Elektronik Atık Elden Çıkarma Davranışı: Davranışsal ve Teknolojik Faktörler Çerçevesinde Nitel Bir Analiz
Öz
Sürdürülebilirlik günümüzün en önemli konularından biri olmasına rağmen, tüketicilerin sürdürülebilir elden çıkarma kavramına ilgisi sınırlıdır. Elektronik atık söz konusu olduğunda, bazı tüketiciler sürdürülebilirlikten kaçınma eğilimi bile gösterebilmektedir. Bu çalışma, tüketicilerin elektronik atık elden çıkarma davranışlarını ve bu süreci teşvik eden ya da engelleyen faktörleri incelemektedir. Amaçlı örnekleme ile seçilen 11 katılımcıyla yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış mülakatlar, MAXQDA programıyla tematik analiz yöntemi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, ekonomik fayda beklentisi ve erişilebilir geri dönüşüm altyapısının sürdürülebilir elden çıkarmayı teşvik ettiğini; güvensizlik, farkındalık eksikliği ve altyapı yetersizliklerinin ise engelleyici faktörler olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, tüketici davranışlarını iyileştirmek için öneriler sunarken, politika yapıcılar ve uygulayıcılar için rehber niteliğindedir. Bulguların, elektronik atık yönetimi stratejilerinin geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayacağı öngörülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Elektronik Atık Sürdürülebilir Elden Çıkarma Davranışı Nitel Araştırma
Etik Beyan
Etik Kurul Onayı: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Proje ID: 005926, Toplantı Tarihi: 28.01.2024
Destekleyen Kurum
Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi
Proje Numarası
This study is supported within the scope of the TÜBİTAK project with the code 124K224.
Kaynakça
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. [CrossRef]
- Baldé, C. P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., & Stegmann, P. (2017). The global e-waste monitor 2017: Quantities, flows and resources. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).
- Bocken, N. M. P., Pauw, I. De, Bakker, C., & Van Der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. [CrossRef]
- Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. Harper Business.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
- Chen, M. F., & Tung, P. J. (2010). The moderating effect of perceived lack of facilities on consumers’ recycling intentions. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 824–844. [CrossRef]
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
- Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. [CrossRef]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. [CrossRef]
- Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The global e-waste monitor 2020: Quantities, flows, and the circular economy potential. United Nations University.
- Kahhat, R., & Williams, E. (2009). Product or waste? Importation and end-of-life processing of computers in Peru. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(15), 6010–6016. [CrossRef]
- Kaffash, S., Nguyen, A. T., Zhu, J., & Sardar, M. (2021). Waste management in developing countries: What can we learn from the European experience? Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124958. [CrossRef]
- Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Sage.
- Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. [CrossRef]
- Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.
- Parajuly, K., Fitzpatrick, C., Muldoon, O., & Kuehr, R. (2019). Behavioral change for the circular economy: A review with focus on electronic waste management in the EU. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 34–57. [CrossRef]
- Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
- Peattie, K. (1992). Green marketing. Longman Publishing.
- Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. Sage.
- Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data. Sage.
- Song, Q., Wang, Z., & Li, J. (2012). Residents’ behaviors, attitudes, and willingness to pay for recycling e-waste in Macau. Journal of Environmental Management, 106, 8–16. [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2022). Global e-waste monitoring report 2022. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org
- Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., & Böni, H. (2021). Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(5), 436–458. [CrossRef]
- Ylä-Mella, J., Poikela, K., Lehtinen, U., Tanskanen, P., & Román, E. (2020). Electronic waste management practices in the EU: Extended producer responsibility challenges and limitations. Waste Management, 31(6), 998–1006. [CrossRef]
Electronic Waste Disposal Behavior: A Qualitative Analysis in the Framework of Behavioral and Technological Factors
Öz
Sustainability is one of the most critical issues of our time. Although sustainability is such a popular topic, the concept and methods of sustainable disposal occupy a very limited space in the minds of consumers. When it comes to different waste groups such as electronic waste, consumers may even show a tendency to avoid sustainability-related behavior. This study examines consumers' electronic waste disposal behaviors and the factors that encourage or hinder this process. Semi-structured interviews conducted with 11 participants selected through purposeful sampling were evaluated using the MAXQDA program and the thematic analysis method. The findings show that expectations of economic benefit and accessible recycling infrastructure encourage sustainable disposal, while insecurity, lack of awareness, and inadequate infrastructure act as hindering factors. The study offers suggestions to improve consumer behavior and serves as a guide for policy makers and practitioners. The findings are expected to meaningfully contribute to the development of electronic waste management strategies.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Electronic Waste Sustainable Disposal Behavior Qualitative Research
Etik Beyan
Ethics Committee Approval: Yıldız Technical University, Project ID: 005926, Meeting Date: 28.01.2024
Destekleyen Kurum
Yıldız Technical University
Proje Numarası
This study is supported within the scope of the TÜBİTAK project with the code 124K224.
Kaynakça
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. [CrossRef]
- Baldé, C. P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., & Stegmann, P. (2017). The global e-waste monitor 2017: Quantities, flows and resources. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).
- Bocken, N. M. P., Pauw, I. De, Bakker, C., & Van Der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. [CrossRef]
- Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. Harper Business.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
- Chen, M. F., & Tung, P. J. (2010). The moderating effect of perceived lack of facilities on consumers’ recycling intentions. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 824–844. [CrossRef]
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
- Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. [CrossRef]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. [CrossRef]
- Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The global e-waste monitor 2020: Quantities, flows, and the circular economy potential. United Nations University.
- Kahhat, R., & Williams, E. (2009). Product or waste? Importation and end-of-life processing of computers in Peru. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(15), 6010–6016. [CrossRef]
- Kaffash, S., Nguyen, A. T., Zhu, J., & Sardar, M. (2021). Waste management in developing countries: What can we learn from the European experience? Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124958. [CrossRef]
- Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Sage.
- Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. [CrossRef]
- Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.
- Parajuly, K., Fitzpatrick, C., Muldoon, O., & Kuehr, R. (2019). Behavioral change for the circular economy: A review with focus on electronic waste management in the EU. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 34–57. [CrossRef]
- Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
- Peattie, K. (1992). Green marketing. Longman Publishing.
- Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2014). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. Sage.
- Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data. Sage.
- Song, Q., Wang, Z., & Li, J. (2012). Residents’ behaviors, attitudes, and willingness to pay for recycling e-waste in Macau. Journal of Environmental Management, 106, 8–16. [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2022). Global e-waste monitoring report 2022. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org
- Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., & Böni, H. (2021). Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(5), 436–458. [CrossRef]
- Ylä-Mella, J., Poikela, K., Lehtinen, U., Tanskanen, P., & Román, E. (2020). Electronic waste management practices in the EU: Extended producer responsibility challenges and limitations. Waste Management, 31(6), 998–1006. [CrossRef]
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Tüketici Davranışı |
| Bölüm | Araştırma Makaleleri |
| Yazarlar | |
| Proje Numarası | This study is supported within the scope of the TÜBİTAK project with the code 124K224. |
| Erken Görünüm Tarihi | 13 Temmuz 2025 |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 15 Temmuz 2025 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 18 Şubat 2025 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 12 Haziran 2025 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2025 Cilt: 39 Sayı: 3 |
Content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License