SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 65 Sayı: 1

PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS IN TÜRKIYE: A SCALE DEVELOPMENT STUDY

TÜRKİYE'DE ÇEVRECİ DAVRANIŞLAR: BİR ÖLÇEK GELİŞTİRME ÇALIŞMASI

Ece Ceren Akkaya(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3031-9509
Erkin Sarı(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2162-5558
Merve Nur Şahin(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1422-1923
Yağmur Rumeli(University of Amsterdam)0000-0003-1223-6902
Elif Darıcı(JANDARMA VE SAHİL GÜVENLİK AKADEMİSİ, JANDARMA VE SAHİL GÜVENLİK FAKÜLTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-6088-750X
Gülden Sayılan(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0923-1668
Pages
157–187
Publication Date
2025-06-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We expect this new scale to be useful for environmental research in Türkiye, especially in the behavioral sciences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The increase in the global temperature, wildfires, and droughts that occurred in the past decades have presented a preview of what would happen if people do not start taking action to protect the environment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In a pilot study, we created a pool of 52 items with subject matter experts on environmental psychology.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We expect this new scale to be useful for environmental research in Türkiye, especially in the behavioral sciences.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:çevreci davranış · çevrecilik · iklim değişikliği

Abstract

The increase in the global temperature, wildfires, and droughts that occurred in the past decades have presented a preview of what would happen if people do not start taking action to protect the environment. Considering the importance of human actions to save the planet, we developed a culture-specific tool to measure pro-environmental behaviors in Türkiye, one of the most polluted countries in Europe. In a pilot study, we created a pool of 52 items with subject matter experts on environmental psychology. Then, we conducted two studies to develop and validate the Turkish Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (TPEBS). In Study 1, we examined the scale's factor structure on a sample of college students (N = 454). Exploratory factor analysis resulted in an 18-item, 4-factor structure explaining 58.68% of the total variance. Factors were identified as environmental literacy (5 items), reducing waste (5 items), collective action (2 items), and environmentally conscious consumption (6 items). The scale’s internal consistency was psychometrically sound (Cronbach’s α = .88), and the positive correlations with the Environmental Attitude Scale and the New Ecological Paradigm Scale supported the convergent validity. In Study 2, we tested the dimensionality of the TPEBS through confirmatory factor analysis (N = 449), and the structure showed an acceptable fit with the data. We expect this new scale to be useful for environmental research in Türkiye, especially in the behavioral sciences.

Özet

Geçtiğimiz yıllardaki küresel sıcaklık artışı, orman yangınları ve kuraklıklar, insanların çevreyi korumak için harekete geçmemeleri halinde neler olabileceğinin bir göstergesi niteliğindedir. Gezegeni kurtarmada insan eylemlerinin önemini göz önünde bulundurarak, bu çalışmada, Avrupa'nın çevresel olarak en çok kirlenen ülkelerinden biri olan Türkiye'de çevreci davranışları ölçmek için kültüre özgü bir araç geliştirilmiştir. Pilot çalışmada, çevre psikolojisi konusunda uzman kişilerle birlikte 52 maddelik bir havuz oluşturulmuştur. Daha sonra, Türkiye Çevreci Davranış Ölçeği'ni geliştirmek ve doğrulamak için iki çalışma yürütülmüştür. Birinci çalışmada, ölçeğin faktör yapısı üniversite öğrencilerinden oluşan bir örneklem üzerinde incelenmiştir (N = 454). Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda toplam varyansın %58,68'ini açıklayan 18 maddelik, 4 faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Faktörler çevre okuryazarlığı (5 madde), atıkların azaltılması (5 madde), kolektif eylem (2 madde) ve çevreye duyarlı tüketim (6 madde) olarak belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığı psikometrik olarak sağlamdır (Cronbach's α = .88) ve uyum geçerliliği Çevresel Tutum Ölçeği ve Yeni Çevresel Paradigma Ölçeği ile pozitif korelasyonlarla desteklenmiştir. İkinci çalışmada, ölçeğin faktör yapısı doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmiş (N = 449), ve yapı, verilerle kabul edilebilir bir uyum göstermiştir. Bu yeni ölçeğin Türkiye'deki çevre araştırmalarında, özellikle de davranış bilimlerinde faydalı olması beklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akkaya, E. C., Sarı, E., Şahin, M. N., Rumeli, Y., Darıcı, E., Sayılan, G. (2025). PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS IN TÜRKIYE: A SCALE DEVELOPMENT STUDY. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 65 Sayı: 1, 157–187. https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2025.65.1.6

