Psychometric Properties of Turkish Adaptation of the Environmental Risk Coping Scale

Öz

Objective: This study aims to adapt Environmental Risk Coping Scale into Turkish and examine its psychometric properties. Method: For this aim, the psychometric properties of the scale adapted into Turkish were tested in a sample of 230 participants living in 6 cities with high earthquake risk in Türkiye. Participants responded to the Environmental Risk Coping Scale, Environmental Risk Perception Scale, questions on Present Fatalistic and Future Time Orientation, and a demographic information form (i.e., age, gender, education level, city of residence, and homeowner/renter status, past earthquake experience, extent of earthquake damage). Results: The findings of the analyses (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis) showed that this 12-item scale is reliable and valid in the Turkish sample. Specifically, desirable fit indices (χ2 / sd = 2.06, p < .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .07, 90 % CI [.05, .09], SRMR = .04) demonstrated that the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure (problem focused and emotion focused coping strategies) and Cronbach α values (.89 for 9-item problem focused coping strategies factor and .72 for 3-item emotion focused coping strategies factor) indicate that the internal consistency of the scale is high. In addition, the sub-dimensions of the Turkish version of the scale were correlated with variables such as risk perception, present-fatalistic time orientation, future time orientation, and demographic factors such as age, earthquake experience, and the extent of damage in earthquake(s) in line with the literature. Conclusion: The Turkish adaptation of the Coping with Environmental Risk Scale was found to be a reliable and valid scale in the Turkish sample.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental risk
• Earthquake risk
• Environmental risk coping
• Problem-focused coping strategies

Çevresel Riskle Başa Çıkma Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması ve Psikometrik Özellikleri

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Çevresel Riskle Başa Çıkma Ölçeğini Türkçeye uyarlamayı ve psikometrik özelliklerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Bu amaçla Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin psikometrik özellikleri Türkiye’deki deprem riski yüksek olan 6 şehirde yaşayan 230 kişilik bir örneklem ile test edilmiştir. Katılımcılar, Çevresel Riskle Başa Çıkma Ölçeğini, Çevresel Risk Algısı Ölçeğini, şimdide kaderci ve gelecek zaman yönelimi ile ilgili soruları ve demografik bilgi formunu (yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim düzeyi, yaşanılan şehir ve ev sahibi/kiracı olma durumu, geçmiş deprem deneyimi, depremden alınan hasarın boyutu) cevaplamışlardır. Bulgular: Yapılan analizlerin (doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, güvenirlik analizi) bulguları 12 maddelik bu ölçeğin Türkiye örnekleminde güvenilir ve geçerli olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Spesifik olarak, istenilir düzeyde olan uyum indeksleri (χ2 / sd = 2.06, p < .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .07, 90 % CI [.05, .09], SRMR = .04) doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin iki faktörlü (problem odaklı ve duygu odaklı başa çıkma stratejileri) yapıyı doğruladığını, Cronbach α değerleri (9 maddeli problem odaklı başa çıkma stratejileri alt boyutu için .89, 3 maddeli duygu odaklı başa çıkma stratejileri alt boyutu için .72) de ölçeğin iç tutarlılığının yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna ek olarak, ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonunun alt boyutları risk algısı, şimdide-kaderci zaman yönelimi, gelecek zaman yönelimi gibi ilişkili olabilecek değişkenlerle ve yaş, deprem deneyimi, deprem(ler)de alınan hasarın boyutu gibi demografik faktörlerle literatürle paralel ilişkileri saptanmıştır. Sonuç: Çevresel Riskle Başa Çıkma Ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlamasının Türkiye örnekleminde güvenilir ve geçerli bir ölçek olduğu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çevresel risk
• deprem riski
• çevresel riskle başa çıkma
• problem odaklı başa çıkma stratejileri

Kaynakça

1. Abunyewah M, Gajendran T, Maund K (2018) Conceptual framework for motivating actions towards disaster preparedness through risk communication. Procedia Eng, 212:246–253.
2. AFAD (2014) Türkiye Afet Farkındalığı ve Afetlere Hazırlık Araştırması. Ankara, T.C. Başbakanlık Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı.
3. Armaş I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal, 26:1223–1234.
4. Asgarizadeh Lamjiry Z, ve Gifford, R, (2021) Earthquake threat! Understanding the intention to prepare for the big one. Risk Anal, 42:487–505.
5. Bahrainy H, Bakhtiar A (2022) Urban Design in Seismic-Prone Regions. Cham, Springer.
6. Baytiyeh H, Naja M (2016) The effects of fatalism and denial on earthquake preparedness levels. Disaster Prev Manag, 25:154–167.
7. Bentler P M (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull, 107:238–246.
8. Bodas M, Giuliani F, Ripoll-Gallardo A, Caviglia M, Dell'Aringa MF, Linty M et al. (2019) Threat perception and public preparedness for earthquakes in Italy. Prehosp Disaster Med, 34:114–124.

