THE SETTLEMENT IDENTITY AND SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION: AN APPLICATION IN BURDUR PROVINCE

Öz

The sense of settlement is considered as a collection of symbolic meanings, attachment and satisfaction with a spatial environment organized by an individual or a group. In this context, settlement identity defines the self-identity of a physical environment and attachment to the settlement identity can be observed as the cognitive or emotional attachment to a certain environment by an individual. The study measures the settlement identity regarding the attachment, sustainability with the past, sense of sincerity, and social attachment in the city centre of Burdur province. Face-to-face interview is conducted with 500 people through questionnaire method. According to the results obtained, among the settlement identity dimensions, dependence, continuity with past, perception of sincerity, solidarity and social dependence directly and positively affect the dependence on settlement. Furthermore, it is observed that dependence on settlement directly and positively affects the attitude and behaviour towards sustainable consumption and finally, attitude towards sustainable consumption directly and positively affects the sustainable consumption behaviour. In the study, it is revealed that being attached to their neighbourhoods by individuals with a strong settlement identity creates positive sustainable consumption attitudes and behaviours. The model test is conducted with partial least squares method and a theoretical model, which is developed from consumer behaviour, environmental psychology, and marketing literature is verified empirically

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Settlement Identity,Sustainable Consumption,Social Marketing

YERLEŞİM YERİ KİMLİĞİ VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR TÜKETİM: BURDUR İLİNDE BİR UYGULAMA

Öz

Yerleşim yeri duygusu, birey veya grup tarafından düzenlenen mekânsal bir ortam ile sembolik anlamlar, bağlanma ve bir memnuniyet koleksiyonu olarak düşünülmektedir. Bu bağlamda yerleşim yeri kimliği, fiziksel bir ortamla ilgili olan öz kimliği ifade etmekte ve yerleşim yeri kimliğine olan bağlanma bireyin belirli bir ortama veya çevreye bilişsel ve duygusal bağlantısı olarak da görülmektedir. Bu çalışma, Burdur ili merkezinde yaşayan bireylerin bağlılık, geçmişle ile süreklilik, samimiyet algısı, dayanışma, sosyal bağlılığa dayanarak yaşanan il ile ilgili olarak yerleşim yeri kimliği ölçülmüştür. Çalışmadan elde edilen verilen anket yöntemi yardımı 500 kişi ile yüz yüze görüşme ile elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, yerleşim yeri kimliği boyutlarından bağlılık, geçmiş ile süreklilik, samimiyet algısı, dayanışma sosyal bağlılık yerleşim yerine bağlılık üzerinde doğrudan ve pozitif etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, yerleşim yerine bağlılık, sürdürülebilir tüketime karşı tutum ve sürdürülebilir tüketim davranışı üzerinde doğrudan ve pozitif etkili olduğu görülmüş ve son olarak sürdürülebilir tüketime karşı tutum sürdürülebilir tüketim davranışı üzerinde doğrudan ve pozitif etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmada, güçlü bir yerleşim yeri kimliğine sahip bireylerin mahallerine bağlı kalmaları olumlu sürdürülebilir tüketim tutum ve davranışını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Kısmi en küçük kareler yöntemi ile model testi gerçekleştirilmiş, tüketici davranışı, çevre psikolojisi ve pazarlama yazınından geliştirilen teorik bir model ampirik olarak doğrulanmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yerleşim Yeri Kimliği,Sürdürülebilir Tüketim,Sosyal Pazarlama.

Kaynakça

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
2. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.
3. Antonsich, M. (2010). Meanings of place and aspects of the Self: An interdisciplinary and empirical account. GeoJournal, 75 (1), 119–132.
4. Auty, S. ve Elliot, R. (1997). Social identity and the meaning of fashion brands. European Advances in Consumer Research. 3, 1–10.
5. Bagozzi, R. P. ve Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8-34.
6. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
7. Black, I. R. ve Cherrier, H. (2010). Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle: Daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 437–453.
8. Borer, M. I. (2006). The location of culture: The urban culturalist perspective. City & Community, 5(2), 173–197.

