How Much Pollution Does Animal Agriculture Cause
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Apr; 16(viii): 1359.
Environmental Effects of the Livestock Manufacture: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in State of israel
Keren Dopelt
iDepartment of Public Health, School of Health Sciences, Ashkelon Academic Higher, Ashkelon 78211, Israel; moc.liamg@68sag.aninp
2Schoolhouse of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba 8410501, Israel; li.ca.ugb@dvadan
Pnina Radon
1Section of Public Wellness, School of Health Sciences, Ashkelon Academic College, Ashkelon 78211, Israel; moc.liamg@68sag.aninp
Nadav Davidovitch
2Schoolhouse of Public Health, Kinesthesia of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba 8410501, Israel; li.ca.ugb@dvadan
Received 2019 Feb 12; Accepted 2019 Apr fifteen.
Abstract
The livestock industry has numerous and diverse impacts on the surroundings. In a cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire, 361 students were asked virtually their cognition, attitudes, and behavior related to the environmental impact acquired by livestock industry. The information were analyzed using correlations, t-tests for independent samples, and linear regression models. We constitute that students accept almost no knowledge virtually the environmental impact of the food they consume, their attitudes are moderately pro-environmental, still they are not strict most pro-environmental behavior. Students with higher levels of environmental knowledge demonstrated more than pro-environmental attitudes and behavior; attitudes mediate the relationship betwixt level of knowledge and behavior with respect to environmental pollution caused by the livestock industry. In addition, participants that rear/reared animals demonstrated more than cognition and pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, and women demonstrated more pro-ecology attitudes and behavior than men. In that location is a need to enhance sensation of the environmental and health impacts caused by livestock industry. An introductory course on ecology science should be integrated into different academic study programs. Further research should be conducted among additional population sectors.
Keywords: environmental pollution, sustainability, livestock industry, pro-environmental behavior, knowledge and attitudes
1. Introduction
1.ane. Literature Review
Production of food from animals has accelerated during the terminal 100 years, in response to growing demand [1]. Throughout the globe approximately lxx billion animals are reared as domestic animals annually, with more than than vi one thousand thousand animals killed for food each year [2], and approximately 56 billion mammals and birds slaughtered each twelvemonth [iii]. According to a report past the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, titled, "The Long Shadow of the Fauna Industry" [1], global meat consumption doubled during the period 1980–2002. According to futurity predictions, global meat production is expected to double from 229 million tons in 1999 to 465 one thousand thousand tons by 2050. Milk product is expected to increment from 580 to 1043 million tons [one]. Besides the humane aspects associated with the rearing and slaughtering weather condition of animals in the food industry, the great increase in the consumption of animal products has a most severe affect on the surroundings. The FAO report states that "The meat industry has a marked impact on a general global calibration on water, soils, extinction of plants and animals, and consumption of natural resource, and it has a potent impact on global warming" [1].
1.2. The Impact of Animal Product Consumption on the Surround
The livestock industry is the source of a broad spectrum of ecology impacts [iii]. The first and most of import is climatic change [4]. In the third affiliate of the FAO report [1] it is estimated that eighteen% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the livestock industry. The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released to the atmosphere is estimated at approximately 7516 million tons per year [1,3]. According to Goodland and Anhang [v] this guess is besides depression. Co-ordinate to their calculations the global livestock industry is responsible for at least 51% of the greenhouse gases emitted to the temper and the amount of carbon dioxide is estimated at 32,564 million tons. This large difference stems partly from the FAO using outdated sources from the years 1964–2001. However, even if greenhouse gas emissions are estimated at merely xviii%, the livestock manufacture is still the second-largest polluter after the electricity manufacture, and more polluting than the transportation industry, which contributes approximately thirteen% [6].
Most emissions related to the livestock industry are in the class of carbon dioxide (COii), nitrous oxide (Due northiiO), methane (CH4), and ammonia (NHiii) [6,7]. Domestic animals 'naturally' release carbon dioxide, which has been proven to be a significant contributor to global warming [v]. Researchers warn that we volition probably exceed the 565 gigaton carbon dioxide limit by the twelvemonth 2030 due to livestock rearing. In addition, the livestock manufacture is responsible for 68% of enterogenic nitrous oxide emissions; this gas remains in the atmosphere for up to 150 years and has a 296-fold greater potential for global warming and deterioration of the ozone layer than carbon dioxide. Livestock emit nearly 64% of total ammonia emissions, contributing significantly to acid rain and to acidification of ecosystems. Livestock are as well a highly significant source of methane emissions, contributing 35–forty% of methane emissions worldwide. Methane has a 23-fold greater potential for global warming than carbon dioxide. The U.Southward. Environmental Protection Agency has shown that in the last 15 years methane emissions from pigs increased by 37% and emissions from cattle increased by l% [6,7].
Secondly, while not all livestock impacts environment in the aforementioned manner, production of animal products might require all-encompassing state. Farms for rearing livestock already cover 1-third of the world'southward total land and more two-thirds of its agronomical land [three]. The increasing demand for beast products and the lack of land has caused the livestock industry to become the primary cause for clearing forests and turning them into pasture. Co-ordinate to the International Eye for Forest Research (CIFOR), during the years 1990–2000, an surface area twice the size of Portugal was lost in favor of pasture [three]. Another reason for forest clearing is production of food for animals. Approximately 40% of the harvested crops in the earth are used as food for animals. Thus, if nosotros took half of the crops used as feed for those same animals, nosotros would exist able to feed all the starving populations effectually the world and solve the problem of earth hunger [3,viii]. Massive wood clearing leads, among other things, to animal extinctions [9]. Upward to 137 species of plants, animals and unique insects are lost every twenty-four hours due to forest immigration. Ceballos et al. [10] merits that this is the greatest mass extinction in 65 million years. While information technology is well documented that the livestock industry and livestock product crusade a host of ecology issues, livestock production in certain ecosystems, like barren and semi-barren lands, are the most well-adapted nutrient production arrangement. Information technology is a more efficient and rational land apply arrangement (if animals are able to move) than cultivation, which has a poorer track tape at feeding people and being sustainable, specially under weather of increasing climatic variability. Farming some staple crops, similar rice, also has extensive negative ecology impacts [11,12,13].