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (90)

  1. Akkaya, E. C., Genç, M., & Alkar, Ö. Y. (2024) Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Form of the Pro-Nature Conservation Behavior Scale. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 16(Supplement 1), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1521276
  2. Akkaya, E. C., & Yalçinkaya Alkar, Ö., (2022). Çevreci Davranış Ölçeği’nin Uyarlanma Çalışmasından Öğrendiklerimiz. Psikolojide Çevre ve İklim Değişikliği Çalışmaları Sempozyumu, Çanakkale, Türkiye.
  3. Akkuş, A. (2020). Creating an environmental attitude scale. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(7), 188–203.
  4. Alisat, S., & Riemer, M. (2015). The Environmental Action Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 13–23. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.006
  5. Altman, M. J. (2023). How biodiversity loss harms human health? United Nations Foundation. unfoundation.org/blog/post/how-biodiversity-loss-harms-humanhealth/? gclid=CjwKCAjw_aemBhBLEiwAT98FMtOt5B2kNju3IboSqiAZOj0SLi3xPxgQ 5FohzIwsIwSpeHVkMr9SlRoCu5UQAvD_BwE
  6. Ardahan, F. (2022). Ortaokul ve Lise Öğrencileri İçin Çevresel Davranış Ölçeği Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlilik Çalışması. Journal of Global Sport and Education Research, 5(2), 27–42. doi.org/10.55142/jogser.1100042
  7. Ardoin, N., Heimlich, J., Braus, J., & Merrick, C. (2013). Influencing conservation action: What research says about environmental literacy, behavior, and conservation results. National Audubon Society.
  8. Awang, Z. (2012). A handbook on SEM. Structural equation modeling.
  9. Bektaş, F., & Şirin, E. F. (2018). Yeni Çevresel Paradigma Ölçeği İle Dağcıların Çevreye Yönelik Tutumlarının Değerlendirilmesi. Türk Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 20–26.
  10. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  11. Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257–278. doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599
  12. Blankenberg, A.-K., & Alhusen, H. (2019). On the determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A literature review and guide for the empirical economist. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3473702
  13. Bratt, C., Stern, P. C., Matthies, E., & Nenseth, V. (2015). Home, car use, and vacation. Environment and Behavior, 47(4), 436–473. doi.org/10.1177/0013916514525038
  14. Brick, C., Sherman, D. K., & Kim, H. S. (2017). “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 226–238. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004
  15. Brinkman, W. P. (2009). Design of a questionnaire instrument. In Handbook of mobile technology research methods (pp. 31-57). Nova Publishers.
  16. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  17. Candar, İ. (2022). Go green but why? The dynamic interplay between motivational reasons and pro-environmental behaviors displayed in private and public spheres (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bilkent University.
  18. Casey, P. J., & Scott, K. (2006). Environmental concern and behaviour in an Australian sample within an ecocentric – anthropocentric framework. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(2), 57–67. doi.org/10.1080/00049530600730419
  19. Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. Academic Press. Copernicus Climate Service (2023, June). Surface air temperature for June 2023. climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-june-2023
  20. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications.
  21. de Young, R. (1985). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: The role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 15(4), 281–292. doi.org/10.2190/3FWV-4WM0-R6MC-2URB
  22. Dunlap, R. E. ve van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19. doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
  23. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Emmet Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
  24. Erdoğan, M., Ok, A., & Marcinkowski, T. J. (2012). Development and validation of children’s responsible environmental behavior scale. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 507–540. doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.627421
  25. Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2017). Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: A review of the evidence. Ecological Economics, 140, 1-13. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017
  26. Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2018). A Social Identity Model of Pro-Environmental Action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245–269. doi.org/10.1037/rev0000090
  27. Fu, L., Zhang, Y., Xiong, X., & Bai, Y. (2017). Pro-environmental awareness and behaviors on campus: Evidence from Tianjin, China. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1). doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/77953
  28. Gardner, G., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Allyn & Bacon.
  29. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
  30. Gordon, A. (2024, July 30). Turkey Passes ‘Massacre Law’ to Remove Stray Dogs From Streets. Time. https://time.com/7005319/turkey-stray-dogs-massacre-law/ Greenpeace UK (n.d.). What are the solutions to climate change? www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/climate-change/solutions-climate-change/
  31. Hadler, M., Klösch, B., Schwarzinger, S., Schweighart, M., Wardana, R., & Bird, D. N. (2022). Measuring environmental attitudes and behaviors. In Surveying Climate- Relevant Behavior (pp. 15–35). Springer International Publishing. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85796-7_2
