Üniversite Öğrencilerine Yönelik Biyoplastik Farkındalık Ölçeği (BİYOF): Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

araştırma yaklaşımı benimsenmiş ve bu kapsamda tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Katılımcıların belirlenmesinde uygun örnekleme yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri, 1., 2., 3. ve 4. sınıf düzeylerinde öğrenim gören üniversite öğrencilerinden oluşan bir örneklem (n=261) üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Açık uçlu soruların hazırlanması ve ilgili alan yazının incelenmesi sonucunda toplam 34 ifadeden oluşan bir madde havuzu oluşturulmuştur. Alan uzmanlarının görüşleri doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilen kapsam geçerliği çalışması sonucunda üç madde çıkarılmış ve 31 maddelik taslak ölçek elde edilmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda dört madde daha elenmiş ve iki faktörlü bir yapı belirlenmiştir. Biyoplastik Farkındalık Ölçeği (BİYOF), birinci alt boyutta 17 ve ikinci alt boyutta 10 olmak üzere toplam 27 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Birinci alt boyut “çevreci anlayış”, ikinci alt boyut ise “biyoplastik kullanım nedenleri” olarak adlandırılmıştır. İki faktörlü yapının açıkladığı toplam varyans oranı %42,768 olup, bunun %23,591’i birinci faktör, %19,177’si ise ikinci faktör tarafından açıklanmaktadır. Birinci alt boyuttaki maddelerin faktör yükleri 0,45 ile 0,66 arasında değişirken, ikinci alt boyuttaki maddelerin faktör yükleri 0,52 ile 0,77 arasında bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda RMSEA = 0,077 ve SRMR = 0,066 değerleri elde edilmiştir. Ölçeğin geneline ilişkin Cronbach’s Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı ise 0,92 olarak hesaplanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoplastik
• Farkındalık
• Ölçek geliştirme

Destekleyen Kurum

Avrupa Birliği

Proje Numarası

2021-1-TR01-KA220-HED-000032160

Etik Beyan

ÇIKAR ÇATIŞMASI BEYANI Yazarlar herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmadığını beyan ederler. Bu çalışma, yazarlar arasındaki akademik iş birliği yoluyla üretilmiştir. ARAŞTIRMA VE YAYIN ETİĞİ BEYANI Yazarlar, bu çalışmada araştırma ve yayın etiğine uyulduğunu beyan etmektedir. Bu araştırma, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu'nun 07 Eylül 2021 tarihli ve E-93803232-622.02-114625 sayılı kararı ile verilen izinle yürütülmüştür. YAZAR SORUMLULUK BEYANI Yazarlar, bu çalışmada “Giriş ve yöntem bölümlerinin yazımı” ile “Tartışma bölümünün yazımı ve raporlanması” süreçlerinin Prof. Dr. Fatma KIRMIZI, “Çalışmanın tasarımı” ve “Veri analizi” süreçlerinin Prof. Dr. Cem GÖK, “Verilerin toplanması”, “SPSS'e girilmesi” ve “Araştırma izinlerinin alınması” süreçlerinin ise Prof. Dr. Cem GÖK ve Doç. Dr. Arzum IŞITAN tarafından yürütüldüğünü beyan ederler. ÜRETKEN YAPAY ZEKÂ KULLANIM BEYANI Yazarlar, bu araştırmanın özgün bir çalışma olduğunu ve metin üretimi amacıyla hiçbir üretken yapay zekâ aracının kullanılmadığını beyan ederler. Üretken yapay zekâ (Claude), yalnızca İngilizce bölümün çeviri sonrasındaki redaksiyon ve dil kontrolü işlemleri için kullanılmıştır.