Production of animal nutrient products is the greatest agricultural cause of water pollution [3]. The trend of increasing consumption of animal products has a negative impact on ecosystems and on water sources, in item in developing countries. The water pollution is acquired by fauna excreta, antibiotics and hormones, fertilizers and pesticides used in fodder production, and rainfall runoff from pasture [ane]. The U.South. Department of Agronomics (USDA) declared that animal parts and poultry manure are major sources of h2o pollution [3].
The livestock industry also leads to nifty resource wastage, in particular wastage of water [1]. In the U.S., for example, the corporeality of h2o consumed by private residences is approximately 5% of total consumption, while the amount of h2o consumed by animal agronomics is approximately 55% [fourteen]. A study that measured the amount of consumed resources (eastward.g., water, fertilizer, soil) and greenhouse gas emissions from nutrient showed that a vegan nutrition is meliorate for reducing environmental impacts compared to a vegetarian or omnivorous diet [fifteen]. In ane twenty-four hours, a vegan person saves 4164 liters of h2o, 20 kg crops, ii.8 10002 forested state, x kg CO2 and the life of one animate being [xvi].
Moreover, the livestock manufacture produces copious quantities of waste. The livestock industry in the U.S. produces 116,000 pounds of waste per second. According to Haines and Staley [17] a subcontract with 2500 milking cows produces the same amount of waste as a metropolis with 411,000 residents. Thus, we must inquire whether the general population is aware of these damages acquired past the livestock manufacture to the environment.
1.3. People's Level of Awareness of Environmental Pollution Acquired past the Livestock Industry
Environmental problems, especially climatic change resulting from human activities, continue to concord a prominent place on the international calendar [18]. While the full general population is aware of ecology problems such equally air or water pollution it is barely aware of the ecology damages caused by the nutrient industry. Consumers are less enlightened of the bear on of their food choices, through product and food distribution, than of other popular problems, such as industrial pollution and wild animals conservation [xix]. Awareness is specially low with respect to environmental pollution by the livestock industry. Despite the high sensation 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 exist concerned near animal food product, but their knowledge on this issue is very minimal and often comes from unreliable sources, and thus many continue to consume animate being products [20].
In a study that examined the beliefs 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 past consumers to be the activity with the everyman impact on environmental quality [21].
Consumer attitudes towards pork consumption were examined in a written report that combined the findings from 2 European Union projects [xx,22]. One project included eight focus groups with seven to ix participants in each grouping. In total, 65 people aged xix to 60 from the capital letter cities of Germany, French republic, Spain and United kingdom took office 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, prophylactic, and health. In the second project, information were nerveless via an online survey conducted amidst 2437 people aged twenty to 70 in 5 countries: Belgium, Deutschland, Poland, Greece and Denmark. The data included socio-demographic information about the participants, weight and top, attitudes, and data most behavior related to meat consumption. With respect to attitudes, heavy pork consumers supported large-scale pork production systems. 'Intermediate frequency, high multifariousness' 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 exist related to their attitudes towards the ecology consequences of pork production. Rare consumers of squealer ('low frequency, depression diversity') were considered to be more concerned about animal well-existence and supported small pork production systems. Every bit a rule, it was plant that on average across the entire sample, attitudes towards ecology quality and creature food production were very weak. Even the consumers who expressed concern for the environment with respect to pork production continued to consume information technology on a daily basis. Similarly, consumers who indicated that they practice not swallow pork at all did not avoid it because of environmental concerns simply rather due to other reasons.
A long-term written report conducted in Switzerland among 6189 participants (47% males) examined eating habits and aspects related to nutrition and food consumption [23]. The project lasted one yr and studied how people's food consumption patterns alter with time and which factors are related to these changes. The results of the report showed that the consumers believed that 'avoiding nutrient with excessive packaging' would have a benign touch on on the surround. In dissimilarity, they ranked the option of 'avoiding meat' as existence the least beneficial to the environment. The more meat the participants ate, the more than negative their attitude towards the benefit of reducing meat consumption. Since information technology is difficult for consumers to surrender 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 whatsoever alter and were in the pre-contemplation stage. Women were more than willing to reduce consumption or had already reduced meat consumption (meaning, they were in the agile 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 surround reflected this less through their behavior. Similarly, the upstanding attribute of cruelty to animals only afflicted the willingness of consumers to consider reducing meat consumption but non to progress to the agile stage. Information technology was also found that for all consumption patterns, women are more 'environmentally friendly' than men. The deviation was well-nigh 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 manufacture. A ameliorate understanding of knowledge, attitudes and behavior of consumers might serve to amend the current debate on the impact of livestock industry on environment and health.
one.4. The Human relationship betwixt Cognition, Attitudes, and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Knowledge, every bit a cerebral component, is indeed disquisitional, merely alone it cannot fairly 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 [24]. Despite the complex human relationship between the components, researchers have shown that expanding knowledge via environmental studies and educational activities leads to more than positive attitudes towards the environment and more responsible environmental beliefs [25,26].
Pe'er et al. [24] examined the level of environmental literacy of 765 students studying teaching at three teachers' colleges in Israel. Information technology was found that the students had low ecological-environmental knowledge (38.39 out of 100, on average), but most of them expressed positive attitudes (three.59–4.13 on a calibration of one–5). The Pearson correlation coefficients showed a high correlation between attitudes and beliefs (r = 0.49, p < 0.001) and a low correlation between knowledge and behavior (r = 0.23, p < 0.01).
