Evaluating the ecological footprint of the city center of antalya and environmental awareness levels of the people

Today, targeted economic growths and developed resources (goods and services) to increase the welfare level have changed our consumption habits. This has caused the mankind to experience the ecosystem reserve of the world at the cost of their unsustainable habits. The purpose of this study is to reveal the effect of the people living in the city of Antalya on nature through the ecological footprint, which is a measurable methodology. It was tried to explain this effect by making comparisons between the districts and evaluating their environmental awareness. Konyaaltı (77 people), Muratpaşa (162 people) and Kepez (172 people), the three districts where the population density is equal to nearly half of the total population in the city center of Antalya, were selected as the sample. In the survey study which was applied to the people living in three districts; they were asked about the state of receiving environmental education for the purpose of evaluating the ecological footprint components and also the environmental awareness. It was observed that the participants who received environmental education needed the world more according to their present lifestyle and they had greater ecological footprints and carbon footprints. The number of worlds needed according to lifestyle was found to be 3.51 for the people in the district of Muratpaşa, 3.39 for the people in Konyaaltı, and 3.11 for the people in Kepez. It was determined that average ecological footprint of the participants (411 people) was approximately 5.67 gha and the districts of Muratpasa and Konyaaltı were above the average; whereas, the district of Kepez was below the average. Ecological footprint was found to be the highest in the district of Muratpasa (5.99 gha) and the lowest in the district of Kepez (5.31 gha). According to individual consumption categories, it was determined that the highest ecological footprint component was food; whereas, the lowest component was sheltering in all the districts. According to land types, on the other hand, it was determined that the highest ecological footprint component was carbon sequestration footprint, whereas the lowest component was pasture. It was found that the men's average ecological footprint was 6.07 gha and the women's average ecological footprint was 5.33 gha. It was determined that as the educational level increased, ecological footprint increased; however, there was no change in ecological footprint according to the participants' working condition. KEYWORDS: Antalya, Ecological footprint, Environmental awareness, Environmental education