2011). Perceptions of climate change worldwide. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(6), 871-885
7. Britannica Academic. (t.y.). İçinde Encyclopædıa Britannica.
8. Burton, I. (1993). The environment as hazard. Guilford press.

9. Bushell, S., Buisson, G. S., Workman, M., & Colley, T. (2017). Strategic narratives in climate change: Towards a unifying narrative to address the action gap on climate change. Energy Research & Social Science, 28, 39-49.
10. Capstick, S. B., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global environmental change, 24, 389-401.
11. Corner, A., & Clarke, J. (2016). Talking climate: From research to practice in public engagement. Springer.
12. Corner, A., Roberts, O., Chiari, S., Völler, S., Mayrhuber, E. S., Mandl, S., & Monson, K. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(5), 523-534.
13. Cruz-Garcia, G. S., Sachet, E., Blundo-Canto, G., Vanegas, M., & Quintero, M. (2017). To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosystem services, 25, 201-212.
14. Dijkstra, E. M., & Goedhart, M. J. (2012). Development and validation of the ACSI: Measuring students’ science attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, climate change attitudes and knowledge. Environmental Education Research, 18(6), 733-749.
15. Defra. (2002). Survey of public attitudes to quality of life and to the environment: 2001.
16. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 1-24.
17. Dunlap, R. E. (2013). Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American behavioral scientist, 57(6), 691-698.
18. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
19. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3), 253-267.
20. Gallopín, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global environmental change, 16(3), 293-303.
21. Gamson, W. A. (1999). Beyond the science-versus-advocacy distinction. Contemporary Sociology, 28(1), 23-26.
22. Heath, S. C. (2025). Navigating psychosocial dimensions: Understanding the intersections of adaptation strategies and well-being outcomes in the context of climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 72, 101493.
23. Jakučionytė-Skodienė, M., & Liobikienė, G. (2021). Climate change concern, personal responsibility and actions related to climate change mitigation in EU countries: Cross-cultural analysis. Journal of cleaner production, 281, 125189.
24. Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: A cross-cutting theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. Global environmental change, 16(3), 237-239. Pergamon.
25. King, M. F., Renó, V. F., & Novo, E. M. (2012). The concept, dimensions and methods of assessment of human well-being within a socioecological context: A literature review. Social indicators research, 116, 681-698.
26. Koch, A., & Briceno-Rosas, R. (2021). Assessment of socio-demographic sample composition in ESS Round 8 and 9. GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim.
27. Koch, A., & Briceno-Rosas, R. (2023). Assessment of socio-demographic sample composition in ESS Round 10. GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim.
28. Koley, S., & Jeganathan, C. (2023). Evaluating the climatic and socio-economic influences on the agricultural drought vulnerability in Jharkhand. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(1), 8.
29. Matthews, P. (2015). Why are people skeptical about climate change? Some insights from blog comments. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 153-168.
30. Mccarthy, J. J. (2001). Climate change 2001: İmpacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Vol. 2) [E.d.].
31. McCright, A. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and environment, 32(1), 66-87.
32. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. The sociological quarterly, 52(2), 155-194.
33. Mills‐Novoa, M., & Mikulewicz, M. (2025). The promise of resistance: A new lens for climate change adaptation research and practice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 16(1), e922.
34. Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (2011). Communicating climate change: Closing the science‐action gap.
35. Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a resilience framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 32(1), 395-419.
36. OECD. (2021). Strengthening Climate Resilience: Guidance for Governments and Development Co-operation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4b08b7be-en.
37. Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686-1686.
38. Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 26(16), 1427-1453.
39. Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global environmental change, 21(3), 1015-1024.
40. Ramsey, J. L. (2015). On not defining sustainability. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(6), 1075-1087.
41. Redman, A., Rowe, D., Brundiers, K., & Brock, A. (2021). What motivates students to be sustainability change agents in the face of adversity? Sustainability and Climate Change, 14(5), 313-322.
42. Semenza, J. C., Hall, D. E., Wilson, D. J., Bontempo, B. D., Sailor, D. J., & George, L. A. (2008). Public perception of climate change: voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(5), 479-487.
43. Shameem, M. I. M., Momtaz, S., & Rauscher, R. (2014). Vulnerability of rural livelihoods to multiple stressors: A case study from the southwest coastal region of Bangladesh. Ocean & Coastal Management, 102, 79-87.
44. Sicotte, D. M., Joyce, K. A., & Hesse, A. (2022). Necessary, welcome or dreaded? Insights on low-carbon transitions from unionized energy workers in the United States. Energy research & social science, 88, 102511.
45. Steg, L. (2023). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 391-421.
46. Su, Y., Roberts, A. C., Yap, H. S., Car, J., Kwok, K. W., Soh, C. K., & Christopoulos, G. I. (2020). White-and Blue-collar workers responses’ towards underground workspaces. Tunnelling and underground space technology, 105, 103526.
47. Summers, J., Smith, L., Case, J., & Linthurst, R. (2012). A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio, 41(4), 327-340.
48. Syropoulos, S., & Markowitz, E. M. (2022). Perceived responsibility to address climate change consistently relates to increased pro-environmental attitudes, behaviors and policy support: Evidence across 23 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83, 101868.
49. Tekin, M. K., & Deniz, O. (2025). İklim Değişikliği Kaynaklı Göç Potansiyeli: Türkiye Üzerine Çok Boyutlu Bir Alan Araştırması. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 23(1), 236-263. https://doi.org/10.33688/aucbd.1517859
50. Tyson, A., Kennedy, B., & Funk, C. (2021). Gen Z, Millennials stand out for climate change activism, social media engagement with issue. Pew Research Center, 26(2), 6-7.
51. UNITED NATIONS (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement, proposal by the president, Draft decision, in Conference of the parties (FCCC), 32. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf.
52. UNHCR (2020). Gender, Displacement and Climate Change. https://www.unhcr.org/5f21565b4.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 28 Nisan 2025).
53. Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., & Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Public attitudes to environmental change: a selective review of theory and practice. Report for ESRC/LWEC. Manchester, UK.
54. Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., Hunter, S., High, H., & Evans, B. (2010). Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy policy, 38(6), 2655-2663.
55. Walter, G. (2014). Determining the local acceptance of wind energy projects in Switzerland: The importance of general attitudes and project characteristics. Energy research & social science, 4, 78-88.
56. Washington, H. (2013). Climate change denial: Heads in the sand. Routledge.
57. Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 332-342.
58. Wolsink, M. (2018). Social acceptance revisited: gaps, questionable trends, and an auspicious perspective. Energy research & social science, 46, 287-295.
59. Yuvam Dünya Derneği., KONDA. (2021). “Türkiye’de iklim değişikliği algısı” araştırma sonuçları (rapor). İstanbul: KONDA. https://yuvamdunya.org/pages/arastirma-ve-raporlar adresinden edinilmiştir.
60. Zafar, S., & Ammara, S. (2024). Variations in climate change views across Europe: An empirical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 442, 141157.
61. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social issues, 56(3), 443-457.