Tuncer et al. [27] examined the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and concern for the surround among 684 teachers in Turkey. Half of the respondents (51%) defined themselves every bit 'quite concerned' and only eleven% reported a loftier level of business concern for ecology problems. The participants did non express high confidence in their level of environmental knowledge, with less than 4% reporting that they were 'quite skillful' 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.xiii, p < 0.01) and between ecology attitudes and level of business organisation (r = 0.20, p < 0.01).
In summary, increasing knowledge, skills, approaches and values inside the individual with respect to the environment may promote the individual's feeling of responsibility and capability to change his/her beliefs to exist more pro-environmental. Nevertheless, studies show that fifty-fifty when a person prides themselves on detail values, in many cases he/she does not act to implement them. This is the gap between declared values and actual decisions [28]. 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 [29]. An example of this was found in a survey conducted in the U.S., which found that 40% of consumers concord positive opinions about 'green' products but in practise they exercise not buy them due to a number of reasons (cost, accessibility, convenience) [30].
i.5. The Human relationship between Animal Rearing and Cognition Levels, Attitudes, and Behavior
The relationship between rearing pets and empathy towards animals has been examined by a number of studies. Paul [31] found that empathy towards animals was significantly related to present or past ownership of pets. In a sample of 514 adolescents in Scotland, information technology was institute that children and young adults who reared pets loved farm animals and wild animals more children who grew up without pets [32]. In add-on, a number of studies take shown that pet owners demonstrate more empathy towards animals and prove greater opposition to cruelty towards them [33,34].
Meat consumption is also related to attitudes towards animals. For example, it has been found that the main reason for vegetarian diet is animal welfare [35,36]. In a survey of students, Paul and Serpell [37] establish that as the reported number of animals that were of import to the respondent in some way during his/her babyhood increased, the pupil was more likely to report avoidance of at least 1 animal production for ethical reasons. In a qualitative study in which 11 vegetarians were interviewed, well-nigh of the interviewees related vegetarianism during machismo to ownership of pets during their babyhood [38]. In some other study, vegetarian males related more positively to pets than non-vegetarian males [39]. Moreover, a number of studies have reported a college proportion of pet owners among meat-avoiders [40]. As a rule, information technology seems that perception of the environment is too affected by attitudes towards animals. Pifer, Shimizu and Pifer [41] constitute a significant relationship between concern for the environs and opposition to experiments on animals and concern for their rights in 11 out of fifteen countries.
From this literature review we can capeesh the destructive impact of the livestock industry on various, diverse aspects of the environment. Due to increased global trade in brute products, crop product for animals, and long-term meat preservation, it seems that consumers take become spatially asunder from the necessary processes involved in production of creature products [42]. They exercise not connect food products and environmental quality; and they are barely aware of the environmental impact of the consumption of brute products [23]. The aim of this electric current report is to examine the level of knowledge and awareness of students in State of israel on topics related to environmental pollution acquired past industrial animal food production. Similarly, the report aspires to examine the beliefs of participants with respect to this issue, and to make up one's mind whether there is a relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. The inquiry 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 improver, participants who own pets or owned them in the past will demonstrate greater noesis, sensation, and pro-environmental behavior than other participants.
2. Materials and Methods
two.1. Written report Population and Sample
The study was conducted among students enrolled at Ashkelon Academic College in 2017. According to data from the Higher Education Council (HEC), 3453 students studied at the college during that twelvemonth, including 70% women. The sample comprised of 361 students who answered at least 80% of the questionnaire; they comprised 11% of the total number of students at the college. Responding to the questionnaire indicated informed consent to participate in the survey. There were no exclusion criteria for the study.
ii.2. Research Tools
For the current report, nosotros used an anonymous, closed, self-completion questionnaire. We did non detect questionnaires that examined the variables in the current report and a new questionnaire was therefore synthetic. For this purpose, we conducted an all-encompassing literature review. Since in that location were no similar previous questionnaire testing cognition on livestock industry influence on the environment (apart from surveys dealing with pork manufacture that is not relevant to the Israeli context). The questionnaire was validated by sustainability experts using a content validation method. Subsequently, a pilot report was conducted amongst 10 students who exercise not study at Ashkelon Bookish College, and two unclear questions were corrected.
Description of Questionnaire Sections:
The questionnaire comprised 46 airtight questions as follows:
-
Demographic information—half dozen questions about gender, historic period, marital status, state of birth, nutritional lifestyle (omnivore/vegetarian/vegan), and whether the respondent previously or currently rears animals.
-
Knowledge—thirteen questions in which respondents were asked to indicate whether, in their opinion, the argument is right or incorrect or whether they do not know. For example: The livestock industry causes more environmental pollution than the transportation industry. Questionnaire reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.90.
-
Attitudes—thirteen questions relating to attitudes towards the livestock manufacture in which respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agree with the statement on a Likert scale of i–5, including the choice "I don't know". For case: It is important to me that the nutrient I swallow is produced in a manner that preserves fauna rights. Questionnaire reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.88.
-
Behavior—7 questions. Respondents were asked to indicate at what frequency they act according to the statement on a Likert calibration of i–5, including the option "I don't know." For case: I participate in the boxing to prevent hazards from the livestock industry. Questionnaire reliability: Cronbach'southward α = 0.71.
-
Consumption of animal products—respondents were asked to point at what frequency they eat beef, chicken, fish, eggs, dairy products, organic vegetables and meat substitutes on a scale ranging from ane (non at all) to five (every mean solar day).
two.3. Research Process
This written report was a cantankerous-exclusive written report. In the first phase we conducted an extensive literature review for the purpose of amalgam and validating the questionnaire. After approval from the ethics committee of the college, the questionnaires were programmed using Qualtrics and distributed to the students in March 2017. A reminder to complete the questionnaire was sent in the same way after ii weeks. On 5 April 2017, the questionnaire was closed in the program. The time taken to answer the questionnaire was estimated at seven minutes on boilerplate. There were 541 entries to the questionnaire, and 361 students completed at to the lowest degree 80% of the questionnaire (67% of those entering the questionnaire), thus 180 participants were omitted from the analysis.
