Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle Differences According to Generations within the Scope of Responsible Consumption
Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle Differences According to Generations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v11i7.1222-1230.6075Keywords:
Responsible Consumption, Simple Lifestyle, Generations, Sivas, MinimalismAbstract
In recent years, simple lifestyle and differences between generations have been the subject of interest within the scope of responsible consumption, which is a component of sustainability. In the context of responsible consumption that serves the purposes of sustainable development, the voluntary simple lifestyle is important in terms of giving information about the structure of a society. Although the voluntary simple lifestyle gives information about the social structure, the differentiations in the generations can affect the voluntary simple lifestyles. The aim of this article is to analyze the differences between the voluntary simple lifestyle according to the X, Y and Z generations. In the study, using the Voluntary Simple Living Scale consisting of 21 items and 6 socio-demographic questions, data were collected through questionnaires from 414 people in Sivas, Turkiye, face-to-face and via social media. The Kruskal Wallis Test was used to test the significance of the difference between generations and voluntary simple lifestyles. According to the results of the research, it was understood that the X generation adopted the voluntary simple lifestyle more than the Y and Z generations. Similarly, when the Y and Z generations were compared, it was revealed that the Y generation adopted a voluntarily simple lifestyle compared to the Z generation. As a result, the reason why X and Y generations are more sensitive to voluntary simple living can be explained by the fact that they have faced social problems in their historical background, they were raised in difficult times and their life experiences are more than the Z generation.
References
Altunışık R, Recai C. ve Yıldırım, E. 2012. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri, Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
Babaoğul, M, Buğday, E. B. 2012. Gösteriş Tüketimine Karşı Gönüllü Sadelik, (Tüketici Yazıları İç. Editör: Prof. Dr. Müberra Babaoğul, Prof. Dr. Arzu ŞENER, Uzm. Esna Betül Buğday), Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları: Ankara
Baydaş, A., Sezer, A. ve Kanoğlu, MF. 2021. Hedonik Tüketimin Etkilerinin Araştırılması Tüketici Satın Alma Davranışı Kapsamında Gönüllü Sadelik Yaşam Tarzına İlişkin Nedenler Nesiller X, Y, Z . Sosyal Bilimlerde Güncel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(4), 451-474
Black, I. R, Cherrier, H. 2010. Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle: Daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values, Journal of Consumer Behaviour J. Consumer Behav. 9: 437–453
Bookchin, M. 2019. Özgürlüğün Ekolojisi, Hiyerarşinin Ortaya Çıkışı, Sümer Yayıncılık: İstanbul
Chang, H.H. 2021. Exploring consumer behavioral predispositions toward voluntary simplicity, Current Psychology, 40:731–743
Dabija, D.-C., et al. 2018. "Generation X versus Millennials communication behaviour on social media when purchasing food versus tourist services." E+M Ekonomie a Management 21: 191-205.
