I am sure most of you would have read the first part of this article. If not please go back to my previous article published three days ago to read and come back to read this concluding part on Impact of Environment.
Continued from June 3rd …….
1.3. People’s Level of Awareness of Environmental Pollution Caused by the Livestock Industry
Environmental problems, particularly climate change resulting from human activities, continue to hold a prominent place on the international agenda. While the general population is aware of environmental problems such as air or water pollution it is barely aware of the environmental damages caused by the food industry. Consumers are less aware of the impact of their food choices, through production and food distribution, than of other popular issues, such as industrial pollution and wildlife conservation. Awareness is particularly low with respect to environmental pollution by the livestock industry. Despite the high awareness of consumers about the health benefits of reducing meat consumption, the environmental impacts of reducing consumption are barely known. A number of studies conducted in Europe showed that consumers may be concerned about animal food production, but their knowledge on this issue is very minimal and often comes from unreliable sources, and thus many continue to consume animal products.
In a study that examined the behavior and beliefs of consumers in Australia with respect to food, 223 participants were asked to rank the most important food-related activities for conserving environmental quality. ‘Reducing plastic bags’ and ‘compost’ were found to be the most important activities while ‘reducing meat consumption’ was considered by consumers to be the activity with the lowest impact on environmental quality.
Consumer attitudes towards pork consumption were examined in a study that combined the findings from two European Union projects. One project included eight focus groups with seven to nine participants in each group. In total, 65 people aged nineteen to sixty from the capital cities of Germany, France, Spain and Britain took part in the discussions. All participants were meat eaters who consumed pork at a frequency of ‘at least once a week’ to ‘nearly every day.’ The discussions were intended to extract information on the participants’ opinions and attitudes towards eating meat, safety, and health. In the second project, data were collected via an online survey conducted among 2437 people aged twenty to seventy in five countries: Belgium, Germany, Poland, Greece and Denmark. The data included socio-demographic information about the participants, weight and height, attitudes, and information about behavior related to meat consumption.
With respect to attitudes, heavy pork consumers supported large-scale pork production systems. ‘Intermediate frequency, high diversity’ consumers were considered to be more ‘environmentally conscious’ that all of the other groups. Their low meat consumption in comparison to the heavy consumers may be related to their attitudes towards the environmental consequences of pork production. Rare consumers of pig (‘low frequency, low diversity’) were considered to be more concerned about animal well-being and supported small pork production systems. As a rule, it was found that on average across the entire sample, attitudes towards environmental quality and animal food production were very weak. Even the consumers who expressed concern for the environment with respect to pork production continued to consume it on a daily basis. Similarly, consumers who indicated that they do not eat pork at all did not avoid it because of environmental concerns but rather due to other reasons.
A long-term study conducted in Switzerland among 6189 participants (47% males) examined eating habits and aspects related to nutrition and food consumption. The project lasted one year and studied how people’s food consumption patterns change with time and which factors are related to these changes. The results of the study showed that the consumers believed that ‘avoiding food with excessive packaging’ would have a beneficial impact on the environment. In contrast, they ranked the option of ‘avoiding meat’ as being the least beneficial to the environment. The more meat the participants ate, the more negative their attitude towards the benefit of reducing meat consumption. Since it is difficult for consumers to give up meat, denying the benefit of reducing meat consumption may be their strategy for reducing the dissonance but may also reflects a lack of knowledge. With respect to reducing meat consumption and buying organic food, most participants were not willing to make any change and were in the pre-contemplation stage.
Women were more willing to reduce consumption or had already reduced meat consumption (meaning, they were in the active stage) compared to men. People who believed that reducing meat consumption has a positive impact on their health ate less meat. Conversely, participants who believed that reducing meat consumption has a positive impact on the environment reflected this less through their behavior.
Similarly, the ethical aspect of cruelty to animals only affected the willingness of consumers to consider reducing meat consumption but not to progress to the active stage. It was also found that for all consumption patterns, women are more ‘environmentally friendly’ than men. The difference was most marked with respect to purchasing organic food. In addition, men were significantly less willing to reduce their meat consumption.
Due to the low awareness found in countries around the world, it is of paramount importance to examine the knowledge, attitudes and behavior of consumers with respect to the environmental consequences of the meat industry. A better understanding of knowledge, attitudes and behavior of consumers might serve to improve the current debate on the impact of livestock industry on environment and health.
1.4. The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Knowledge, as a cognitive component, is indeed critical, but alone it cannot adequately predict pro-environmental behavior. The emotional component, which is related to attitudes and values, is essential for driving the transformation of knowledge to responsible environmental behavior. Despite the complex relationship between the components, researchers have shown that expanding knowledge via environmental studies and educational activities leads to more positive attitudes towards the environment and more responsible environmental behavior .