The introductory page to the questionnaire independent an explanation of the essence and aim of the questionnaire. Completion of the questionnaire indicated informed consent to participate in the survey and the students could stop responding to it at whatever stage or to cull non to answer some of the questions. No questions were defined as compulsory.
ii.4. Information Analysis
The information were analyzed using SPSS V. 23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The relationships between the variables were examined past calculating Pearson correlations. Mediation was examined using linear regressions according to Businesswoman and Kenny [43]. Differences between groups were examined using independent t-tests. Finally, hierarchical (multiple) linear regression models were built to predict pro-ecology beliefs, with gender and rearing animals equally covariables. The model included variables that were plant to be significantly related to behavior in the univariate analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Description of Sample Characteristics
The written report participants included 361 students aged 18 to 67; the average age was 29 (SD = 8.6). The sample characteristics are presented in Table i.
Table 1
Description of sample characteristics (n = 361).
| Character | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Males | 91 | 25 |
| Unmarried | 176 | 49 |
| Married, live with partner | 165 | 46 |
| Divorced/separated | 16 | 5 |
| Born in Israel | 276 | 77 |
| Built-in overseas | 85 | 23 |
| Omnivore | 328 | 91 |
| Vegetarian/vegan | 33 | 9 |
| Rear/reared an animal | 198 | 55 |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 237 | 66 |
| Health Sciences | 53 | 15 |
| Engineering science | 37 | 11 |
| Direction | xxx | eight |
Table 1 shows that most participants were women (75%), similar to the pct of female person students in the general student population at the college (77%). Most participants were born in Israel (77%) and omnivorous (91%). Half of them are single (49%) and 46% are in a relationship. More than half of them rear or previously reared an animal (55%). Two thirds study in the Faculty of Social Sciences, fifteen% in the Faculty of Health Sciences (psychology, sociology, criminology, social piece of work, etc.), 11% in the Kinesthesia of Engineering science, and viii% in the Faculty of Direction.
3.two. Level of Knowledge
The distribution of responses to the statements that examined the level of knowledge with respect to environmental harm crusade by the livestock industry is presented below (Table 2).
Table 2
Distribution of responses to the noesis questionnaire.
| Statement | Correct (%) | Wrong (%) | Don't Know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The increment in consumption of meat products contributes direct to climatic change. | 35 | 17 | 48 |
| two. Fertilization and soil waste material produce almost ii-thirds of all agricultural emissions around the world. | 28 | five | 67 |
| 3. About 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from the livestock industry. | 32 | 12 | 56 |
| iv. The livestock industry is the 2nd greatest polluter after the electricity industry. | 22 | 22 | 56 |
| 5. The livestock industry causes greater ecology pollution than the transportation industry. | 12 | 39 | 49 |
| half dozen. The average amount of water consumed by private homes is estimated at about v%, while the amount of water consumed by animal agriculture is about 55%. | 26 | xiii | 61 |
| seven. The amount of water required to produce 1 kg meat is at to the lowest degree 50 times greater than the amount of water required for vegetable production. | 22 | 15 | 63 |
| 8. About 40% of crops harvested around the world are used as nutrient for animals. | 36 | 8 | 56 |
| ix. Exposure to organic fertilizer in drinking water and vegetables is a risk factor for cancer. | 31 | eleven | 57 |
| 10. Nigh 2.7 trillion marine animals are drawn from the oceans each year. | 30 | half dozen | 64 |
| 11. Livestock production takes up 70% of all agricultural land. | 21 | 18 | 61 |
| 12. Livestock production takes up 30% of the earth's state. | 25 | 11 | 64 |
| 13. The livestock manufacture is responsible for about ninety% of rainforest destruction. | 13 | 27 | 60 |
To construct the variable "level of knowledge nigh the damages caused to the environment by the livestock manufacture", we counted the number of right answers provided by each participant. The variable ranged from 0–13. The mean value of the cognition variable was 3.33 (SD = 2.38).
three.iii. Attitudes
The distribution of responses to statements that examined attitudes are presented below (Table 3) after combining categories as follows: answers 1 and ii were combined into the category 'weakly agree,' respond 3 remained 'moderately hold' and answers 4 and five were combined into the category 'strongly agree'.
Table 3
Distribution of responses to the attitudes questionnaire.
| Argument | Weakly (%) | Moderately (%) | Strongly (%) | Don't Know (%) | Mean ± SD 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The livestock manufacture causes ecology destruction. | 25 | 23 | 30 | 22 | three.12 ± 1.31 |
| 2. The vegan nutrition is the best 1 for reducing the environmental impact of the livestock industry. | 42 | thirteen | 27 | 18 | 2.64 ± 1.51 |
| iii. The livestock industry leads to corking wastage of natural resources (water, food, land). | 34 | 20 | 28 | 18 | 2.90 ± one.39 |
| four. The production of animal products should exist express. | 39 | 20 | thirty | xi | 2.83 ± 1.42 |
| five. Information technology is important to me that the food I eat is produced in an environmentally friendly mode. | fifteen | 20 | 61 | 4 | 3.81 ± i.25 |
| 6. It is important to me that the food I eat is produced in a manner that preserves animal rights. | fourteen | 20 | 62 | 4 | 3.92 ± ane.xx |
| vii. The upshot of ecology destruction by the livestock industry should be much higher on State of israel'southward list of priorities. | 18 | 26 | 51 | 6 | 3.54 ± ane.22 |
| 8. It is very important to me to preserve environmental quality. | 8 | 16 | 73 | three | 4.10 ± 1.03 |
| nine. Plants and animals exist so that humans will utilize them for their needs. * | 35 | 21 | 39 | v | two.11 ± one.41 |
| 10. If had more knowledge on the issue, I am sure that I would integrate ecology considerations when choosing my nutrient. | 21 | 22 | fifty | 7 | iii.l ± 1.27 |
| xi. The livestock industry should be obligated to reduce polluting emissions to the environment even if this ways that the price for the consumer volition ascent. | 26 | 24 | 41 | 9 | 3.30 ± 1.35 |
| 12. The outcome of business organisation for environmental problems is exaggerated. * | 56 | 21 | xvi | 7 | 1.28 ± 1.27 |
| 13. Every pupil should exist obligated to participate in a class on environmental issues during his/her caste. | 56 | xv | 23 | 6 | 2.39 ± ane.45 |
For the purpose of constructing the attitudes variable we calculated the mean response of each participant, without the 'I don't know' selection, and after reversing the calibration for questions ix and 12. The mean value of the variable was 3.28 (SD = 0.80).
iii.four. Beliefs
The distribution of responses to the statements, after combining categories, is presented below (Table 4).