Duran, V, Ekici, G. 2021 Sürdürülebilir Çevre (Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma iç. Editör: Nurettin Özgen, Mustafa Kahyaoğlu) Pegem Akademi: Ankara
Durmuş, H. 2022. Aşırı Tüketim ve İsraf; Çözüm Olarak Orta Yollu Tüketim, International Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance Studies, 2022/3, 272-298
Druică, E, Vâlsan, C, Puiu, A.-I. 2022. Voluntary Simplicity and Green Buying Behavior: An Extended Framework. Energies, 15, 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15051889
Guillen-Royo, M. 2019. Sustainable consumption and wellbeing: Does on-line shopping matter? Journal of Cleaner Production 229, 1112- 1124
Hayta, A. B. 2012. Ekonomik Krizin Tüketicilerin Satın Alma Davranışı Üzerine Etkileri (Tüketici Yazıları İç. Editör: Prof. Dr. Müberra BABAOĞUL, Prof. Dr. Arzu ŞENER, Uzm. Esna Betül BUĞDAY), Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları: Ankara
Hüttela, A, Balderjahna, I, Hoffmann, S. 2020. Welfare Beyond Consumption: The Benefits of Having Less, Ecological Economics 176-106719
Iwata,O. 2006. An Evaluatıon of Consumerısm and Lıfestyle As Correlates of A Voluntary Sımplıcıty Lıfestyle, Socıal Behavıor and Personalıty, 34(5), 557-568
İrge, N.T, Karaduman, İ. 2018. X ve Y kuşaklarında Gönüllü Sadelik Algısının Tüketici Karar Tarzlarına Etkisi, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi Journal of Business Research--‐Turk 10/3, 120-143
Jang,Y.J.,et al, 2011. Generation Y consumers’ selection attributes and behavioral intentions concerning green restaurants, Int.J.Hospitality Manage, doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.12.012
Kang, J, Martinez, C. M. J, Johnson, C. 2021. Minimalism as a sustainable lifestyle: Its behavioral representations and contributions to emotional well-being, Sustainable Production and Consumption 27,802–813
Laor, T, Galily, Y. 2022. Who’S clicking on on-demand? media consumption patterns of generations Y ve Z, Technology in Society, 70, 102016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102016
Lloyd, Kasey, Pennington, William, Towards a Theory of Minimalism and Wellbeing, 2020, International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 5:121–136
Matthias, F., et al. 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment." Sustainability, 2, 3309-3322; doi:10.3390/su2103309
McCrindle, M. 2014. The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the Global Generations, McCrindle Research Pty Ltd: AUST.RALIA
McCrindle, M. and A. Fell. 2020. Understandıng Generatıon Alpha. McCrindle Research Pty Ltd: AUST.RALIA
Meissner, M. 2019. Against accumulation: lifestyle minimalism, de-growth and the present post-ecological condition, Journal of Cultural Economy, 12:3, 185-200, DOI: 10.1080/17530350.2019.1570962
Özgül, E. 2010. Tüketicilerin Değer Yapılar, Gönüllü Sade Yaşam Tarzı ve Sürdürülebilir Tüketim Üzerine Etkileri, H.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 28, Sayı 2, s. 117-150
Singh, P. B., Kamal, K. Pandey. 2012. Green Marketıng: Polıcıesand Practıces For Sustaınable Development, Integral Review- A Journal of Management, Volume 5, No. 1, June-2012,pp 22-30
Subramanian, K.R. 2017. The Generation Gap and Employee Relationship, International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 7: 6, 59-67.
Skeirytė, A, Krikštolaitis, R, Liobikienė, G. 2022. The differences of climate change perception, responsibility and climate-friendly behavior among generations and the main determinants of youth’s climate-friendly actions in the EU, Journal of Environmental Management, 323, 116277. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2022.116277
Stillman, D., Stillman J. 2019. İşte Z kuşağı Genç Kuşak İş Yerini Nasıl Dönüştürüyor? (çev. Duygu Pınar Kayıhan, Ferhat Erduran) İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yayınları: İstanbul
Taş, S. 2020. Tüketim Karşıtı Yaşam Tarzları: Freeganizm, Gönüllü Sadelik ve Minimalizm, Toplum ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı/Issue: 6, Sayfa/Page:38-64
TUİK 2023. İstatistik Veri Portalı, İl Bazında Kişi Başına Gayrisafi Yurt İçi Hasıla, 2004-2021, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Ulusal-Hesaplar-113 (Erişim 20.03.2023).
Veblen, T. B. 2005. Aylak Sınıfın Teorisi (çev. Zeynep Gültekin, Cumhur Atay), Babil Yayınevi: İstanbul
Walther, C. S, Sandlin, J. A. 2011. Green capital and social reproduction within families practising voluntary simplicity in the US, International Journal of Consumer Studiesijcs_1050 1..10
Wu, J, Snell, G, Samji, H. 2020. Climate anxiety in young people: a call to action. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(10), e435–e436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30223-0
Yılmaz, B, Güler, Ç. 2020 Değerler ve Tüketim Değerleri (Tüketici Davranışları iç. Editör: Mehmet Akif Çakırer, Sezen Bozyiğit) Nobel Yayınları: Ankara
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.