Bioplastic Awareness Scale for University Students (BASUS): Scale Development Study

Öz

Bioplastics are polymers that are biodegradable even under unsuitable post-use conditions and are mostly produced from renewable resources. The main aim of this research is to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure bioplastic awareness. A quantitative research approach was adopted and a survey model was utilized within this scope. Convenient sampling was preferred in determining the participants. Validity and reliability analyses of the scale were conducted on a sample (n=261) of university students studying at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year levels. In the result of preparing open-ended questions and reviewing the relevant literature, a pool of 34 items was created. As a result of the content validity study conducted in line with the opinions of field experts, three items were removed and a draft scale of 31 items was obtained. In the results of exploratory factor analysis, four more items were eliminated and a two-factor structure was determined. The Bioplastic Awareness Scale (BIAAS) consists of a total of 27 items, 17 of which are in the first sub-dimension and 10 of which in the second sub-dimension. The first sub-dimension was named “environmental awareness,” and the second sub-dimension was named “reasons for using bioplastics.” The total variance explained by the two-factor structure was 42.768%, with which 23.591% were explained by the first factor and 19.177% by the second factor. The factor loadings of the items in the first sub-dimension ranged from 0.45 to 0.66, whereas the factor loadings of the items in the second sub-dimension ranged from 0.52 to 0.77. as a result of confirmatory factor analysis, RMSEA = 0.077 and SRMR = 0.066 values are gathered. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient for the overall scale was calculated as 0.92.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bioplastics
• Awareness
• Scale development

Destekleyen Kurum

European Union

Proje Numarası

2021-1-TR01-KA220-HED-000032160

Etik Beyan

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study. RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS STATEMENT This research was conducted with the permission granted by the Pamukkale University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee for Social and Human Sciences by decision dated 07th Sept. 2021 and numbered E-93803232-622.02-114625. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT The authors declare that in this study, the processes of 'writing the introduction and methodology sections' and 'writing and reporting the discussion section' were carried out by Prof. Dr. Fatma KIRMIZI; the processes of 'study design' and 'data analysis' by Prof. Dr. Cem GÖK; and the processes of 'data collection', 'data entry into SPSS', and 'obtaining research permissions' by Prof. Dr. Cem GÖK and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Arzum IŞITAN. GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USAGE STATEMENT The authors declare that this research is an original work and that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used for text generation. Generative artificial intelligence (Claude) was utilized solely for the proofreading and language editing of the English section following translation.

Kaynakça

1. Abe, M. M., Branciforti, M. C., & Brienzo, M. (2021). Biodegradation of hemicellulose-cellulose-starch-based bioplastics and microbial polyesters. Recycling, 6(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6010022
2. Anugrahwidya, R., Armynah, B., & Tahir, D. (2021). Bioplastics starch-based with additional fiber and nanoparticle: characteristics and biodegradation performance: a review. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 29(11), 3459-3476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-021-02152-z
3. Acar Güvendir, M. & Özer Özkan, Y. (2015). Türkiye'deki eğitim alanında yayımlanan bilimsel dergilerde ölçek geliştirme ve uyarlama konulu makalelerin incelenmesi. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 14(52), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.54872
4. Afacan, Ö., & Güler, M. P. D. (2011). Sürdürülebilir çevre eğitimi kapsamında tutum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. In 2nd International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications,27(29), 904-913. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/29243117/159.-libre.pdf sitesinden 22. 11. 2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
5. Arcury, T. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human organization, 49(4), 300-304. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.49.4.y6135676n433r880
6. Artvinli, E. & Demir, Z. M. (2018). A study of developing an environmental attitude scale for primary school students. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 4(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.387478
7. Atiwesh, G., Mikhael, A., Parrish, C. C., Banoub, J., & Le, T. A. T. (2021). Environmental impact of bioplastic use: A review. Heliyon, 7(9), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07918
8. Baydemir, T. (2020). Biyoplastikten dost olur mu? Biyoplastikler ve yeni eğilimler. https://bilimteknik.tubitak.gov.tr/makale/plastikten-dost-olur-mu-biyoplastikler-ve-yeni-egilimler adresinden 10. 10. 2023 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

