You are here

Home » Content

Geri Dönüşüm Sembolü Farkındalığını Etkileyen Faktörler; Ankara Örneği

Factors Affecting Awareness of Recycling Symbol; The Case of Ankara

Journal Name:

  • Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2017
DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.13002/jafag4292

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The present study was conducted to investigate awareness of the household about recycling symbol and their attitudes towards the recycle of packaging wastes in Turkey. The research data were gathered through questionnaires filled by 272 households in Ankara Province in February-March of the year 2013. Logit model was employed and model estimations were performed. According to the research findings most of solid wastes are collected from waste repositories and streets in primitive and unhealthy manners and only the half of packaging wastes are able to be recycled. Since these wastes are most of the time mixed with organic wastes, they are not able to be fully recycled. According to logit model results; age, level of education and income were found to be significant factors affecting awareness and attitudes of the households about recycling symbol. As the households get older, awareness of recycling symbol rate decreased. Level of education had positive impacts on awareness of recycling symbol. Increasing educational levels also increased the ratio of awareness households. Increased income has a negative impact on recycling symbol awareness.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada; Türkiye'de hane halkının geri dönüşüm sembolü farkındalığı ve onların ambalaj atıklarının geri dönüşümüne yönelik tutumları araştırılmıştır. Araştırma verileri 272 hane halkından anket yöntemiyle 2013 Şubat- Mart döneminde Ankara’da elde edilmiştir. Logit model kullanılarak model tahminleri yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre, ambalaj atıkların çoğu çöp depolarından ve sokaklardan ilkel ve sağlıksız bir şekilde toplanmakta ve sadece ambalaj atıklarının yarısı geri dönüştürülebilmektedir. Bu atıklar çoğun zaman organik atıklarla karıştırıldığı için tamamen geri dönüştürülememektedirler. Logit model sonuçlarına göre; yaş, eğitim düzeyi ve gelirin, hane halkının geri dönüşüm sembolü hakkındaki bilinç ve tutumlarını etkileyen önemli faktörler olduğu belirlenmiştir. Yaşın artması, geri dönüşüm sembolü farkındalığı oranı azalmıştır. Eğitim düzeyi, geri dönüşüm sembolü farkındalığını pozitif etkilemiştir. Artan eğitim seviyesi aynı zamanda hane halkı geri dönüşüm sembolü farkındalığı da artırmıştır. Artan gelir geri dönüşüm sembolü farkındalığı üzerinde negatif etki yapmıştır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-geri-donusum-sembolu-farkindaligini-etkileyen-faktorler-ankara-ornegi.pdf
  • 3
210
217
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Akçay H (2008). GS. Recycle of Packaging Wastes and
Küçükçekmece Example. (Master Thesis) Gebze
Institute of Technology. Environmental Engineering
Department. Gebze.
Altuntop et.al. (2014). Gaining the Economics of the
Household Waste TR62 (Adana, Mersin) Region.
Çukurova Development Agency.
Amemiya T (1983). Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge
MA Harvard University.
Armağan G and Akbay C.(2007). An Econometric
Analysis of Urban Households’’ Animal Product
Consumption in Turkey. Applied Economics; S:1-8.
Anonymous a (2014). Packaging and the Environment.
Packaging Manufacturers Association,
http://www.ambalaj.org.tr
Anonymous b (2014). Ministry of Environment and
Urbanization. www.csb.gov.tr.
Anonymous c (2013). With Statistics Ankara, Ankara
Development Agency, Ankara.
Anonymous d (2013). ‘Environmental Indicators 2012’,
Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Ankara.
Anonymous e (2008). Waste Management Action Plan
2008-2012, TC Ministry of Environment and Forestry,
General Directorate of Environmental Management,
Apaydın Ö et al (2011). Investigation of Household
Approach Separation Process in the Resources of
Recoverable Solid Waste to in The Besiktas and
Üsküdar District. Engineering and Science Journal; 3:
17-26.
Cankurt M et al (2010) A Study on Determination of
Factors Affecting the Cattle Meat Preferences: The
Case of Izmir Province. Animal Production. 51 (2):
16-22.
Ege İ and Bayrakdaroğlu A (2009). Analysis of Stock
Returns the Success of the Company With Logistic
Regression Technique. Zonguldak Karaelmas
University Social Sciences Journals. 5(10):139-158.
Engindeniz S and Çukur F (2003). A Study on Technical
and Economic Analysis of Peach Production in İzmir
Province Kemalpaşa District. Ege University Faculty
of Agriculture Journal. 40 (2): 65-72.
Gujarati DN (1992). Essentials Of Econometrics, Mc
Graw-Hill, New York.
Gujarati DN (1995). Basic Econometrics. (Translated by:
Ü Şenesen and GG Şenesen ). Literatür Publishing.
Istanbul.
Güner Y (2008). Investigation of Domestic Solid Waste
Recoverability in Pendik District. (Master Thesis),
Gebze Institute of Technology. Environmental
Engineering Department. Gebze.
Miran B (2003). Basic statistics. Ege University Press.
ISBN 975-9308800 Bornova, İzmir. Norusis,
M.J.(1988), SPSS/PC + Advanced Statistics V2.0 for
the IBM PC/XT/AT and PC/2.SPSS Inc. Chicago
Illinois, U.S.A.
216
GÜLSE BAL et. al. / JAFAG (2017) 34 (3), 210-217
Pazarlıoğlu et al (2007). Using Econometric Modelling To
Predict Demand For Fluid and Farm Milk: A Case
Study from Turkey. Food Quality and Preference.
18:416–424.
Ünal Z (2011). Terms of Sustainable Development
Packaging Recycling Waste: A Collection Separation
Plant in Linear Programming Application. Nigde
University. Institute of Social Sciences. Department of
Business Administration. Production Management and
Marketing Department. M.Sc. Nigde.
Yetim A (2014). General View of Recycling Industries In
the World and Situation in Turkey.Izmir Chamber of
Commerce. Industry R & D Newsletter.

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