The level of environmental literacy of 765 students studying and teaching at three teachers’ colleges in Israel was examined. It was found that the students had low ecological-environmental knowledge (38.39 out of 100, on average), but most of them expressed positive attitudes (3.59–4.13 on a scale of 1–5). The Pearson correlation coefficients showed a high correlation between attitudes and behavior (r = 0.49, p < 0.001) and a low correlation between knowledge and behavior (r = 0.23, p < 0.01).
It was also examined that relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and concern for the environment among 684 teachers in Turkey. Half of the respondents (51%) defined themselves as ‘quite concerned’ and only 11% reported a high level of concern for environmental problems. The participants did not express high confidence in their level of environmental knowledge, with less than 4% reporting that they were ‘quite proficient’ on environmental issues, and 55% of them having ‘some kind of environmental knowledge’. Despite the poor knowledge, the teachers’ attitudes, on average, were positive towards the environment and their view was considered to be an ecological world view. The researchers found positive relationships between the level of knowledge and the level of concern for the environment (r = 0.13, p < 0.01) and between environmental attitudes and level of concern (r = 0.20, p < 0.01).
In summary, increasing knowledge, skills, approaches and values within the individual with respect to the environment may promote the individual’s feeling of responsibility and capability to change his/her behavior to be more pro-environmental. Nevertheless, studies show that even when a person prides themselves on particular values, in many cases he/she does not act to implement them.
This is the “gap between declared values and actual decisions” . In particular, in the environmental field there is a gap between the social and environmental values that a person believes in and his/her consumer behavior; this is known as the value-action gap. An example of this was found in a survey conducted in the U.S., which found that 40% of consumers hold positive opinions about ‘green’ products but in practice they do not purchase them due to a number of reasons (cost, accessibility, and convenience) .
1.5. The Relationship between Animal Rearing and Knowledge Levels, Attitudes, and Behavior
The relationship between rearing pets and empathy towards animals has been examined by a number of studies. Paul found that empathy towards animals was significantly related to present or past ownership of pets. In a sample of 514 adolescents in Scotland, it was found that children and young adults who reared pets loved farm animals and wild animals more than children who grew up without pets . In addition, a number of studies have shown that pet owners demonstrate more empathy towards animals and show greater opposition to cruelty towards them.
Meat consumption is also related to attitudes towards animals. For example, it has been found that the main reason for vegetarian nutrition is animal welfare . In a survey of students, Paul and Serpell found that as the reported number of animals that were important to the respondent in some way during his/her childhood increased, the student was more likely to report avoidance of at least one animal product for ethical reasons. In a qualitative study in which 11 vegetarians were interviewed, most of the interviewees related vegetarianism during adulthood to ownership of pets during their childhood . In another study, vegetarian males related more positively to pets than non-vegetarian males . Moreover, a number of studies have reported a higher proportion of pet owners among meat-avoiders . As a rule, it seems that perception of the environment is also affected by attitudes towards animals. Pifer, Shimizu and Pifer found a significant relationship between concern for the environment and opposition to experiments on animals and concern for their rights in eleven out of fifteen countries.
From this research review we can appreciate the destructive impact of the livestock industry on various, diverse aspects of the environment. Due to increased global trade in animal products, crop production for animals, and long-term meat preservation, it seems that consumers have become spatially disconnected from the necessary processes involved in production of animal products.
Most of them seem not to connect food products and environmental quality; and they are barely aware of the environmental impact of the consumption of animal products . The aim of the study was to examine the level of knowledge and awareness of students on topics related to environmental pollution caused by industrial animal food production. Similarly, the study aspires to examine the behavior of participants with respect to this issue, and to determine whether there is a relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. The research hypothesis is that positive relationships will be found between the level of knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on topics related to environmental pollution caused by the livestock industry, whereby attitudes will mediate the relationship between the level of knowledge and behavior. In addition, participants who own pets or owned them in the past will demonstrate greater knowledge, awareness, and pro-environmental behavior than other participants.
This calls for collective, transformative action on a global scale to celebrate, protect and restore our planet.
The state of our environment is falling day by day due to pollution and global warming. We must celebrate environment-friendly development to save the environment for a better future in our country. So let us take the pledge to save the environment. By saving the other living beings and giving them a chance to co exist we save the environment too.
Source: This study was conducted among students enrolled at Ashkelon Academic College, Israel in 2017-2018.