9. Brosius, N., Fernandez, K. V. ve Cherrier, H. (2013). Re-acquiring consumer waste: Treasure in our trash”?. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2), 286-301.
10. Burdur Valiliği. (2019). Erişim adresi: www.burdur.gov.tr, (Aralık 2019).
11. Cherrier, H., Black, I. R. ve Lee, M. (2011). Intentional non‐consumption for sustainability. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1757–1767.
12. Craig-Lees, M. ve Hill, C. (2002). Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 19 (2), 187–210.
13. Cuba, L. ve Hummon, D. M. (1993). A Place to call home: Identification with dwelling, community”, and region. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 111–131.
14. Dixon, J. ve Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other”. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 27–44.
15. Fisk, G. (1973). Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. Journal of Marketing, 37(2), 24–31.
16. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.
17. Forrest, R. ve Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125–2143.
18. Fraj, E. ve Martinez, E. (2007). Ecological consumer behaviour: an emprical analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(1), 26-33.
19. Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, (26), 463–496.
20. Hamşıoglu, A. B. (2018a). İçsel pazar yönlülük, pazarlama yetenekleri, örgütsel performans etkileşimi: Antalya ili otel işletmelerinde bir uygulama. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 187-203.
21. Hamşıoglu, A. B. (2018b). Pazar yönlülük ve örgüt stratejisinin işletme performansı üzerindeki etkisi: Bir araştırma-Kaynak tabanlı görüş perspektifinde-. International Journal of Disciplines Economic & Administrative Science Studies, 4(9), 437-451.
22. Hayta, A. B. (2009). Sürdürülebilir tüketim davranışının kazanılmasında tüketici eğitiminin rolü. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 413-151.
23. Huneke, M. E. (2005). The face of the un-consumer: An empirical examination of the practice of voluntary simplicity in the United States. Psychology and Marketing, 22(7), 527–550.
24. Karaca, Ş. (2018). Yaşam tarzının sürdürülebilir tüketim davranışı üzerindeki etkisini belirlemeye yönelik bir çalışma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(3), 403-425.
25. Kilbourne, W., McDonagh, P. ve Prothero, A. (1997). Sustainable consumption and the quality of life: A macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm. Journal of Macromarketing, 17(1), 4–24.
26. Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 285–303.
27. Larsen, G., Lawson, R., ve Todd, S. (2010). The symbolic consumption of music. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7/8), 671–685.
28. Lee, C. K. C., Yap, C. S. F. ve Levy, D. S. (2016). Place identity and sustainable consumption: implications for social marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(7), 578-593.
29. Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 87–96.
30. Lee, M., Roux, D., Cherrier, H. ve Cova, B. (2011). Anti-consumption and consumer resistance: Concepts, concerns, conflicts, and convergence. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1680– 1687.
31. McDonald, S., Oates, C. J., Young, C. W., ve Hwang, K. (2006). Toward sustainable consumption: Researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 515–534.
32. Milligan, M. J. (1998).Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21(1), 1–33.
33. Minton, A. P. ve Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37–48.
34. OECD. (1999). Towards more sustainable household consumption patterns indicators to measure progress. Paris: Working Group on the State of the Environment: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
35. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. ve Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83.
36. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freud, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K ve Thogersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and poblic policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31-48.
37. Rosenbaum, M. S. ve Montoya, D. Y. (2007). Am I welcome here? Exploring how ethnic consumers assess their place identity. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 206–214.
38. Rosnow, R. L. ve Rosenthal, R. (2012), Beginning Behavioral Research A Conceptual Primer, Seventh Edition, Pearson.
39. Sarstedt M. ve Cheah, J. H. (2019). Partial Least Squares Sructural Equation Modeling Using SmartPLS: A Software Review. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 7(3), 196-202.
40. Schembri, S., Merrilees, B. ve Kristiansen, S. (2010). Brand consumption and narrative of the self. Psychology and Marketing, 27(6), 623–637.
41. Shaw, D. ve Newholm, T. (2002). Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 167–185.
42. Sheth, J., Sethia, N. ve Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.
43. Smith, M. K. (2001). Community. The Encyclopedia of informal education. Erişim adresi: http://www.infed.org/community/community.htm, (05 Aralık 2019).
44. Stone, G., Barnes, J. H. ve Montgomery, C. (1995). Ecoscale: A scale for the measurement of environmentally responsible consumers. Psychology and Marketing, 12(7), 595-612.
45. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, (33), 1–39.
46. Thogersen, J. ve Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 605–630.
47. Thorbjornsen, H., Pedersen, P. E., ve Nysveen, H. (2007). This is who I am: Identity expressiveness and the theory of planned behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 24(9), 763-785.
48. Twigger-Ross, C. L. ve Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 205–220.
49. Uzzell, D., Pol, E., ve Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and enviornmental sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34(1), 26–53.
50. Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A. ve Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 91–98.
51. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W. ve Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences 14(1), 29–46.