Table 4
Distribution of responses to the beliefs questionnaire.
| Statement | Rarely (%) | Sometimes (%) | Oftentimes (%) | Don't Know (%) | Mean ± SD ane |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I buy nutrient made in State of israel. | 6 | 23 | 63 | 8 | 4.01 ± 0.99 |
| 2. I eat food according to the season. | 26 | 24 | 47 | three | 3.30 ± 1.37 |
| 3. I eat organic nutrient. | 65 | 23 | 9 | 3 | 2.08 ± i.07 |
| 4. I am considering becoming vegetarian or vegan. | 74 | ix | fifteen | 2 | i.87 ± 1.32 |
| 5. I try to eat food from the livestock industry as little as possible. | 59 | 20 | 20 | 1 | ii.32 ± 1.xl |
| 6. I participate in the battle to prevent hazards from the livestock industry. | 90 | 4 | iv | 2 | 1.33 ± 0.82 |
| 7. I read articles on hazards from the livestock manufacture. | 65 | xix | 15 | 1 | 2.05 ± 1.23 |
For the purpose of amalgam the variable we calculated the mean response for each participant, without the 'I don't know' option. The mean value of the beliefs variable was 2.41 (SD = 0.71).
3.v. The Relationships between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior
We found positive and strongly significant relationships between level of cognition and attitudes (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), between level of cognition and beliefs (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), and betwixt attitudes and behavior (r = 0.49, p < 0.001). In other words, the college the level of knowledge, the more pro-environmental were the attitudes and behavior. More pro-environmental attitudes were related to more pro-ecology behavior. Therefore, the hypotheses are confirmed.
3.6. Attitudes Mediating the Relationship betwixt Knowledge and Behavior
Co-ordinate to the method of Baron and Kenny [44], three linear regressions were performed (Figure i): firstly, we examined the predictive power of knowledge on beliefs (A). Secondly, we examined the predictive ability of cognition on attitudes (B). Thirdly, noesis and attitudes were included as independent variables, with behavior as the dependent variable (C). As shown in Effigy 1, in the first regression (path A) we found that the knowledge variable predicted behavior (β = 0.36, p < 0.001), explaining thirteen% of variance in beliefs. In the 2nd regression (path B) nosotros found that the noesis variable predicted mental attitude (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), explaining eleven% of variance in attitudes. In the third regression (path C) we found that the knowledge and mental attitude variables explained 28% of variance in the behavior variable. When we added the attitude variable, the amount of variance explained increased to 23% and the power of the corrected regression coefficient (β) of the knowledge variable decreased (β = 0.23, p < 0.001). The attitude variable was found to significantly predict behavior (β = 0.42, p > 0.001), thus nosotros tin can conclude, according to Baron and Kenny [44] that the mental attitude variable partly mediates the relationship between knowledge and behavior. In other words, if we controlled for the issue of attitude, there was nevertheless a relationship between knowledge and beliefs, but it was weaker. Similarly, the change in the percent variance explained was pregnant (R2 change = 0.29, p < 0.001), therefore, confirming our hypothesis.
Attitudes mediate the relationship between knowledge and behavior.
3.7. Rearing Animals
Significant differences were establish betwixt participants who rear/reared animals and participants who do not/did non, in the level of knowledge (t (355) = three.78, p < 0.001), attitudes (t (354) = three.04, p < 0.01), and behavior (t (329) = 2.33, p < 0.05) on issues related to environmental pollution caused by the livestock manufacture. Participants who rear/reared animals had more noesis (mean = 3.29 vs. 2.62 among participants who practice not rear animals), more positive attitudes (mean = three.twoscore vs. 3.fourteen amidst participants who do non rear animals), and more pro-ecology beliefs (mean = ii.49 vs. 2.thirty among participants who practise not rear animals), therefore, confirming our hypothesis.
iii.8. Differences betwixt Genders
No differences were found between genders in the level of knowledge, but significant differences were found between genders with respect to attitudes (t (354) = ii.45, p < 0.05) and behavior on topics related to environmental pollution caused by the livestock industry (t (333) = three.26, p = 0.001). Women had more positive attitudes (mean = 3.34 vs. 3.10) and pro-ecology behavior (mean = 2.47 vs. two.20) than men.
3.nine. A Linear Regression Model to Predict Pro-Ecology Behavior
The results of the hierarchical (multiple) linear regression models to predict pro-environmental behavior, where gender and rearing animals were covariables, are presented below (Tabular array 5). The models included variables that were significantly related to behavior in the univariate analyses.
