Türkiye'de Çevreye İlişkin Toplumsal Eğilimler: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz

Toplumsal çevresel değerler, çevreciliğin bir bileşeni olarak farklı boyutlarda araştırılmaktadır. Toplumsal çevresel değerler, bireylerin kendilerine yöneltilen çevresel konulardaki durumlara ilişkin tutum ya da tavır alışlarını ifade eder. Çevresel durumlar, ekonomik, gelişmeye ilişkin, endüstriyel, bilimsel ya da çevre ile ilgili her hangi bir durum olabilir. Bu bağlamda toplumsal çevresel değerler batı ülkelerinde daha yoğun olarak araştırılırken, batı dışı ülkelerde daha az yoğunlukta araştırılmaktadır. Gelişmekte olan bir ülke olan Türkiye’de çevresel konular giderek artan ölçüde kamuoyu ilgisini çekmektedir. Bununla birlikte Türkiye’de bir çevresel duyarlılığın oluşmakta olduğu söylenebilir. Bu araştırmada Türkiye’de çevresel toplumsal eğilimler araştırılacaktır. Çevresel toplumsal eğilimlerin incelenmesi bağlamında, çevre toplum ilişkilerini inceleyen iki temel yaklaşımdan söz etmek mümkündür: İnsan merkezli dünya görüşü ve doğa merkezli dünya görüşü. İnsan merkezli dünya görüşüne göre insanoğlu doğanın mutlak hakimi olduğuna ve doğanın insan kullanımı için araçsal bir öneme sahip olduğuna inanılır. Diğer yandan doğa merkezli dünya görüşüne göre doğa sadece insan kullanımı için araçsal bir öneme sahip değildir, doğa insan kullanımından bağımsız olarak kendi başına varlık alanıdır. Genel olarak toplumsal çevresel değerler, farklı toplumlarda, insan merkezlilikten doğa merkezliliğe doğru farklılıklar gösterebilmektedir. İnsan merkezli dünya görüşü daha çok “gelişme” olgusuna ağırlık verirken, doğa merkezli dünya görüşü daha çok doğa koruma olgusuna ağırlık vermektedir. Bu araştırmanın temel varsayımı ise, Türk toplumunun çevresel değerlerinin iki çevresel yaklaşım arasında bir yerde yer aldığı yönündedir. Bu araştırma bir uygulamalı alan araştırmasıdır. 2003 yılı yaz aylarında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın evreni 18 yaş ve üstü ve yasal ve kurumsal olarak bir kısıtlaması olmayan tüm Türkiye nüfusu olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemi ise tüm Türkiye’yi temsil eden 1028 kişi ve Çevre Bakanlığı Çalışanlarından oluşan 135 kişiden oluşmaktadır. Örneklem tekniği çok basamaklı tabakalı örneklemdir. Araştırma tekniği, tam yapılandırılmış kapalı uçlu sorulardan oluşan soru formunun belirlenen örneklem birimlerine yüz-yüze görüşme tekniği ile uygulanması şeklinde olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Türkiye

Public environmental attitudes as one of the components of the environmentalism have been investigated for many respects. Public environmental values have been assumed as responses of people to given environmental issues or circumstances. The given issues or circumstances might be economical, developmental, industrial, scientific or anything related to environment. In this respect, public environmental values extensively have been investigated in the western countries and lesser extend in the non-western countries. Turkey is as a developing country that environmental issues have taking more public attention for last few decades in there. Therefore, an environmental awareness has been emerging in Turkish public. This present research aims to investigate public environmental values in Turkey. There are two main stream perspectives to evaluate relationship between society and the environment in the environmental sociology literature: The anthropocentric worldview and the eco-centric worldview. The anthropocentric worldview mainly underlines that human-being is the dominator of the natural environment and natural environment has valued for human usage. On the other hand, according to the eco-centric worldview, natural environment has valued for not (only) human usage, it is valued for its own sake too. In general, it is assumed that public environmental awareness varies from the anthropocentric form to the eco-centric form. The anthropocentric form of public awareness is more development oriented and by definition human oriented, and the eco-centric form of public awareness is more environment oriented. In this research, however, it is assumed that Turkish people’s environmental attitudes are in between of the anthropocentric form and the eco-centric from of public awareness. This research is an applied field research conducted summer of 2003 in Turkey. The research population is all Turkish population with aging over 18 years old and non-institutionalized. The research sampling is 1028 and assumed to represent all general public and 135 represent experts on the environment who work in Turkish Ministry Environment and Forestry. The sampling technique used in this research is a multi-stage stratified sampling. The data collected by using face-to-face interview and the interview questionnaire has been constructed with fully structured close-ended questions.

Keywords:

Turkey,

PDF

___

ALBRECHT, Don, Gordon BULTENA, Eric HOIBERG ve Peter NOWAK 1982 “Measuring Environmental Concern: The New Environmental Paradigm Scale.” Journal of Environmental Education. 13(3):39-43.

ARCURY, Thomas A. 1990 “Environmental Attitude and Environmental Knowledge.” Human Organization. 49(4):300-4.

ARCURY, Thomas A. and Timothy P. JOHNSON 1987 “Public Environmental Knowledge: A Statewide Survey.” Journal of Environmental Education. 18:31-37.

BOWMAN, James S. 1977 “Public Opinion and Environment: Post-Earth Day Attitudes Among College Students” Environment and Behavior. 9(3):385-395.

BUTTEL, Frederick H. 1978 “Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm?” The American Sociologist. 13:252-256.

