FOTO SAFARİ ETKİNLİKLERİNE KATILAN BİREYLERİN EKOLOJİK DÜNYA GÖRÜŞLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Bu araştırmanın amacı foto safari etkinliğine katılan turistlerin/rekreasyonistlerin ekolojik dünya görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve katılımcıların demografik özellikleri ile ekolojik dünya görüşleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesidir. Araştırmanın evrenini Bingöl’de gerçekleştirilen foto safari etkinliği oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak anket formundan faydalanılmıştır. Toplamda 436 katılımcıya ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılan ekolojik dünya görüşü ölçeğinin geçerlilik, güvenilirlik ve dağılım normalliği analizleri yapıldıktan sonra araştırma sorusu ve hipotezlerin testine geçilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre katılımcıların ekolojik dünya görüşlerinin ortalaması 3,87 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Katılımcıların en fazla katıldığı ifade “doğada insanlar kadar bitki ve hayvanlar da hakka sahiptir” (X=4,10) olmuştur. Ayrıca katılımcıların eğitim düzeyleri arttıkça ekolojik dünya görüşlerinin de arttığı tespit edilmiştir (F=5,505, p=0,000). Diğer yandan katılımcıların cinsiyeti (p=0,182), medeni durumu (p=0,225) ve yaş aralıkları (F=1,104, p=0,347) ile ekolojik dünya görüşleri arasında bir ilişkiye rastlanılmamıştır.

INVESTIGATION OF ECOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN PHOTO SAFARI ACTIVITIES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the ecological worldview of the tourists/recreationists participating in the photo safari activity and to investigate the relationship between the participants' demographic characteristics and ecological worldview. The population of his research is the photo safari activity in Bingöl. In the research, questionnaire form was used as data collection technique. A total of 436 participants were reached. After analyzing the validity, reliability and normality tests of the ecological worldview scale, the research questions and hypotheses were tested. According to the results of the research, the average of the participants' ecological worldview was found to be 3.87. The most common statement of the participants was “Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist” (X = 4,10). In addition, as the educational level of the participants increased, ecological worldview also increased (F=5,505, p=0,000). On the other hand, no relationship was found between the participants' gender (p=0,182), marital status (p=0,225) and age (F=1,104, p=0,347) and ecological worldview.

PDF

___

Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., & Nowak, P. (1982). The new environmental paradigm scale, Environment and Behavior, 13, 39-43.
Algan, E. (2007). Fotoğrafın İlk Yüz Yılı, Belgesel Fotoğrafçılık ve Sayısal Gelecek, Anadolu Sanat Dergisi, 18, 87-100.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Clifton, J., & Benson, A. (2006). Planning for sustainable ecotourism: The case for research ecotourism in developing country destinations. Journal of sustainable tourism, 14(3), 238-254.
Cotgrove, S. (1982). Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment, politics and the future. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Divinagracia, L. A., Divinagracia, M. R. G., & Divinagracia, D. G. (2012). Digital media-induced tourism: The case of nature-based tourism (NBT) at East Java, Indonesia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 85-94.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal o f Environmental Education, 9(Summer), 10-19.
Dunlap, R. (1980). Paradigmatic change in social science. American Behavioral Scientist. 24(I), 5-14.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Edgell, M. C. R., & Nowell, D. E. (1989). The new environmental paradigm scale: Wildlife and environmental beliefs in British Columbia. Society and Natural Resources, 2, 285-296.
Farrell, T., Hall, I., & White, D. (2001). Willderness Campers, Perception and Evaluation Of Campsite Impacts, Journal of Leisure Research, 33(3), 229-250.
Geller, J. M., & Lasley, P. (1985). The new environmental paradigm scale: A reexamination. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(1), 9-12.
Görmez, K. (2003). Çevre Sorunları ve Türkiye, Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 40(3), 414-433.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2013). Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Education Limited.
Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: An examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context. Environment and behavior, 36(2), 157-186.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kement, Ü., & Bükey, A. Doğa ve kültür fotoğrafçılığı kapsamında rekreasyonel motivasyonun demografik özelliklere göre incelenmesi. Tourism and Recreation, 1(1), 23-30.
Kuhn, J. L. (2000). Theoretical and empirical study of the dominant social and ecological paradigms: A survey of the California State legislature. Institute: California Institute of Integral Studies.
Lawson, S. R., Roggenbuck, J. K., Hall, T. E., & Moldovanyi, A. (2006). A Conjoint Analysis Of Preference Heterogenity Among Day And Overnight Visitors To The Okefenokee Wilderness, Journal Of Leisure Research, 38(4), 575-600.
Lo, I. S., McKercher, B., Lo, A., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2011). Tourism and online photography. Tourism management, 32(4), 725-731.
Luo, Y., & Deng, J. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm and nature-based tourism motivation. Journal of Travel research, 46(4), 392-402.
Lück, M. (2003). The 'New Environmental Paradigm': Is the scale of Dunlap and Van Liere applicable in a tourism context? Tourism Geographies, 5(2), 228-240.
Morosan, C., & Jeong, M. (2008). The Role of the Internet in The Process of Travel Information Search. Information Technology in Hospitality, 5(1), 13-23.
Olson, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Viewing the World ecologically. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature o f human values. New York: Free Press.
Schwepker, C. H., & Cornwell, T. B. (1991). An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to purchase ecologically packaged products. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 77-101.
Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977), See also W. Benjamin,“Short History of Photography,” Phil Patton, translation, Art Forum, 15, 46-51.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and behavior, 27(6), 723-743.
TOBB (1996). Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Mahalli İdarelerin Yeniden Yapılandırılması (Yerel Yönetimler Reformu), Şubat, Ankara.
Urry, J. (1990). The Consumption of Tourism. Sociology, 24(1): 23-35.