Table 5
Results of hierarchical linear regression models to predict pro-environmental behavior.
| Variable | Background Variables | Knowledge and Attitudes | Consuming Animal Products | Combined Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | |
| Gender (0—male, i—female) | 0.15 ** | 0.09 | 0.04 | |
| Rearing animals (0—no, one—yes) | 0.11 * | 0.01 | 0.12 ** | |
| Noesis | 0.23 ** | 0.fourteen ** | ||
| Attitudes | 0.41 ** | 0.28 ** | ||
| Beef | −0.30 *** | −0.25 *** | ||
| Poultry | −0.09 | |||
| Fish | 0.02 | |||
| Eggs | −0.12 * | −0.10 * | ||
| Dairy products | −0.13 ** | −0.12 ** | ||
| Organic vegetables | 0.fifteen ** | 0.12 ** | ||
| Meat substitutes | 0.22 *** | 0.19 *** | ||
| Adjusted R Square | 0.03 ** | 0.29 *** | 0.36 *** | 0.44 *** |
| n | 335 | 332 | 323 | 321 |
In the final model, which included all of the variables that were significant in the previous models, the power of all variables to predict pro-ecology beliefs was maintained. Information technology is clear that attitudes were the best predictor of behavior (β = 0.28, p < 0.001). They were followed by beef consumption (β = −0.25, p < 0.001) and meat substitutes (β = 0.nineteen, p < 0.001). The combined model shows that knowledge, consumption of milk products, organic vegetables and eggs too predicted behavior (β = 0.xiv, p < 0.01; β = −0.12, p < 0.01; β = 0.12, p < 0.01; β = −0.ten, p < 0.5, respectively). The variance explained by the final model was approximately 44% (p < 0.001).
4. Discussion
The present study examined the level of knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of students on topics related to environmental pollution acquired by the livestock manufacture. Information technology was found that participants' attitudes towards damage caused to the environment past the livestock industry are moderately pro-environmental, and the level of knowledge on the subject is low. Moreover, students do not demonstrate pro-environmental behavior in this context. These findings are in line with a number of studies conducted in Europe and the U.S., which showed that some consumers are concerned about production of beast foods simply their knowledge on this topic is very limited, and most continue to swallow animal products without any intention of reducing consumption [twenty,21,22,45].
The greatest forcefulness in this human relationship was found betwixt attitudes and behavior, followed past the human relationship betwixt level of noesis and beliefs and finally between level of noesis and attitudes. In recent years, ecology problems have attained an increasingly meaning place on the media's agenda. Studies in environmental education have establish a clear human relationship between acquiring knowledge during an education and an increase in positive attitudes towards the surround [20,26,27,46]. Many studies have strengthened this finding and shown that environmental knowledge is needed to drive responsible environmental behavior, and that it is a prerequisite for action [28,47,48]. The survey conducted by Rickinson [49] also showed that ecology cognition is indeed an important component in the prevalence of supportive environmental beliefs and is a prerequisite for formulating attitudes towards ecology bug. However, knowledge is non the primal component affecting beliefs [25]; indeed, the findings of the nowadays study prove that the strength of the relationship betwixt attitudes and behavior is greater than the strength of the relationship between knowledge and behavior.
It was also constitute that attitudes partially mediate the relationship between the level of knowledge and behavior. In other words, if nosotros account for the upshot of attitudes, there will still be a relationship between knowledge and behavior, but information technology will exist weaker. According to Pe'er et al. [25], knowledge is indeed critical just cognition solitary cannot fairly predict responsible environmental behavior. The emotional component, which is related to attitudes and values, is necessary for driving the transformation of noesis into responsible environmental behavior. In other words, the environmental beliefs of the individual may change due to changes in values, behavior and pro-environmental norms. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) of Fishbein and Aizen [29], which connects beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior, tin provide an explanation for this finding. Fishbein and Aizen claimed that the intention to conduct behavior is the best predictor of its occurrence, and it depends on the attitudes and norms held by the individual. The individual's knowledge and positive attitudes, aslope social norms that call for environmental conservation, will create a socialization process that strengthens environmental values. These volition create motivation and intentions to act to reduce damages caused to the environment by the livestock manufacture.
As hypothesized, it was found that participants that rear/reared animals demonstrated more than knowledge, attitudes, and pro-ecology behavior than others. These findings are supported by a number of studies showing that pet owners demonstrate more empathy towards animals and greater opposition to cruelty towards them [32,34,35]. In addition, in some studies the proportion of pet owners was higher amidst a group of meat-avoiders [39,41] and that the main cause of vegetarian diet was animal welfare [36,37,40].
The study did not find differences between genders in the level of noesis, but nevertheless significant differences betwixt genders were establish for attitudes and behavior. Women had more positive attitudes and pro-environmental behavior than men. Dietz et al. [50] reported similar findings, and explained that in their opinion, parenthood leads to greater environmental concern amidst women than amongst men. Stern et al. [51] found that women expressed more positive attitudes towards environmental quality, stronger intentions regarding the demand for pro-environmental behavior, and stronger opinions nearly the destructive consequences of deteriorating environmental quality, than men. Tobler et al. [24] constitute that women were much more willing than men to give up meat. The authors offered the explanation that meat, and in item reddish meat, is linked to forcefulness and power, which makes it difficult for males to change their attitudes and reduce their consumption.
Finally, a hierarchical (multiple) linear regression model was congenital to predict pro-environmental beliefs, wherein gender and brute rearing were covariates. The model included variables that were institute to be significantly related to behavior in the univariate analyses. In the concluding model it was constitute that knowledge, attitudes, consumption of beef and dairy products (inversely correlated), meat substitutes, organic vegetables, and eggs predict pro-environmental behavior. The explained variance of the final model was 44%.
If this is the case, environmental behavior is a function of increasing knowledge, sensitivity, skills, approaches and values held by the private towards the environment. Withal, there is sometimes a gap between social and ecology values that a person aspires to believe in and his/her consumer conduct [30], as was also shown in the written report by [24]. A possible reason for this could be that many people do non know what to practise in order to acquit in a pro-environmental way or that pro-ecology beliefs involves a conflict betwixt the individual's immediate demand to the long-term environmental interest [52]. Preferring the present over the hereafter is a 'classic' sustainability problem, since intentional sustainable behavior necessitates long-term thinking and giving preference to time to come benefits over present, brusque-term benefits [53].