9. Berberoglu, G. & Tosunoglu, C. (1995). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of an environmental attitude scale (EAS) for Turkish university students. The journal of environmental education, 26(3), 40-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1995.9941444
10. Bertram, D. (2007). Likert scales. Retrieved November, 2(10), 1-10. Retrieved 12, November, 2025 from http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf
11. Bhagwat, G., Gray, K., Wilson, S. P., Muniyasamy, S., Vincent, S. G. T., Bush, R., & Palanisami, T. (2020). Benchmarking bioplastics: A natural step towards a sustainable future. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 28, 3055-3075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-020-01830-8
12. Borrelle, S. B., Ringma, J., Law, K. L., Monnahan, C. C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A., Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G. H., Hilleary, M. A., Eriksen, M., Possingham, H. P., De Frond, H., Gerber, L. R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N., Barnes, M. & Rochman, C. M. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution, Science, 369(6510), 1515-1518. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba365
13. Brown, T. A. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Edt.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (p. 261-276). Guilford press.
14. Bruni, C. M., Chance, R. C., & Schultz, P. W. (2012). Measuring values-based environmental concerns in children: An environmental motives scale. The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.583945
15. Bucci, K., Tulio, M., & Rochman, C. M. (2020). What is known and unknown about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta‐analysis and systematic review. Ecological Applications, 30(2), e02044. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2044
16. Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W., (2005), Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, (7). https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
17. Castillo, C. (2022). Six emotional stages of organisational change: Conceptualisation and scale development. Economics & Sociology, 15(1), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2022/15-1/16
18. Cecchini, C. (2017). Bioplastics made from upcycled food waste. Prospects for their use in the field of design. The Design Journal, 20(1), 1596-1610. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352684
19. Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological methods & research, 36(4), 462-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314720
20. Chyung, S. Y., Winiecki, D. J., Hunt, G., & Sevier, C. M. (2017). Measuring Learners' Attitudes toward Team Projects: Scale Development Through Exploratory And Confirmatory Factor Analyses. American Journal of Engineering Education, 8(2), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v8i2.10065
21. Coppola, G., Gaudio, M. T., Lopresto, C. G., Calabro, V., Curcio, S. & Chakraborty, S. (2021). Bioplastic from Renewable Biomass: A Facile Solution for a Greener Environment. Earth Systems and Environment, 5, 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-021-00208-7
22. Cömert, H. (2011). Çevre sorunları ve etkileri konusundaki işbirlikli öğrenme etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin bilgi, tutum ve davranışlarına etkisi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi.
23. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
24. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106
25. De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruisticand biospheric value orientations. Environment and behavior, 40(3), 330-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
26. Desidery, L., & Lanotte, M. (2022). Polymers and plastics: Types, propertiesand manufacturing. In Plastic waste for sustainable asphalt roads (pp. 3-28). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-85789-5.00001-0
27. Düzakın, E. (2021). Sürdürülebilir tasarım yaklaşımı açısından biyoplastiklerin incelenmesi. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 11(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.970913
28. Applications for bioplastics (2025). europeanbioplastics. Retrieved January 26, 2026, from https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/applications-sectors/
29. Europeanbioplastics (2019). New market data 2019: Bioplastics industry shows dynamic growth Retrieved January 26, 2025, from https://www.european-bioplastics.org/new-market-data-2019-bioplastics-industry-shows-dynamic-growth/
30. Fernández‐Manzanal, R., Rodríguez‐Barreiro, L., & Carrasquer, J. (2007). Evaluation of environmental attitudes: Analysis and results of a scale applied to university students. Science Education, 91(6), 988-1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20218
31. Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European journal of information systems, 3, 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1994.12
32. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, useand fate of all plastics ever made. Science advances, 3(7), e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
33. Gironi, F., & Piemonte, V. (2011). Bioplastics and petroleum-based plastics: strengths and weaknesses. Energy Sources, Part a: Recovery, Utilizationand Environmental Effects, 33(21), 1949-1959. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567030903436830
