3.1. Findings on Carbon Footprint, Ecological Footprint and Individual Behaviors
In the research, the carbon footprint and ecological footprint values of the participants were calculated. The results regarding the carbon footprint and ecological footprint levels of the participants are shown in
Table 2.
As can be seen in
Table 2, it has been determined that the carbon footprint of the participants is “moderate (3.1–7 t CO
2-e)” and the ecological footprint is similarly “moderate (1.1–1.8 gha/required world number)”. However, the proportion of participants with a high carbon footprint (13.8%) is substantial. Considering that the carbon footprint is an important component in the ecological footprint, it is expected that both footprint results will be consistent. However, considering that only individual behaviors/activities, that is direct/primary footprints, are taken into account in the calculation of these footprints, it should not be ignored that the total footprint values of the participants will be much higher together with the indirect/secondary footprints. The carbon footprint average (6500) calculated by considering only the individual behaviors/activities of the participants is at the average damage level, while the ecological footprint average is almost equal to the existing biological productive area.
According to the results of the two-way chi-square test conducted to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the gender, age, education level, place of residence and carbon footprint and ecological footprint values of the participants, there is no significant relationship between gender and carbon footprint level ( = 0.336; p = 0.845, p > 0.05) and ecological footprint level ( = 1.290; p = 0.525, p > 0.05). Between the place of residence (village, town, district center, city center) and carbon footprint level ( = 7.147; p = 0.307, p > 0.05) and ecological footprint level ( = 4.438; p = 0.618, p > 0.05) there is no significant relationship. There is no significant relationship between age and ecological footprint level ( = 15.230; p = 0.763, p > 0.05) and education and ecological footprint level ( = 3.915; p = 0.865, p > 0.05). However, there is a significant relationship between age and carbon footprint level ( = 35,540; p = 0.017, p < 0.05) and education and carbon footprint level ( = 16.302; p = 0.038, p < 0.05). Considering these results, it can be seen that there is a significant relationship between carbon footprint and age and education level. The growth of carbon footprint as individuals get older is explainable and expected. As a matter of fact, the use of vehicles (such as transportation vehicles), products (such as processed food) and natural resources (such as water) that increase the amount of carbon emissions increase as age progresses and therefore the amount of carbon emissions increases. The significant relationship between education level and carbon emissions can be explained especially in relation to income status. In the study, although the participants did not specify their income level exactly, it can be said that there is an increase in the use of vehicles and products that increase carbon emissions because they have a job and spend at the rate of their wages. The values that emerge in the ecological footprint calculation are more meaningful when evaluated together with the biological productive areas of the societies. In this context, it can be stated that there is no significant difference in the individual behaviors that affect the ecological footprint of individuals according to the variables of gender, age, education level, and place of residence.
In the present research, we also tried to determine the most important individual behaviors that affect the carbon footprint and ecological footprint level. According to the results of the two-way chi square test conducted to determine whether there is a significant relationship between carbon footprint and ecological footprint values:
There is a significant relationship between water usage and carbon footprint level in the shower ( = 40.296; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), reservoir usage status and carbon footprint level ( = 21.577; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), water use and carbon footprint level in tooth brushing ( = 19.190; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), using water-saving products and carbon footprint level ( = 23.745; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), amount of meat consumed and carbon footprint level ( = 152.531; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), the use of locally produced/organic/natural food products and the carbon footprint level ( = 25.566; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), convenience food consumption and carbon footprint level ( = 12.063; p = 0.002, p < 0.05), use of packaged products and carbon footprint level ( = 15.061; p = 0.001, p < 0.05), vehicles used and carbon footprint level ( = 265.618; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), means of transportation and carbon footprint level ( = 108.625; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), house used for housing and carbon footprint level ( = 27.462; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), using energy and energy efficient products and carbon footprint level ( = 26.356; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), clothing use and carbon footprint level ( = 40,701; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), the amount of garbage produced and the carbon footprint level ( = 246.005; p = 0.000, p < 0.05).
There is a significant relationship between water usage and ecological footprint level in the shower ( = 972.166; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), water use and ecological footprint level in tooth brushing ( = 326.474; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), using water-saving products and ecological footprint level ( = 165.391; p = 0.003, p < 0.05), amount of meat consumed and ecological footprint level ( = 1195.923; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), use of locally produced/organic/natural food products and the ecological footprint level ( = 175,544; p = 0.009, p < 0.05), ready-made food consumption and ecological footprint level ( = 249.435; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), tools used and ecological footprint level ( = 1042.265; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), means of transportation and ecological footprint level ( = 738.246; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), house and ecological footprint level used for housing ( = 573.988; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), using energy and energy saving products and ecological footprint level ( = 210.638; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), clothing use and ecological footprint level ( = 727.043; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), the amount of garbage produced and the ecological footprint level ( = 823.158; p = 0.000, p < 0.05).