4.1. Limitations of the Study
The present study was conducted merely at Ashkelon Academic College, and may not be a representative sample. The study is a cantankerous-sectional study, and due to a lack of means, other factors linked to pro-environmental behavior were not examined. Similarly, the research questionnaire written by the researchers (post-obit validity by experts) was used for the showtime fourth dimension in this study. It is possible that the knowledge questions were hard, and putting them at the kickoff of the online questionnaire may take deterred participants (approximately 150 students stopped filling out the questionnaire after the knowledge questions). Another limitation of the study may exist the social desirability bias of the participants. Meaning, participants may take marked answers they thought the researchers wanted to receive. Finally, the report used an online questionnaire, and it may be that the subject was of business organization for those who participated, creating a selection bias. We assume that since the average knowledge, attitudes and beliefs were relatively depression, these final ii limitations did non pb to meaning bias in the results, if at all.
four.ii. Recommendations
Students take about no noesis nearly the environmental impacts of the food they consume, and in particular, brute products, indicating that campaigns to raise sensation of this issue are probable to exist effective, especially since we found that noesis is positively related to attitudes and behavior. Nosotros recommend including an introductory course in ecology studies (from the perspective of climate change and the relationship betwixt wellness and the environment) in the study programs of all departments, with an emphasis on health subjects. Moreover, this issue is not fairly emphasized in public wellness schools in Israel; indeed, discussion of the impacts of the livestock industry is fundamental due to aspects related to man diet as well as aspects related to the many damages acquired by this industry to the environs, equally described in this study.
Hereafter enquiry to examine the level of noesis, attitudes, and beliefs needs to exist conducted on a representative sample of other populations, such as school children, developed populations, health and medical professionals, and more. A more in-depth report could include focus groups and interviews in to improve examine the knowledge and awareness of consumers with respect to food choices.
5. Conclusions
In this report nosotros constitute that students take almost no cognition about the ecology impact of the nutrient they eat, their attitudes are moderately pro-environmental yet they are not strict about pro-environmental behavior. Students with higher levels of environmental knowledge demonstrated more pro-environmental attitudes and beliefs; attitudes mediate the relationship betwixt level of knowledge and behavior with respect to environmental pollution caused past the livestock industry. In addition, participants that rear/reared animals demonstrated more knowledge and pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, and women demonstrated more pro-environmental attitudes and behavior than men.
Futurity campaigns on environmental educational activity should identify emphasis on the contribution of the individual to impacts on the surroundings, consumer habits relevant to the surround and the environmental and health benefits of consuming plant-based foods and organic food. Agriculture, and in particular animal husbandry, produces meaning pollution and it will be possible to influence consumer's nutrient choices if they understand the environmental impacts of the livestock industry. Reducing consumption of animal products volition probably be promoted nigh effectively by describing the wellness benefits of this action, too every bit the ethical aspects of preventing cruelty to animals.
Different initiatives around the world are at present existence promoted, such as Meatless Monday, increasing awareness to nutritional values institute in other products than livestock industry products and awareness campaigns. All these practices should exist evaluated in social club to promote best practices to tackle this pressing issue.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, 1000.D., and P.R.; methodology, K.D., and N.D.; software, P.R.; validation, One thousand.D., P.R. and North.D.; Formal assay, K.D., and P.R.; investigation, Thousand.D.; information curation, P.R.; writing—original draft grooming, K.D., and P.R.; writing—review and editing, N.D.; supervision, K.D.; project administration, P.R.
Funding
This enquiry received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no disharmonize of interest.
References
2. Oppenlander R. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Hillcrest Publishing Group; Minneapolis, MN, United states of america: 2013. [Google Scholar]
3. Ilea R.C. Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2009;22:153–167. doi: 10.1007/s10806-008-9136-iii. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. McMichael A.J., Powles J.W., Butler C.D., Uauy R. Food, livestock production, energy, climate modify, and health. Lancet. 2007;370:1253–1263. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
five. Goodland R., Anhang J. Livestock and Climatic change: What If the Fundamental Actors in Climate Modify Are… Cows, Pigs, and Chickens? World Watch; Washington, DC, Usa: 2009. pp. 10–19. [Google Scholar]
7. Leytem A.B., Dungan R.Due south., Bjorneberg D.L., Koehn A.C. Emissions of ammonia, marsh gas, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide from dairy cattle housing and manure management systems. J. Environ. Qual. 2011;40:1383–1394. doi: 10.2134/jeq2009.0515. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Leitzmann C. Nutrition ecology: The contribution of vegetarian diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003;78:657S–659S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/78.3.657S. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Ceballos Grand., Ehrlich P.R., Barnosky A.D., García A., Pringle R.M., Palmer T.M. Accelerated modern man–induced species losses: Inbound the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:1–5. doi: ten.1126/sciadv.1400253. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Herrero Thousand., Thornton P.K., Gerbe P., Reid R.S. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: Understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009;i:111–120. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.x.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Krätli Due south., Huelsebusch C., Brooks South., Kaufmann B. Pastoralism: A critical asset for food security under global climatic change. Anim. Forepart. 2013;three:42–l. doi: 10.2527/af.2013-0007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Eshel G., Shepon A., Makov T., Milo R. State, irrigation h2o, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014;111:11996–12001. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1402183111. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xiv. Worm B., Barbier E.B., Beaumont Due north., Duffy J.Due east., Folke C., Halpern B.S., Sala East. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science. 2006;314:787–790. doi: 10.1126/science.1132294. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xv. Jacobson M.F. More and Cleaner Water. Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Establish-based Nutrition Could Save Your Health and the Surround. Center for Science in the Public Interest; Washington, DC, U.s.: 2006. [Google Scholar]