9. Bonaiuto M, Alves S, De Dominicis S, Petruccelli I (2016) Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and agenda. J Environ Psychol, 48:33–53.
10. Bonnes M, Uzzell D, Carrus G, Kelay T (2007) Inhabitants' and experts' assessments of environmental quality for urban sustainability. J Soc Issues, 63:59–78.
11. Burger JM, Palmer ML (1992) Changes in and generalization of unrealistic optimism following experiences with stressful events: Reactions to the 1989 California earthquake. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 18:39–43.
12. Chou C, Bentler PM (2002) Model modification in structural equation modeling by imposing constraints. Comput Stat Data Anal, 41:271–287.
13. Greenberg MR, Schneider DF (1995) Gender differences in risk perception: Effects differ in stressed vs. non‐stressed environments. Risk Anal, 15:503–511.
14. Güler İ (2019) Düzce kentinde risk algısının yer bağlılığı ile ı̇lişkisi (Yüksek lisans tezi), Düzce, Düzce Üniversitesi.
15. Güler-Edwards A (2008) Relationship between future time orientation, adaptive self- regulation, and well-being: Self-Type and age related differences (Doktora tezi), Ankara, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
16. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal, 18:805–811.
17. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2013) Multivariate Data Analysis. London, UK, Pearson Education.
18. Heller K, Alexander D B, Gatz M, Knight, B G, Rose T. (2005). Social and personal factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. J Appl Soc Psychol, 35:399–422.
19. Homburg A, Stolberg A, Wagner U (2007) Coping with global environmental problems. Environ Behav, 39:754–778.
20. Inal E, Altintas KH, Dogan N (2017) The development of a general disaster preparedness belief scale using the health belief model as a theoretical framework. Int J Assess Tools Educ, 5:146–158.
21. İnternet Haber (2023). Kahramanmaraş merkezli depremlerde ölenlerin sayısı 50 bin 783’e yükseldi. https://www.internethaber.com/kahramanmaras-merkezli-depremlerde-olenlerin-sayisi-50-bin-783e-yukseldi-2297989h.htm (Accessed 10.10.2023).
22. Jackson EL (1981) Response to earthquake hazard: “The west coast of North America”. Environ Behav, 13:387–416.
23. Joffe H, Potts HWW, Rossetto T, Doğulu C, Gül E, Perez-Fuentes G (2019) The Fix-it face-to-face intervention increases multihazard household preparedness cross-culturally. Nat Hum Behav, 3:453–461.
24. Joffe H, Rossetto T, Solberg C, O’Connor C (2013) Social representations of earthquakes: A study of people living in three highly seismic areas. Earthq Spectra, 29:367–397.
25. Karancı AN, Akşit B, Dirik G (2005) Impact of a community disaster awareness training program in Turkey: Does it influence hazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors. Soc Behav Pers, 33:243–258.
26. Kundak S, Türkoğlu H (2007) İstanbul’da deprem riski analizi. İTÜ Dergisi/A Mimarlık Planlama Tasarım, 6:37–46.
27. Kung Y, Chen S (2012) Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: Effects of gender and past earthquake experience. Risk Anal, 32:1535–1546.
28. Lazarus RS Launier R (1978) Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In Perspectives in Interactional Psychology (Ed. LA Pervin, M Lewis):287–327. New York, Springer.
29. Lindell MK, Hwang SN (2008) Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Anal, 28:539–556.
30. Lindell MK, Perry RW (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard. Environ Behav, 32:461–501.
31. Lindell MK, Prater CS, Wu HC, Huang SK, Johnston DM, Becker JS et al. (2016) Immediate behavioral response to earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Hitachi, Japan. Disasters, 40:85–111.
32. Liu X, Sun L (2022) Examining the impact of fatalism belief and optimism orientation on seismic preparedness: Considering their roles in the nexus between risk perception and preparedness. J Contingencies Crisis Manag, 30:412–426.
33. Lopez-Vazquez E, Marván ML (2004) Risk perception, stress and coping strategies in two catastrophes risk situations. Soc Behav Pers, 31:61–70.