From the individual behaviors discussed in the research, the following items emerged as the situations that increase the carbon and ecological footprint the most: Taking a shower where the water is left on for a long time, leaving the water on while brushing, using the toilet at full capacity or leaving the water on, not using water-saving products, consuming more meat and products daily, consuming more food and processed products brought from afar rather than from the immediate environment consuming ready meals, using more packaged products, using more vehicles with high carbon emissions (refrigerator, washing machine, etc.), using fossil fueled transportation vehicles, using houses larger than needed, using more energy, not using energy-saving products, having more clothes than necessary, the behaviors of producing too much garbage and not contributing to recycling.
Based on the variables of the research (gender, age, education level, and place of residence), according to the results of the two-way chi-square test conducted to determine whether there is a significant relationship between the individual behaviors that determine the carbon and ecological footprint level, there is a significant relationship between gender and transportation vehicles ( = 15.817; p = 0.001, p < 0.05), and gender and the amount of garbage produced ( = 37.136; p = 0.000, p < 0.05). There is a significant relationship between the use of organic/natural food products produced in the place of residence and in the immediate vicinity ( = 23.350; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), place of residence and means of transportation ( = 22.951; p = 0.006, p < 0.05), the place of residence and the house used for shelter ( = 268.467; p = 0.000, p < 0.05). There is a significant relationship between using wet and water-saving products ( = 38.676; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), age and amount of meat consumed ( = 60.214; p = 0.001, p < 0.05), age and consumption of ready meals ( = 44.207; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), age and using packaged products ( = 29.794; p = 0.001, p < 0.05), age and vehicles used ( = 157.628; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), age and means of transportation ( = 59.803; p = 0.001, p < 0.05), age and the amount of garbage produced ( = 66,865; p = 0.000, p < 0.05). There is a significant relationship between education level and use of water in the shower ( = 31.335; p = 0.012, p < 0.05), the level of education and the use of locally produced/organic/natural food products ( = 24.164; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), education level and fast food consumption ( = 15.899; p = 0.003, p < 0.05), education level and means of transportation ( = 71.433; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), education level and the house used for housing ( = 44.856; p = 0.000, p < 0.05), education level and clothing use ( = 27.255; p = 0.007, p < 0.05).
3.2. Findings on Reducing Ecological Footprint with Individual Behaviors
In this study, we tried to determine the state of awareness of the participants towards reducing the ecological footprint and what behaviors they performed in order to reduce the ecological footprint individually in their lives. In this context, the awareness of the participants towards reducing the ecological footprint is shown in
Table 3.
When the findings related to the Awareness Scale for Reducing Ecological Footprint and its sub-dimensions are examined in
Table 3, it is seen that the highest average is in the sub-dimension within the scope of the law. This is followed by energy, water consumption, food, recycling, and transportation. It can be stated that the general average of the scale is “high”. It can be concluded that the enforcement power of laws, energy, water and food consumption, recycling and transportation have an important place in awareness and behaviors towards reducing the individual ecological footprint.
The findings regarding the comparison of the participants’ awareness of reducing the ecological footprint by gender are shown in
Table 4.
According to
Table 4, there is no significant difference between the mean rank of female participants (386.88) and the mean rank of male participants (387.21) in the awareness of reducing the ecological footprint (U = 67,963; Z = −0.020;
p > 0.05). This finding is similar to the behavior of individuals based on the ecological footprint calculation. Gender does not make a significant difference in the awareness of reducing the ecological footprint, in addition to the value in the calculation of the ecological footprint.
The findings regarding the comparison of the participants’ awareness of reducing the ecological footprint by age are shown in
Table 5.
As can be seen in
Table 5, there is a significant difference between the mean scores of awareness for reducing the ecological footprint according to age, and the calculated effect size was found to be very high (
= 90.184;
p = 0.000,
p < 0.05; η
2 = 0.112). The results of the Mann-Whitney U Test, which was conducted to determine between which groups the significant difference was listed is in the following paragraph.