BUTTEL, Frederick H. ve William L. FLINN. 1974 “The structure of support for the Environmental Movement, 1968-1970.” Rural Sociology. 39(1):56-69.

BUTTEL, Frederick H. and Donald E. JOHNSON 1977 “Dimensions of Environmental Concern: Factor Structure, Correlates, and Implications for Research.” Journal of Environmental Education. 9:49-64.

BUTTEL, Frederick H. ve William L. FLINN 1978 “The Politics of Environmental Concern: The İmpacts of Party Identification and Political Ideology on Environmental Attitudes.” Environment and Behavior. 10(1):17-35.

BUTTEL, Frederick ve Peter TAYLOR 1994 Environmental Sociology and Global Environmental Change: A Critical Assessment.” Ed: M. Redclift and T. Benton. Social Theory and the Global Environment. Routledge, London.

CANAN, Penelope 1996 “Brining Nature Back in: The Challenge of Environmental Sociology.” Sociological Inquiry. 66(1):29-37.

CATTON, William R. ve Riley DUNLAP 1978 “Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm.” The American Sociologist. 13:41-49.

CATTON, William R. ve Riley DUNLAP 1980 “A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology.” American Behavioral Scientist. 24(1):15-47.

CLUCK, Rodney, Duane A. GILL, Ralph BROWN ve Xiaohe XU 1997 “Attitudes Towards and Commitment to Environmentalism: A Multidimensional Conceptualization. (Paper presented at the 60th meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August, 1997)

COTTRELL, Stuart P. ve Alan R. GRAEFE 1997 “Testing a Conceptual Framework of Responsible Environmental Behavior.” The Journal of Environmental Education. 29(1):17-27.

DOBSON, Andrew (ed) 1991 The Green Reader: Essays Toward a Sustainable Society. San Francisco, Mercury House.

DUNLAP, Riley E. 1975 “The Impact of Political Orientation on Environmental Attitudes and Actions.” Environment and Behavior. 7(4):428-453.

DUNLAP, Riley E. and William R. CATTON 1994 “Struggling with Human Exemptionalism: The Rise, Decline and Revitalization of Environmental Sociology.” The American Sociologist. Spring, 1994: 5-30.

DUNLAP, Riley E. ve Kent D. VAN LIERE 1978 “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm.’” Journal of Environmental Education. 9(Summer):10-19.

DUNLAP, Riley E. ve Kent D. VAN LIERE 1984 “Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and Concern for Environmental Quality.” Social Science Quarterly. 65(4):1013-28.

ECKERSLEY, Robyn 1996 Environmentalism and Political Theory. State University of New York Press, New York.

EDER, Klaus 1996 The Social Construction of Nature: A Sociology of Ecological Enlightenment. Sage Publication,. London.

FREUDENBURG, R. William 1991 “Rural-Urban Differences in Environmental Concern: A Closer Look.” Sociological Inquiry. 61(2):35-45.

FREUDENBURG, R. William ve Kenneth KEATING 1985 ”Applying Sociology to Policy: Social Science and the Environmental Impact Statement.” Rural Sociology. 505(4): 578-605.

GOLDBLATT, David 1996 Social Theory and the Environment. Westview Press.

HANNIGAN, John A. 1995 Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. Routledge, London and New York.

HARPER, Charles L. 1996 Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues. Printice Hill, New Jersey.

INGLEHART, Ronald 1995 “Changing Values, Economic Development and Political Change.” International Social Science Journal. 145(Sep.):379-403.

HARPER, Charles L. 1996 Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues. Printice Hill, New Jersey.

KEMPTON, Willett, James S. BOSTER, ve Jennifer A. HARTLEY 1995 Environmental Values in American Culture. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

LENSKI, Gerhard E. 1966 Power Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

LOVELOCK, James 1991 “The Gaia Hypothesis.” Ed: Andrew Dobson. The Green Reader: Essays Toward a Sustainable Society. Mercury House Incorporated, San Francisco.

MILBRATH, Lester W. 1984 Environmentalists: Vanguard for New Society. State University of New York Press, Albany.

MOHAI, Paul ve Ben W. TWIGHT 1987 “Age and Environmentalism: An Elaboration of the Buttel Model Using National Survey Evidence.” Social Science Quarterly.

MOL, Arthur P.J. ve Gert SPAARGAREN 1993 “Environment, Modernity and the Risk-Society: The Apocalyptic Horizon of Environmental Reform.” International Sociology. 8(4):431-459.

NAESS, Arne 1991 “Deep Ecology” The Green Reader: Essays Toward a Sustainable Society. Ed: Andrew Dobson. Mercury House, Incorporated, San Francisco.

RAMSEY, Charles E. ve Roy E. RICKSON 1976 “Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes.” Journal of Environmental Education. 8:10-18.

STERN, Paul C., Thomas DIETZ ve Linda KALOF 1993 “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior. 25(3):322-348.

TARRANT, Michael A. ve H. Ken CORDELL. 1997 “The Effects of Respondent Characteristics on Environmental Attitude-Behavior Correspondence.” The Journal of Environmental Education. 29(5):618-637.

TUNA, Muammer 1997 Environmentalism: An Empirical Test of Multi-Effects on Environmental Attitudes in more and Less Developed Countries, Unpublished Dissertation, Mississippi State University, USA.

TUNA, Muammer 2002 “Globalization of Environmentalism:World Environmentalism System,” Paper presented at the XV. World Congress of Sociology and published: http://203.94.129.73/docs/p1702.rtf

YEARLY, Steven 1994 “Social Movement and Environmental Change.” Ed: M. Redclift and T. Benton. Social Theory and the Global environment. Routledge, London.