34. Maidl E, Buchecker M (2015) Raising risk preparedness by flood risk communication. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 15:1577–1595.
35. Navarro O, Krien N, Rommel D, Deledalle A, Lemée C, Coquet M et al. (2020). Coping strategies regarding coastal flooding risk in a context of climate change in a French Caribbean island. Environ Behav, 53:636–660.
36. Nguyen LH, Shen H, Ershoff D, Afifi AA, Bourque LB (2006) Exploring the causal relationship between exposure to the 1994 Northridge earthquake and pre and post-earthquake preparedness activities. Earthq Spectra, 22:569–587.
37. Nunnally J C (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York, McGraw-Hill.
38. Oral M, Yenel A, Oral E, Aydın N, Tuncay T (2015) Earthquake experience and preparedness in Turkey. Disaster Prev Manag, 24:21–37.
39. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (2021) Risk. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com (Accessed 15.10.2023)
40. Parsons T (2004) Recalculated probability ofM≥ 7 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara, Turkey. J Geophys Res Solid Earth, 109:B05304.
41. Perry R W, Lindell M K (2008) Volcanic risk perception and adjustment in a multi-hazard environment, J Volcanol Geotherm Res, 172:170–178.
42. Qualtrics (2005) Qualtrics Software Version July, 2020. https://www.qualtrics.com (Accessed 19.10.2023).
43. Şentuna B, Çakı F (2020) Balıkesir örnekleminde bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması: Afet hazırbulunuşluk ölçeği. İdealkent, 11:1959–1983.
44. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Roe F J C (1981) Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci, 376:17–34.
45. Solberg, C., Rossetto, T. ve Joffe, H. (2010). The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: Re-evaluating the international literature. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 10:1663–1677.
46. Spittal M J, McClure J, Siegert R J Walkey F H (2008) Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation. Environ Behav, 40:798–817.
47. Subiza-Pérez M, Santa Marina L, Irizar A, Gallastegi M, Anabitarte A, Urbieta N et al. (2020) Who feels a greater environmental risk? Women, younger adults and pro-environmentally friendly people express higher concerns about a set of environmental exposures. Environ Res, 181:108918.
48. Sun L, Liu X, Yang Y (2022) Source of fatalistic seismic belief: The role of previous earthquake experience and general fatalism. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 83:103377.
49. TDK (2021) Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlüğü: Risk. https://sozluk.gov.tr (Accessed 07.10.2023).
50. Tekeli-Yeşil S, Dedeoğlu N, Tanner M, Braun-Fahrlaender C, Obrist B (2010) Individual preparedness and mitigation actions for a predicted earthquake in Istanbul. Disasters, 34:910–930.
51. Tekeli-Yeşil S, Dedeoğlu N, Braun-Fahrlaender C, Tanner M (2011) Earthquake awareness and perception of risk among the residents of Istanbul. Nat Hazards, 59:427–446.
52. TMMOB (2012) Türkiye’de Deprem Gerçeği ve TMMOB Makine Mühendisleri Odası’nın Önerileri. Ankara, TMMOB.
53. Türkdoğan Görgün C, Koçak Şen İ, McLennan J (2023) The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the psychological preparedness for disaster threat scale. Nat Hazards, 118:331–346.
54. Winter G, Fried J S (2000) Homeowner perspectives on fire hazard, responsibility, and management strategies at the wildland-urban interface. SocNat Resour, 13:33–49.
55. Xu Y, Wang JP, Wu YM, Kuo-Chen H (2019) Prediction models and seismic hazard assessment: A case study from Taiwan. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 122:94–106.
56. Yari A, Zarezadeh Y, Ostadtaghizadeh A (2019) Prevalence of fatalistic attitudes toward earthquake disaster risk management in citizens of Tehran, Iran. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 38:101181.
57. Yöndem ZD, Eren A (2008) Deprem Stresi ile Baş Etme Stratejileri Ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3:60–75.
58. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN (1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. J Pers Soc Psychol, 77: 1271–1288.