Starting with 2000’s the potential of this technology managed to catch the attention of governments, private sectors, and even key civil decision makers. By creating new resources for production systems, adding new functions to products and even equipping new products with extraordinary functions, this technology has quickly entered in research labs and, soon after, in the economic and social lives of the societies. Along with all these promises and its great potential, some doubts as well have been brought to public attention, namely issues related to the impact of nanoscience development upon health and the environment; this lead to a certain display of resistance to its benefits by recalling previous unsuccessful experiments and so not being able to demonstrate its potential to the public. The research results found in the literature draw attention to the fact that the initially low public awareness in respect with nanotechnology has gradually increased, and along with a general positivity a sense of concern created by uncertainties and risk perceptions has also emerged. Studies touching upon the importance of the perception of nanotechnology innovation and the social acceptance of its products have put an emphasis on following up the variables within the dissemination process. Among the countries that have allocated funds to nanoscience is also Turkey, but an utterly limited literature is available on the topic of nanotechnology and public perception. In this respect, this study aims to analyze, by using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Model, the variables in phenomena such as the tendencies of using nanotech products, benefit/risk perceptions, the perceived properties of innovation, and technological trend profiles. In conclusion, the results of this research, done with the participation of 446 students from science, health and social sciences departments, have put forward findings such as a high awareness and an overall positivity towards nanotechnological products, but also a certain precaution in the preferences of buying food products. Özet 2000’li yılların başından itibaren potansiyeli ile nanoteknoloji hükümetler, özel sektör ve sivil aktörlerin dikkatini çekmeyi başarmıştır. Üretim sistemlerine yeni kaynaklar yaratarak, ürünlere yeni işlevler katarak ve hatta sıra dışı işlevlerle donanmış yeni ürünleri üreten bu teknoloji toplumların ekonomik ve sosyal yaşamlarına da girmiştir. Tüm bu olağanüstü vaatlerin ve güçlü potansiyelin yanında nanobilimdeki sağlık ve çevre üzerinde yeni sorunları gündeme getiren belirsizlikler, kamusal alanda önceki olumsuz deneyimleri çağrıştırma, potansiyelini ortaya koyamadan nanoteknolojiye direnç geliştirme ihtimallerini yaratmıştır. Literatürdeki araştırmaların sonuçları da, kamuda başlarda düşük olan nanoteknoloji farkındalığının giderek yükseldiğini ve genel iyimserliğin yanında risk algıları ve belirsizliğin yarattığı endişelerin oluştuğuna dikkat çekmiştir. Çalışmalar, nanoteknoloji yeniliği ve ürünlerin toplumsal kabulü açısından algıların önemine değinmiştir. Nanobilime kaynak ayıran Türkiye’de ise kamu algıları konusunda son derece kısıtlı bir literatür bulunmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda çalışmada nanoteknoloji algılarının ölçülmesinde Rogers’ın Yeniliğin Yayılımı Modeli temel alınarak yeniliğin algılanan özellikleri, teknoloji yönelim profilleri, nanoteknolojik ürün kullanma eğilimleri ve fayda/risk algıları gibi değişkenler analiz edilmiştir. Fen, sağlık ve sosyal bilimler alanlarından 446 üniversite öğrencisi katılımcı ile yapılan araştırma sonuçlarında yüksek bilinirlik, genel iyimserlik ancak gıda ürün kategorilerine karşı temkinli satın alma tercihi gibi bulgulara ulaşılmıştır.

Household energy consumption is influenced by a variety of factors, including climate, demographics, and socio-economic conditions. This study is a review based on clustering analysis of data from the 2019 Household Budget Survey in Turkey, and explores the role of dwelling structure, household habits, and possessions as indicators of energy patterns and preferences within distinct household groups contributing to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 7, and 12. The data analysis identifies three distinct clusters with specific features that set them apart. The Urban Majority cluster represents densely populated urban areas where natural gas is a preferred fuel source, and parquet and ceramic tiles are common flooring materials. The Deprived-like Remote Residents cluster portrays areas with less access to natural gas, where wood and coal are frequently used for heating, and the Urban Comfort-Seekers cluster highlights urban areas with high comfort levels, featuring natural gas, floor heating, and various amenities. These clusters reflect energy consumption patterns and social aspects related to poverty and habits. They indicate that Turkey’s energy preferences are closely linked to accessibility, user-friendliness, and affordability. Urban households prioritize comfort, while rural areas are more resource-constrained, and contextual factors like location and possessions play a vital role in energy preferences.

Despite the crucial role that social support relationships play in coping with crises, there is limited knowledge on how social capital-based resources function in compliance with measures during the COVID-19 crisis, given the complex effects created by the conditions of the support relationship. Synthesizing the capital perspective with the protection motivation approach, this study addresses the negative and positive capital effects in the capital-preventive behavior relationship by examining the role of individual and social resource-based factors in the adaptation of profiles based on support relationships. Results revealed five profiles based on social support relationship conditions. In particular, low compliance commitment was seen in the family-intensive profile, where the support relationship was reciprocal and characterized by strong family ties, similar to the profile without a support relationship. The fact that factors based on social resources are common risk factors in profiles with support relationships with more groups implies that these groups may be more open to social capital effects. The results emphasize that factors related to individual or social resources should be taken into account according to capital potential in the management of crises that require collective action.