You are here

GENÇLERİN DOĞAYA İLİŞKİN DEĞER YÖNELİMLERİ VE DOĞA TERCİHLERİ

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
In this study were examined the value orientations for nature and nature preferences. The study was carried with 14 students of Hacettepe University's variousfaculties. Data were collected by semi-structured interviews and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The majority of students preferred the structured nature for recreational purposes. The most preferred of nature element by the students were the "water" and "vegetation”. The “utilitarian” and “naturalistic” orientations were found as the most common value orientations by students. No relationship found between nature preferences and value orientations.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu araştırmada doğaya ilişkin değer yönelimleri ve doğa tercihleri incelenmiştir. Araştırma, Hacettepe Üniversitesi’nin çeşitli fakültelerinden 14 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme ile toplanmış ve nitel içerik analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak öğrencilerin çoğunluğu insanlar tarafından rekreasyon amaçlı şekillendirilmiş olan doğayı tercih etmiştir. Öğrenciler tarafından en çok tercih edilen doğa unsuru “su” ve “bitki örtüsü” olmuştur. Öğrencilerde en yaygın olarak bulunan değer yönelimleri faydacı ve doğacı değerlerdir. Doğa tercihleri ve değer yönelimleri arasında bir bağlantı bulunmamıştır.
92-99

REFERENCES

References: 

Adevi, A. A. & Grahn P. (2012). Preferences for Landscapes: A Matter of Cultural Determinants or Innate
Reflexes that Point to Our Evolutionary Background? Landscape Research, 37, No. 1, 27–49.
Anderson, L.M., Stokes, G.S. (1989). Planting in parking lots to improve perceived attractiveness and security. J.
Arboric. 15 (1),7–10.
Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. Chichester: Wiley.
Bixler, R.D., Floyd, M.F., 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable. Environ. Behav. 29, 443–467.
Bögeholz, S. (2006). Nature experience and its importance for environmental knowledge, values and action:
Recent German empirical contributions, Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 65-84.
Bögeholz, S. (1999): Qualitäten primärer Naturerfahrung und ihr Zusammenhang mit Umweltwissen und
Umwelthandeln. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H. M. & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images
of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 113–123.
Coss, R. G. (1991) Evolutionary persistence of memory-like processes concepts, Neuroscience, 2, pp. 129–168.
Coss, R. G. & Moore, M. (1990) All that glistens: Water connotations in surface finishes, Ecological Psychology,
2, pp. 367–380.
Dervişoğlu, S. (2010). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Canlı Türlerine Yönelik Değer Yönelimleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 132-141.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological
Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Hunter, M. L. & Brehm, J. M. (2004). A Qualitative Examination of Value Orientations Toward Wildlife and
Biodiversity by Rural Residents of the Intermountain Region. Human Ecology Review, 11 (1), 13-26.
Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape
preferences. Landscape Urban Plan. 59, 1–11.
Kellert, S. 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Korpela, K.M., Klemettila, T., Hietanen, J.K., (2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental
scenes. Environ. Behav. 34, 634–650.
Kutru, Z. & Soran, H. (2012). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Doğa Algıları. Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi,
27-30 Haziran. Tam Metinler. http://kongre.nigde.edu.tr/xufbmek/dosyalar/tam_metin/pdf/2439-
30_05_2012-20_10_28.pdf(Erişim tarihi: 04. 11. 2012)
Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Beltz Verlag. Weinheim und Basel, 170 S.
Menzel, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Values, Beliefs and Norms That Foster Chilean and German Pupils’
Commitment to Protect Biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(1), 31-49.
Nassauer, J. I. (1988) The aesthetics of horticulture, HortScience, 23, 973–977.
Orians, G. H. (1986) An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics, in: E. C. Penning-Rowsell
& D. Lowenthal (Eds) Landscape Meanings and Values, pp. 3–22 (London: Allen and Unwin).
Özgüner, H. & Kendle, A.D. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city
of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74, 139–157.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for
social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology, 6, 81-97.
Talbot, J.F., Kaplan, R., (1984). Needs and fears: the response to trees and nature in the inner city. J. Arboric. 10
(8), 222–228.
Thompson, S., C. & Barton, M., A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14 (2), 149-157.
Ulrich, R. S. (1993) Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes, in: S. A. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds) The
Biophilia Hypothesis, pp. 73–137 (Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater.
Ulrich, R.S., 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Altman, I., Wohlwill, J.F. (Eds.),
Behavior and the Natural Environment, Human Behavior and Environment. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 85–
125.
Williams, K.J.H. and Cary, J. (2002) Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection.
Environ. Behav. 34, 257–274.
Wilson, E. (1984) Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yang, B.E., Brown, T.J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape
elements. Environ. Behav. 24 (4), 471–507.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com