  32. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986-1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
  33. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121. doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
  34. Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100-120. doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100108
  35. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  36. 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.
  37. iklimBU (2018). İklim Değişikliği. http://climatechange.boun.edu.tr/iklimdegisikligi/# nedenleri
  38. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Retrieved from www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
  39. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Retrieved from www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf
  40. İpar, M. S. (2018). Perceptions of tourists on green hotel preferences, the relationship between environmental behavioral tendencies and behavioral intentions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
  41. IQAir (2022). Live most polluted major city ranking. www.iqair.com/world-air-qualityranking Johanson, G. A., & Brooks, G. P. (2010). Initial scale development: sample size for pilot studies. Educational and psychological measurement, 70(3), 394-400. DOI: 10.1177/0013164409355692
  42. Kaaronen, R. O. (2017). Affording sustainability: Adopting a theory of Affordances as a guiding heuristic for environmental policy. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1974. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01974
  43. Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: the specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1531–1544. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003
  44. Kanbur, E., Kanbur, A., & Özdemir, B. (2022). Çevresel Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 13(30), 16–28. doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1144223
  45. Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 111–133. doi.org/10.1177/0013916596281006
  46. 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. doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
  47. Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
  48. Lange, F., & Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63(665501), 92–100. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
  49. Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B., & Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112-124. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
  50. Lee, T. H., Jan, F.-H., & Yang, C.-C. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 454–468. doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.012
  51. Levine, D. S., & Strube, M. J. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviors among college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(3), 308–326. doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2011.604363
  52. Levitus, S., Antonov, J., Boyer, T., Baranova, O., Garcia, H., Locarnini, R., Mishonov, A., Reagan, J., Seidov, D., Yarosh, E., Zweng M. (2017). NCEI ocean heat content, temperature anomalies, salinity anomalies, thermosteric sea level anomalies, halosteric sea level anomalies, and total steric sea level anomalies from 1955 to present calculated from in situ oceanographic subsurface profile data (NCEI Accession 0164586). National Centers for Environmental Information www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landingpage/ bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.nodc:0164586
  53. Liobikienė, G., & Poškus, M. S. (2019). The Importance of Environmental Knowledge for Private and Public Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior: Modifying the Value-Belief- Norm Theory. Sustainability, 11(12), 3324. doi.org/10.3390/su11123324
  54. Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41(6), 905–914. doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8
  55. Mateer, T. J., Melton, T. N., Miller, Z. D., Lawhon, B., Agans, J. P., & Taff, B. D. (2022). A multi-dimensional measure of pro-environmental behavior for use across populations with varying levels of environmental involvement in the United States. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0274083. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274083
  56. McIntire, S. A., & Miller, L. A. (2005). Foundations of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing.
  57. Milfont, T. L., & Schultz, P. W. (2016). Culture and the natural environment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 194–199. doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.009
  58. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2023, July 6). How do we know climate change is real? climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
  59. National Centers for Environmental Information (2023, July 13). Assessing the global climate in June 2023. www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202306
  60. Nkaizirwa, J. P., Nsanganwimana, F., & Aurah, C. M. (2021). Reexamining the measurement of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors to promote sustainable development: A systematic review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(9). doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11138 NOAA's National Ocean Service (n.d.). What can I do to protect coral reefs? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ocean/earthday.html
  61. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill.