34. Gkargkavouzi, A., Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. (2019). Development and validation of a scale for measuring Multiple Motives toward Environmental Protection (MEPS). Global Environmental Change, 58, 101971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101971
35. Goldman, D., Yavetz, B., & Pe'er, S. (2006). Environmental literacy in teacher training in Israel: Environmental behavior of new students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.1.3-22
36. Grand View Research. (2018). Europe bioplastics market report. Grand View Research. Retrieved January 26, 2025, from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/europe-bioplastics-market-report
37. Gurbetoğlu, A. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. http://agurbetoglu.com/files/BAY%209.%20Ara%C5%9Ft%C4%B1rman%C4%B1n%20Y%C3%B6ntemi.pdf adresinden 22. 11. 2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
38. Güven, E. (2013). Çevre sorunlarına yönelik tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve öğretmen adaylarının tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(2), 411-430. https://izlik.org/JA56JY85MY
39. Harding, K. G., Gounden, T., & Pretorius, S. (2017). “Biodegradable” plastics: A myth of marketing?. Procedia Manufacturing, 7, 106-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2016.12.027
40. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford university press.
41. Heidari, F., & Heidari, M. (2015). Effectiveness of management of environmental education on improving knowledge for environmental protection (Case study: Teachers at Tehran’s elementary school). International Journal of Environmental Research, 9(4), 1225-1232. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2015.1013
42. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of management, 21(5), 967-988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509
43. Hoang, A.T., Al-Tawaha, A.R., Lan Anh Vu, Van Viet Pham, Qaisi, A.M., Křeček, J. (2021). Integrating Environmental Protection Education in the Curriculum: A Measure to Form Awareness of Environmental Protection for the Community. In: Pénzesné Kónya, E., Haigh, M., Křeček, J. (eds) Environmental Sustainability Education for a Changing World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66384-1_12
44. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
45. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743
46. Ibrahim, N. I., Shahar, F. S., Sultan, M. T. H., Shah, A. U. M., Safri, S. N. A., & Mat Yazik, M. H. (2021). Overview of bioplastic introduction and its applications in product packaging. Coatings, 11(11), 1423. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11111423
47. IPCC- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved March, 24, 2026, from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/
48. Jambeck, J. R., R. Geyer, Wilcox, C. T., Siegler, M., Perryman, A., Andrady, R., Narayan, & K. Law. 2015. Plastic wasteinputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352
49. Jain, P. M., & Shandliya, V. K. (2013). A survey paper on comparative study between principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). International Journal of Managment, IT and Engineering, 3(6), 415-424. ISSN: 2249-0558 Retrieved 24, November, 2025. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net
50. Jiménez-Rosado, M., Bouroudian, E., Perez-Puyana, V., Guerrero, A., & Romero, A. (2020). Evaluation of different strengthening methods in the mechanical and functional properties of soy protein-based bioplastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262, 121517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121517
51. Kale, G., Kijchavengkul, T., Auras, R., Rubino, M., Selke, S. E., & Singh, S. P. (2007). Compostability of bioplastic packaging materials: an overview. Macromolecular bioscience, 7(3), 255-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200600168
52. Karadağ Alçı, S., Geçkil, T. & Aksu, S. (2023). Çevreye duyarlı ürün tüketim davranışı ölçeğinin türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlilik güvenilirlik çalışması. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(2), 540-553. https://doi.org/10.36362/gumus.1224548
53. Karaman, H., Atar, B. & Aktan, D. Ç. (2017). Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde kullanılan faktör çıkartma yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(3), 1173-1193. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.309356
54. Karana, E. (2012). Characterization of ‘natural’and ‘high-quality’materials to improve perception of bio-plastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 316-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.034
55. Karakuş, E., & Ayhan, Z. (2019). Gıda atıklarından çevre dostu biyobozunur ambalaj malzemesi üretimi. Gıda, 44(6), 1008-1019. https://doi.org/10.15237/gida.GD19102
56. Kaiser, H. F. (1959). Computer program for varimax rotation in factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement, 19(3), 413-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445901900
57. Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of environmental psychology, 27(3), 242-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.004
58. Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0107
59. Kılınç, M., Tomar, O., & Çağlar, A. (2017). Biyobozunur gıda ambalaj malzemeleri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(3), 988-996. https://doi.org/10.5578/fmbd.66307