There is a significant difference with the participants aged 10–13 and 56–60, in favor of the participants aged 56–60, and the effect size is moderate (U = 280; Z = −2.775; p < 0.05; r = −0.34). There is a significant difference with the participants aged 14–17 and 41–45, In favor of the participants aged 41–45, and the effect size is moderate (U = 2664.5; Z = −3.689; p < 0.05; r = −0.30). There is a significant difference between the participants aged 14–17 and 46–50, in favor of the participants aged 46–50, and the effect size is moderate (U = 1921.5; Z = −4.403; p < 0.05; r = −0.34). There is a significant difference with the participants between the ages of 14–17 and 51–55, in favor of the participants aged 51–55, and the effect size is moderate (U = 1170.5; Z = −3.956; p < 0.05; r = −0.35). There is a significant difference between the participants aged 14–17 and 56–60, in favor of the participants aged 56–60, and the effect size is moderate (U = 397; Z = −3.605; p < 0.05; r = −0.38). There is a significant difference with the participants between the ages of 14–17 and 61 and above, in favor of the participants aged 61 and above, and the effect size is moderate (U = 163; Z = −2.567; p < 0.05; r = −0.30).
There is a significant difference with the participants aged 18–24 and 41–45, in favor of the participants aged 41–45, and the effect size is moderate (U = 3044.5; Z = −4.914; p < 0.05; r = −0.34). There is a significant difference with the participants aged 18–24 and 46–50, in favor of the participants aged 46–50, and the effect size is moderate (U = 2082.5; Z = −5.830; p < 0.05; r = −0.43). There is a significant difference with the participants between the ages of 18−24 and 51−55, in favor of the participants aged 51–55, and the effect size is moderate (U = 1344; Z = −4.843; p < 0.05; r = −0.40). There is a significant difference with the participants aged 18–24 and 56–60, in favor of the participants aged 56–60, and the effect size is moderate (U = 415; Z = −4.426; p < 0.05; r = −0.42). There is a significant difference with the participants between the ages of 18–24 and 61 and above, in favor of the participants aged 61 and above, and the effect size is moderate (U = 165.5; Z = −3.149; p < 0.05; r = −0.32).
There is a significant difference with the participants aged 25–30 and 41–45, in favor of the participants aged 41–45, and the effect size is moderate (U = 2207; Z = −4.748; p < 0.05; r = −0.35). There is a significant difference with the participants aged 25–30 and 46–50, in favor of the participants aged 46–50, and the effect size is moderate (U = 1528.5; Z = −5.510; p < 0.05; r = −0.43). There is a significant difference with the participants aged 25–30 and 51–55, in favor of the participants aged 51–55, and the effect size is moderate (U = 986.5; Z = −4.669; p < 0.05; r = −0.41). There is a significant difference with the participants aged 25–30 and 56–60, in favor of the participants aged 56–60, and the effect size is moderate (U = 313; Z = −4.265; p < 0.05; r = −0.45). There is a significant difference with the participants between the ages of 25–30 and 61 and above, in favor of the participants aged 61 and above, and the effect size is moderate (U = 119.5; Z = −3.172; p < 0.05; r = −0.36).
Table 6 shows the findings for the comparison of the participants’ awareness of reducing the ecological footprint by education level.
As can be seen in
Table 6, there is no significant difference between the mean scores of awareness about reducing ecological footprint according to education level (
= 2.777;
p = 0.596,
p > 0.05). It is a remarkable result that there is no significant difference and relationship in the awareness of ecological footprint reduction according to education level. This situation can be explained by the fact that subjects and/or studies related to ecology and ecological footprint are not adequately covered in educational institutions. As a matter of fact, the inclusion of content/studies on the development of behaviors towards reducing the ecological footprint of participants under the age of 40 in formal and non-formal education institutions, as well as in traditional learning tools such as television, may change this situation.
The findings regarding the comparison of the awareness of the participants to reduce the ecological footprint according to the place of residence are shown in
Table 7.
As can be seen in
Table 7, there is no significant difference between the mean scores of awareness of reducing the ecological footprint according to the place of residence (
= 0.541;
p = 0.910,
p > 0.05). It is an important finding that there is no significant difference or relationship in the awareness of reducing the ecological footprint according to the place of residence. It can be stated that this situation shows that there is no difference between rural and urban living conditions, and that individuals continue their lives with similar behaviors and habits under similar conditions in the production-consumption-distribution life network, even if the place of residence is a village or a city center.