Because individual responses to environmental threats typically contribute more to collective than individual wellbeing, some identification with the collective may be important. Environmental identity predicts proenvironmental behaviors. Could a national identity also serve as a motivator? The present paper examines predictors of environmental concern and behavior in Turkey, with a particular focus on the role of national and environmental identity. We surveyed 808 Turkish university students and found strong endorsement for statements reflecting a cultural value for the environment. Turkish national identity also correlated with environmental identity, concern, behavior, and attributions of responsibility, although it did not contribute additional variance to the criterion variables once other predictors were included. We conclude that national identity may incorporate pro-environmental attitudes and is a promising arena for pro-environmental interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamanF.Gök EnF.ZenginobuzU. (2003). Political economy of citizens' participation in environmental improvement: The case of Istanbul. In SeippelO.GöksenF.O'brienM.AdamanF.ZenginobuzU.GrolinJ. (Eds.), Integrating and Articulating Environments (pp. 73–90). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
2.
Al DamkhiA. M. (2008). Environmental ethics in Islam: Principles, violations, and future perspectives.International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65 (1), 11–31.
3.
AlpE.ErtepinarH.TekkayaC.YilmazA. (2008). A survey on Turkish elementary school students' environmental friendly behaviors and associated variables.Environmental Education Research, 14 (2), 129–143.
4.
BuchanN.BrewerM.GrimaldaG.WilsonR.FatasE.FoddyM. (2011). Global social identity and global cooperation.Psychological Science, 22, 821–828.
5.
CameronJ. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity.Self and Identity, 3, 239–262
6.
ClaytonS. (2000). Models of justice in the environmental debate.Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 459–474.
7.
ClaytonS. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In ClaytonS.OpotowS. (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
ClaytonS. (2012). Environment and identity. In ClaytonS. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of conservation and environmental psychology (pp. 164–180). New York: Oxford.
9.
DavidO.Bar-TalD. (2009). A sociopsychological conecption of collective identity: The case of national identity as an example.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 354–379.
10.
ErdurO. (1997). Reappropriating the “Green”: Islamist Environmentalism.New Perspectives on Turkey, 17, 151–66.
11.
FieldingK. S.HeadB. W. (2012). Determinants of young Australians' environmental actions: The role of responsibility attributions, locus of control, knowledge and attitudes.Environmental Education Research, 18 (2), 171–186.
12.
FrameB.NewtonB. (2007). Promoting sustainability through social marketing: Examples from New Zealand.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (6), 571–581.
13.
GelissenJ. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations.Environment and Behavior, 39 (3), 392–415.
14.
GoksenF.AdamanF.ZenginobuzE. U. (2002). On environmental concern, willingness to pay, and postmaterialist values: Evidence from Istanbul.Environment and Behavior, 34 (5), 616–633.
15.
HernándezB.MartínA. M.RuizC.HidalgoM.DelC. (2010). The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3), 281–288.
16.
HernándezB.SuárezE.Corral-VerdugoV.HessS. (2012). The relationship between social and environmental interdependence as an explanation of proenvironmental behavior.Human Ecology Review, 19 (1), 1–9.
17.
IgnatowG. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society: Reconsidering environmental attitudes and concern.Environment and Behavior, 38 (4), 441–461.
18.
Karakitapoglu-AygunZ.ImamogluE. O. (2002). Value domains of Turkish adults and university students. TheJournal of Social Psychology, 142, 333–351.
19.
KaiserF. G.ShimodaT. A. (1999). Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behavior.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 243–253.
20.
KieslingF. M.ManningC. M. (2010). How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological gardening practices.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3), 315–327.
21.
KilinçA. (2010). Can project based learning close the gap? Turkish student science teachers and proenvironmental behaviours.International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5 (4), 495–509.
22.
KilinçA.BoyesE.StanisstreetM.SkampK.RodriguezM.MalandrakisG.FortnerR.TaylorN.ChhokarK.DuaS.AmbusaidiA.CheongI.KimM.YoonH. G. (September 2010). Energy generation and global warming: can science education lead to proenvironmental action? Paper presented at 9th Turkish National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, 23–25 September 2010, Izmir.
23.
KluckhohnF. (1953). Dominant and variant value orientations. In KluckhohnC.MurrayH. A.SchneiderD. M. (Eds.), Personality in nature, society and culture (2nd ed., pp. 342–366). New York: Knopf.
24.
KrosnickJ.HolbrookA.VisserP. (2000). The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion.Public Understanding of Science, 9, 239–260.
25.
KvalçB.FinseraasH.ListhaugO. (2012). The publics' concern for global warming: A cross- national study of 47 countries.Journal of Peace Research, 49 (1), 11–22.
26.
MccraeR. R.TerraccianoA. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (3), 407–425.
27.
OzdemirI. (2005). The development of environmental consciousness in modern Turkey. In FoltzR. (Ed.), Environmentalism in the Muslim World (pp. 17–36). New York: Nova.
28.
RadloffW. (2009). Turkluk ve Samanlik (Turks and Shamanism) Istanbul: Orgun Yayinevi
29.
SarigolluE. (2009). A cross-country exploration of environmental attitudes.Environment and Behavior, 41, 365–386.
30.
ScannellL.GiffordR. (2010). The relations between natural and civic place attachment and proenvironmental behavior.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3), 289–297.
31.
StedmanR. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity.Environment and Behavior, 34, 561–581.
32.
StegL.DegrootJ. (2012). Environmental values. In ClaytonS. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81–92) New York: Oxford University Press.
TaskinO. (2009). The environmental attitudes of Turkish high school students in the context of postmaterialism and the new environmental paradigm.International Journal of Science Education, 31 (4), 481–502.
35.
TuncerG.ErtepinarH.TekkayaC.SungurS. (2005). Environmental attitudes of young people in Turkey: Effects of school type and gender.Environmental Education Research, 11, 215–233.
36.
Van VugtM. (2002). Central, individual, or collective control? Social dilemma strategies for natural resource management.American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 783–800.
37.
VaskeJ.KobrinK. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior.Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 16–21.
