Factors Contributing Ecological Footprint Awareness of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine ecological footprint awareness level of pre-service teachers who are majoring in three different programs of Teacher Education Department. The study also investigated whether there is a difference in ecological footprint awareness level based on gender, parents’ education, program of study, and longest lived place of residence. “Ecological Footprint Awareness Scale” which was developed by Coşkun & Sarıkaya (2014) was used as a data collection tool. The scale is a 5 point Likert type instrument which is composed of five dimensions related to food, shelter and mobility, water consumption, energy consumption, and waste management. One hundred and seventy pre-service teachers who are pursuing their third year in a College of Education of a medium size University located at northeast part of Turkey participated in the study. T-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data by utilizing SPSS statistical package. Results of the study revealed that the pre-service teachers’ awareness on ecological footprint is at a medium level; highest levels of awareness found in energy (X=4.15) and water consumption(X=3.83) dimensions. Least level of awareness detected in food dimension (X=3.04). Results of the study showed that pre-service teachers’ awareness level differed based on gender in food dimension of the scale (t=2.116, p

Analysing the Relationship between University Students’ Ecological Footprint and Their Connection with Nature and Pro-Environmental Attitude

“…Most studies have focused on exploring differences between countries [54,55] and few studies have explored individuals' ecological footprint [41]. Nevertheless, recent years have witnessed an increase in studies measuring university students' ecological footprint [56,57], which indicates the contribution of these calculators in determining the environmental awareness underpinning behaviours related to consumption habits and sustainable practices in universities [32].…”

The Ecological Footprint of Individual Members at the Army Support Base, Eastern Cape

“…Bayraktar recorded the same pattern in a study with Turkish pre-service teachers. 513 In the current study, males recorded a higher environmental footprint than females. According to Flint, a large environmental footprint can be the cause of a high carbon, transport, food, and goods footprint.…”

“…The possibility exists that the individuals in this group have large families and earn a high income, which enables them to purchase luxury goods from supermarkets and choose to have a dominantly meat diet instead of vegetables, something also postulated by researchers, such as Bayraktar and Sarkodie. 510,511 In general, departments in all categories of the environmental footprint achieved fairly similar results. Even if there were differences, these were not always significant.…”

“…According to Bayraktar, a high income relates to a high environmental footprint because of the purchasing power that the individual has. 509 It seems the carbon footprint and the carbon footprint (as a percentage of the environmental footprint) followed a similar pattern to the planet score and the environmental footprint. However, in the case of the carbon footprint as a percentage of the environmental footprint, Group 1 (HQ, Communication, HR, SWO and Control) recorded the highest carbon footprint as a percentage of the environmental footprint of 62,4 per cent, and catering, the lowest score of 57,2 per cent.…”

“…Results from various other studies indicate that males have a higher environmental footprint than females, while some researchers found no difference between genders, and some studies reported a higher environmental footprint for females. 545,546,547,548,549,550 Raj et al calculated a consumer footprint for students, and found three opinions in terms of the difference in gender EF: 551 y No difference was found between the environmental footprint of male and female participants; y Male participants had a higher environmental footprint than female participants; and y Female participants had a higher environmental footprint than male participants. 552 The three opinions above can be explained by the fact that, in some instances, men and women had similar lifestyles, travelled the same distances, consumed the same processed drinks and food, and used the same technology.…”