  62. O'Shaughnessy, S., & Kennedy, E. H. (2010). Relational activism: Re-imagining women's environmental work as cultural change. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 35(4), 551- 572.
  63. Özkan, B., Tuğluk, M. N., & Yiğitalp, N. (2019). Environmental sustainability scale for children 60-72 months old: A validity and reliability study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 8(1), 32. doi.org/10.11114/jets.v8i1.4485
  64. Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology (pp. 224–239). The Guilford Press.
  65. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (2021). Environmental indicators. webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/icerikler/c-evresel-go-stergeler--ng-l-zce- 20220124123608.pdf
  66. Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2017). Toward a new measure of organizational environmental citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 75, 57–66. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.007
  67. Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. v., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962
  68. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (second edition). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  69. Sontay, G., Gökdere, M., & Usta, E. (2015). The study of scale developing related to the environmental literacy component on the secondary school level. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 49–80.
  70. Soutter, A. R. B., Bates, T. C., & Mõttus, R. (2020). Big Five and HEXACO personality traits, proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 913–941. doi.org/10.1177/1745691620903019
  71. Soylu, Y. (2019). Environmental behavior and environmental purchasing behavior of visitors participating recreational activities in nature destinations: Case of Kapadokya, Köprülü Kanyon and Kazdağları (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
  72. Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269–302. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001413
  73. Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., & Howard, G. S. (2011). Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist, 66(4), 251-264. doi.org/10.1037/a0023472
  74. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  75. Tam, K.-P., & Chan, H.-W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213–223. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.001
  76. Tam, K.-P., & Milfont, T. L. (2020). Towards cross-cultural environmental psychology: A state-of-the-art review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101474. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101474
  77. Tian, H., & Liu, X. (2022). Pro-environmental behavior research: Theoretical progress and future directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6721. doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116721
  78. Timur, S. & Yılmaz, M. (2013). Çevre Davranış Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(2), 317–333.
  79. Udall, A. M., de Groot, J. I. M., De Jong, S. B., & Shankar, A. (2021). How I See Me-A Meta- Analysis Investigating the Association Between Identities and Pro-environmental Behaviour. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 582421. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.582421 United Nations (n.d.). Actions for a healthy planet. www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions
  80. Van Lange, P. A. M., Van Vugt, M., Meertens, R. M., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (1998). A social dilemma analysis of commuting preferences: The roles of social value orientation and trust. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(9), 796–820. doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1998.tb01732.x
  81. Velicogna, I., Mohajerani, Y., A, G., Landerer, F., Mouginot, J., Noel, B., Rignot, E., Sutterley, T., Van den Broeke, M., Van Wessem, M., & Wiese, D. (2020). Continuity of ice sheet mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica from the GRACE and GRACE followon missions. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(8). doi.org/10.1029/2020gl087291
  82. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F. & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84. doi.org/10.2307/270754
  83. Whitmarsh, L. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29,13–23. doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003
  84. Wilson, D. C., & Velis, C. A. (2015). Waste management – still a global challenge in the 21st century: An evidence-based call for action. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 33(12), 1049–1051. doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15616055
  85. World Glacier Monitoring Service (2023, February 2). How are our glaciers doing? wgms.ch/ World Wildlife Fund (n.d.). Türkiye 2030’a Kadar Emisyonlarını Yüzde 35 Azaltmalı. wwf.org.tr/?12740/2030-Iklim-Hedefi
  86. World Wildlife Fund (n.d.). Türkiye’nin İklim Politikası. wwf.org.tr/ne_yapiyoruz/iklim_degisikligi_ve_enerji/iklim_degisikligi/kuresel_iklim_ degisikligi_ve_turkiye/turkiyenin_iklim_politikasi/
  87. Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
  88. Yuriev, A., Boiral, O., Francoeur, V., & Paillé, P. (2018). Overcoming the barriers to proenvironmental behaviors in the workplace: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 379–394. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.041
  89. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism.
  90. Akkaya, E. C., & Yalçinkaya Alkar, Ö., (2022). Çevreci Davranış Ölçeği’nin Uyarlanma Çalışmasından Öğrendiklerimiz. Psikolojide Çevre ve İklim Değişikliği Çalışmaları Sempozyumu, Çanakkale, Türkiye.