16. Ruini L.F., Ciati R., Pratesi C.A., Marino Chiliad., Principato L., Vannuzzi Due east. Working toward healthy and sustainable diets: The "double pyramid model" developed past the Barilla Eye for Food and Diet to Raise Awareness about the Environmental and Nutritional Touch on of Foods. Forepart. Nutr. 2015;2:ane–6. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2015.00009. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Pimentel D., Pimentel M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003;78:660S–663S. doi: x.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Haines J., Staley 50. Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. U.Due south. Environmental Protection Agency—Function of Research and Development; Washington, DC, United states of america: 2004. [Google Scholar]
19. Dunlap R.E., Jorgenson A.G. Ecology problems. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Krystallis A., de Barcellos M.D., Kügler J.O., Verbeke W., Grunert K.Yard. Attitudes of European citizens towards sus scrofa production systems. Livest. Sci. 2009;126:46–56. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Grunert Chiliad.K. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci. 2006;74:149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Lea E., Worsley A. Australian consumers' food-related ecology beliefs and behaviors. Ambition. 2008;l:207–214. doi: x.1016/j.appet.2005.07.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Verbeke W., Pérez-Cueto F.J., de Barcellos Grand.D., Krystallis A., Grunert K.G. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Sci. 2010;84:284–292. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.05.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Tobler C., Visschers V.H., Siegrist M. Eating green. Consumers' willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite. 2011;57:674–682. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Pe'er S., Goldman D., Yavetz B. Ecology literacy in teacher training: Attitudes, noesis, and environmental beliefs of kickoff students. J. Environ. Educ. 2007;39:45–59. doi: 10.3200/JOEE.39.1.45-59. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Bradley J.C., Waliczek T.M., Zajicek J.M. Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of loftier school students. J. Environ. Educ. 1999;xxx:17–21. doi: 10.1080/00958969909601873. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Dori Y.J., Tal T. Industry-environs projects: Formal and informal scientific discipline activities in a customs school. Sci. Educ. 2000;84:95–113. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<95::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-Westward. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Tuncer G., Tekkaya C., Sungur S., Cakiroglu J., Ertepinar H., Kaplowitz Thou. Assessing pre-service teachers' environmental literacy in Turkey as a mean to develop instructor education programs. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2009;29:426–436. doi: x.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.10.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Fishbein Grand., Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley; Reading, MA, USA: 1975. [Google Scholar]
30. Homer P., Kahle L. A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988;54:638–646. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Cohen M., Tater J. Exploring Sustainable Consumption. Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Engineering; Newark, NJ, The states: 2001. [Google Scholar]
32. Paul Due east.S. Empathy with animals and with humans. Are they linked? Anthrozoös. 2000;13:194–202. doi: x.2752/089279300786999699. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Bjerke T., Kaltenborn B.P., Odegardstuen T.South. Animal-related activities and appreciation of animals among children and adolescents. Anthrozoös. 2001;14:86–94. doi: 10.2752/089279301786999535. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Bjerke T., Ødegårdstuen T.S., Kaltenborn B. Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozöos. 1998;2:79–86. doi: 10.2752/089279398787000742. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Prokop P., Özel M., Usak G. Cross-cultural comparing of educatee attitudes toward snakes. Soc. Anim. 2009;17:224–240. doi: 10.1163/156853009X445398. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Cooper C.K., Wise T.N., Mann 50.S. Psychological and cognitive characteristics of vegetarians. Psychosomatics. 1985;26:521–527. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(85)72832-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Binngießer J., Randler C. Clan of the Environmental Attitudes" Preservation" and" Utilization" with Pro-Animal Attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2015;ten:477–492. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2015.255a. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Paul Due east.S., Serpell J.A. Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young machismo. Anim. Welf. 1993;2:321–337. [Google Scholar]
39. Janda S., Trocchia P.J. Vegetarianism: Toward a greater understanding. Psychol. Marker. 2001;18:1205–1240. doi: x.1002/mar.1050. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Preylo B.D., Arikawa H. Comparing of vegetarians and non-vegetarians on pet mental attitude and empathy. Anthrozoös. 2008;21:387–395. doi: 10.2752/175303708X371654. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Rothgerber H. A meaty matter. Pet diet and the vegetarian's dilemma. Appetite. 2013;68:76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Pifer L., Shimizu Thou., Pifer R. Public attitudes toward brute research: Some international comparisons. Soc. Anim. 1994;ii:95–113. doi: 10.1163/156853094X00126. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Mekonnen M.Chiliad., Hoekstra A.Y. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems. 2012;fifteen:401–415. doi: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-eight. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Businesswoman R.1000., Kenny D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986;51:1173–1182. doi: x.1037/0022-3514.51.vi.1173. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Vanhonacker F., Van Loo E.J., Gellynck Ten., Verbeke W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite. 2013;62:7–xvi. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Hsu S.J., Roth R.E. An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors of responsible environmental behavior held by secondary teachers in the Hualien area of Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res. 1998;4:229–249. doi: ten.1080/1350462980040301. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Hines J.M., Hungerford H.R., Tomera A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987;18:1–8. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Kuhlemeier H., Van den Bergh H., Lagerweij N. Environmental cognition, attitudes, and behavior in Dutch secondary education. J. Environ. Educ. 1999;30:iv–14. doi: x.1080/00958969909601864. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Rickinson G. Learners and learning in environment pedagogy: A critical review of the evidence. Environ. Educ. Res. 2001;seven:207–320. doi: ten.1080/13504620120065230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Dietz T., Stern P.C., Guagnano G.A. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1998;30:450–471. doi: 10.1177/001391659803000402. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L. Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environ. Behav. 1993;25:322–348. doi: x.1177/0013916593255002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Pieters R., Bijmolt T., Van Raaij F., de Kruijk 1000. Consumers' attributions of pro-environmental behavior, motivation, and ability to cocky and others. J. Public Policy Marker. 1998;17:215–225. doi: 10.1177/074391569801700206. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Thaler R.H., Sunstein C.R. Nudge: Improving Decisions well-nigh Wellness, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press; New Oasis, CT, USA: 2008. [Google Scholar]
Articles from International Journal of Environmental Inquiry and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518108/
Posted by: salinasgise1989.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Much Pollution Does Animal Agriculture Cause"
Post a Comment