60. Kim, H. K., & Jeong, G. H. (2022). Effect of pro-environmental prenatal education program on pregnant women’s environmental health awareness and behaviors based on the Protection Motivation Theory. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provisionand Financing, 59. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580211047045
61. Klein, F., Emberger-Klein, A., Menrad, K., Möhring, W., & Blesin, J. M. (2019). Influencing factors for the purchase intention of consumers choosing bioplastic products in Germany. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 19, 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.01.004
62. Koike, Y. (2015). Fundamentals of plastic optical fibers. Germany.
63. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental education research, 8(3), 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
64. Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., & Bracken, B. A. (1995). Children's environmental attitude and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(3), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1995.9941442
65. Li, Y. (2018). Study of the effect of environmental education on environmental awareness and environmental attitude based on environmental protection law of the People’s Republic of China. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2277-2285. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/86214
66. Loewen, S., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis. In Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 182-212). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315870908
67. Lubbe, D. (2023). Advantages of using unweighted approximation error measures for model fit assessment. Psychometrika, 88(2). 413-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-023-09909-6
68. Luo, L., Arizmendi, C., & Gates, K. M. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) programs in R. Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 819-826. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1615835
69. Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.001
70. Mooney, B. P. (2009). The second green revolution? Production of plant-based biodegradable plastics. Biochemical Journal, 418(2), 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20081769
71. Mose, B. R., & Maranga, S. M. (2011). A review on starch based nanocomposites for bioplastic materials. Journal of Materials Science and Engineering. B, 1(2B), 239. ISSN 1934-8959 Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/43257062/bioplastics-libre 21.12. 2025.
72. Nand, A.V., Swift, S., Uy, B. & Kilmartin, P.A. (2013). Evaluation of antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of biocompatible low density polyethylene/polyaniline blends. Journal of Food Engineering, 116, 422 – 429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.11.023
73. Nielsen, T. D., Hasselbalch, J., Holmberg, K., & Stripple, J. (2020). Politics and the plastic crisis: A review throughout the plastic life cycle. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 9(1), e360. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.360
74. Okur, E. & Yalçın-Özdilek, Ş. (2012). Yapısal eşitlik modeli ile geliştirilmiş çevresel tutum ölçeği. İlköğretim Online, 11(1), 85-94. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/ sitesinden 15.11. 2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
75. Padsalgikar, A. D. (2017). Introduction to Plastics. Plastics in Medical Devices for Cardiovascular Applications, William Andrew Publishing, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-35885-9.00001-1
76. Park, H. S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 562-577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00824.x
77. PAGEV (2018). Plastik Nedir? https://pagev.org/plastik-nedir adresinden 22. 01. 2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
78. Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green‐Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (mtes) 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 437-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01714.x
79. Perez, V., Felix, M., Romero, A., & Guerrero, A. (2016). Characterization of pea protein-based bioplastics processed by injection moulding. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 97, 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2015.12.004
80. Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 455-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004
81. Piemonte, V. (2011). Bioplastic wastes: the best final disposition for energy saving. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 19, 988-994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-011-0343-z
82. Rahman, A., & Syamsu, K. (2018, August). Biodegradability of oil palm cellulose-based bioplastics. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 183(1). p. 012012. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/183/1/012012
83. Rodrigues, M. O., Abrantes, N., Gonçalves, F. J. M., Nogueira, H., Marques, J. C., & Gonçalves, A. M. (2019). Impacts of plastic products used in daily life on the environment and human health: What is known?. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2019.103239
84. Sabbah, M., & Porta, R. (2017). Plastic pollution and the challenge of bioplastics. J Appl Biotechnol Bioeng, 2(3), 111. https://doi.org/10.15406/jabb.2017.02.00033
85. Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other peopleand the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327-339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
86. Shkeer, A. S., & Awang, Z. (2019). Exploring the items for measuring the marketing information system construct: An exploratory factor analysis. International Review of Management and Marketing, 9(6), 87. https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.8622
87. Schreiber, J. B. (2021). Issues and recommendations for exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(5), 1004-1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.027
88. Stapleton, C. D. (1997). Basic Concepts in Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) as a Tool To Evaluate Score Validity: A Right-Brained Approach (Report). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED407419.pdf 21.11.2025
89. Stratman, J. K., & Roth, A. V. (2002). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) competence constructs: two‐stage multi‐item scale development and validation. Decision sciences, 33(4), 601-628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2002.tb01658.x
90. Sider, I., & Nassar, M. M. (2021). Chemical treatment of bio-derived industrial waste filled recycled low-density polyethylene: A comparative evaluation. Polymers, 13(16), 2682. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13162682
91. Sidek, I. S., Draman, S. F. S., Abdullah, S. R. S., & Anuar, N. (2019). Current development on bioplastics and its future prospects: an introductory review. INWASCON Technol. Mag, 1, 3-8. http://doi.org/10.26480/itechmag.01.2019.03.08
92. Su, W.-F. (2013). Chemical and Physical Properties of Polymers. Principles of Polymer Design and Synthesis, 61-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38730-2_4
93. Sun, L., Li, L., An, X., & Qian, X. (2021). Nano-metal organic framework for enhanced mechanical, flame retardant and ultraviolet-blue light shielding properties of transparent cellulose-based bioplastics. Polymers, 13(15), 2433. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13152433
94. Tarrant, M. A., & Cordell, H. K. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29(5), 618-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916597295002
95. Thakur, S., Chaudhary, J., Sharma, B., Verma, A., Tamulevicius, S., & Thakur, V. K. (2018). Sustainability of bioplastics: Opportunities and challenges. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 13, 68-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.04.013
96. Timur, S., & Yılmaz, M. (2013). Çevre davranış ölçeğinin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(2), 317–333. https://izlik.org/JA49UG45NK
97. UNESCO (2014) UNESCO roadmap for implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. UNESCO.
98. UNEP-United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Single-use plastics: A roadmap for sustainability. Addressing Single-Use Plastic Products Pollution Using a Life Cycle Approach. Retrieved March, 24, 2026, from https://www.unep.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability
99. Uğulu, İ., Şahin, M. & Başlar, S. (2013). High school students’ environmental attitude: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 415-424. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2013/05.04.08
100. Uzun, N., Gilbertson, K. L., Keles, O. & Ratinen, I. (2019). Environmental attitude scale for secondary school, high school and undergraduate students: Validity and reliability study. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 5(1), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.491259
101. Venkatachalam, H., & Palaniswamy, R. (2020). Bıoplastıc world: A revıew. Journal of Advanced Scientific Research, 11(03), 43-53. Retrieved from November 22, 2025 https://sciensage.info/index.php/JASR/article/view/505
102. Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
103. Widaman, K. F. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 3. Data analysis and research publication (pp. 361–389). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13621-018
104. Widaman, K. F., & Helm, J. L. (2023). Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In H. Cooper, M. N. Coutanche, L. M. McMullen, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Data analysis and research publication (2nd ed., pp. 379–410). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000320-017
105. WİKİPEDİ (2026). Plastik. https://tr.wikipedia.org 10. 03. 2026 Tarihinde erişilmiştir.
106. Wu, C. S. (2012). Characterization and biodegradability of polyester bioplastic-based green renewable composites from agricultural residues. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 97(1), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.10.012
107. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85. https://izlik.org/JA83ZA74BA
108. Yücel, E. Ö. & Özkan, M. (2014). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik çevresel tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 27-48. https://izlik.org/JA32KY55WB
109. Yeşil, M. & Turan, Y. (2020). Çevresel duyarlılık üzerine bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 418-435. https://izlik.org/JA95WU86SK
110. Zhou, Y. (2019). A mixed methods model of scale development and validation analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 17(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2018.1479088