The Effects of Animal Agriculture on the Environment Scholarly Peer Reviewed Articles
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Apr; 16(viii): 1359.
Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship betwixt Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs amidst Students in Israel
Keren Dopelt
1Department of Public Wellness, Schoolhouse of Health Sciences, Ashkelon Bookish College, Ashkelon 78211, State of israel; moc.liamg@68sag.aninp
2School 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 Health, Schoolhouse of Health Sciences, Ashkelon Academic Higher, Ashkelon 78211, State of israel; moc.liamg@68sag.aninp
Nadav Davidovitch
twoSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba 8410501, Israel; li.ca.ugb@dvadan
Received 2019 February 12; Accustomed 2019 April fifteen.
Abstract
The livestock manufacture has numerous and various impacts on the surroundings. In a cantankerous-sectional written report using an online questionnaire, 361 students were asked well-nigh their noesis, attitudes, and beliefs related to the environmental impact caused by livestock industry. The information were analyzed using correlations, t-tests for independent samples, and linear regression models. Nosotros institute that students have almost no noesis nigh the environmental touch of the food they eat, their attitudes are moderately pro-environmental, yet they are not strict nearly pro-environmental behavior. Students with college levels of environmental knowledge demonstrated more than pro-environmental attitudes and beliefs; attitudes mediate the relationship between level of noesis and behavior with respect to environmental pollution caused by the livestock industry. In addition, participants that rear/reared animals demonstrated more than knowledge and pro-ecology attitudes and behavior, and women demonstrated more than pro-ecology attitudes and behavior than men. There is a need to heighten sensation of the environmental and wellness impacts acquired by livestock industry. An introductory course on environmental science should be integrated into different academic study programs. Further enquiry should be conducted amidst boosted population sectors.
Keywords: environmental pollution, sustainability, livestock manufacture, pro-ecology behavior, noesis and attitudes
1. Introduction
ane.ane. Literature Review
Production of food from animals has accelerated during the concluding 100 years, in response to growing demand [1]. Throughout the globe approximately lxx billion animals are reared equally domestic animals annually, with more than 6 million animals killed for food each yr [2], and approximately 56 billion mammals and birds slaughtered each yr [3]. Co-ordinate to a report past the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, titled, "The Long Shadow of the Animal Industry" [1], global meat consumption doubled during the period 1980–2002. According to hereafter predictions, global meat production is expected to double from 229 meg tons in 1999 to 465 1000000 tons by 2050. Milk production is expected to increment from 580 to 1043 million tons [1]. Besides the humane aspects associated with the rearing and slaughtering weather of animals in the nutrient manufacture, the great increase in the consumption of animal products has a almost severe affect on the environment. The FAO written report states that "The meat manufacture has a marked touch on on a general global scale on water, soils, extinction of plants and animals, and consumption of natural resources, and it has a strong impact on global warming" [ane].
1.2. The Impact of Animal Production Consumption on the Environment
The livestock industry is the source of a broad spectrum of environmental impacts [3]. The first and almost important is climatic change [4]. In the third chapter of the FAO report [i] information technology is estimated that 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the livestock industry. The corporeality of carbon dioxide (COtwo) released to the atmosphere is estimated at approximately 7516 million tons per year [1,3]. According to Goodland and Anhang [5] this estimate is too low. Co-ordinate to their calculations the global livestock industry is responsible for at least 51% of the greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide is estimated at 32,564 1000000 tons. This large divergence stems partly from the FAO using outdated sources from the years 1964–2001. Nevertheless, even if greenhouse gas emissions are estimated at simply 18%, the livestock industry is still the second-largest polluter after the electricity industry, and more than polluting than the transportation manufacture, which contributes approximately 13% [half dozen].
Most emissions related to the livestock industry are in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (Due north2O), methane (CH4), and ammonia (NH3) [6,7]. Domestic animals 'naturally' release carbon dioxide, which has been proven to be a meaning contributor to global warming [v]. Researchers warn that we volition probably exceed the 565 gigaton carbon dioxide limit by the year 2030 due to livestock rearing. In improver, the livestock industry 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 almost 64% of total ammonia emissions, contributing significantly to acid pelting and to acidification of ecosystems. Livestock are also a highly significant source of methane emissions, contributing 35–twoscore% of marsh gas emissions worldwide. Methane has a 23-fold greater potential for global warming than carbon dioxide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Bureau has shown that in the terminal 15 years methane emissions from pigs increased by 37% and emissions from cattle increased past 50% [half dozen,7].
Secondly, while not all livestock impacts surroundings in the aforementioned way, production of fauna products might require extensive land. Farms for rearing livestock already cover one-third of the world's total land and more than two-thirds of its agronomical land [three]. The increasing demand for animal products and the lack of land has caused the livestock industry to become the main cause for clearing forests and turning them into pasture. According to the International Heart for Forest Research (CIFOR), during the years 1990–2000, an expanse twice the size of Portugal was lost in favor of pasture [3]. Another reason for woods clearing is production of food for animals. Approximately xl% of the harvested crops in the world are used every bit food for animals. Thus, if we took half of the crops used as feed for those same animals, we would be able to feed all the starving populations around the globe and solve the trouble of world hunger [3,8]. Massive wood clearing leads, among other things, to animate being extinctions [ix]. Up to 137 species of plants, animals and unique insects are lost every twenty-four hours due to forest clearing. Ceballos et al. [10] merits that this is the greatest mass extinction in 65 1000000 years. While it is well documented that the livestock manufacture and livestock production cause a host of environmental problems, livestock production in certain ecosystems, like barren and semi-barren lands, are the most well-adjusted food production system. It is a more than efficient and rational land use organization (if animals are able to move) than tillage, which has a poorer track record at feeding people and being sustainable, especially nether conditions of increasing climatic variability. Farming some staple crops, like rice, too has extensive negative environmental impacts [xi,12,xiii].
Product of animal food products is the greatest agricultural cause of water pollution [3]. The tendency of increasing consumption of animal products has a negative touch on ecosystems and on water sources, in particular in developing countries. The h2o pollution is caused by animal excreta, antibiotics and hormones, fertilizers and pesticides used in forage production, and rainfall runoff from pasture [1]. The U.Southward. Section of Agronomics (USDA) declared that fauna parts and poultry manure are major sources of water pollution [3].
The livestock industry as well leads to great resource wastage, in particular wastage of water [1]. In the U.S., for example, the amount of water consumed past private residences is approximately 5% of total consumption, while the amount of water consumed past animal agriculture is approximately 55% [14]. A study that measured the corporeality of consumed resources (e.g., water, fertilizer, soil) and greenhouse gas emissions from nutrient showed that a vegan diet is better for reducing environmental impacts compared to a vegetarian or omnivorous diet [fifteen]. In one day, a vegan person saves 4164 liters of water, 20 kg crops, 2.8 mtwo forested state, 10 kg CO2 and the life of 1 beast [16].
Moreover, the livestock industry produces copious quantities of waste. The livestock industry in the U.S. produces 116,000 pounds of waste product per second. According to Haines and Staley [17] a farm with 2500 milking cows produces the same amount of waste material as a city with 411,000 residents. Thus, we must inquire whether the general population is aware of these damages caused by the livestock industry to the surround.
1.iii. People's Level of Awareness of Ecology Pollution Caused by the Livestock Industry
Environmental problems, particularly climate change resulting from human activities, keep to concord a prominent place on the international calendar [18]. While the general population is aware of ecology problems such as air or h2o pollution it is barely aware of the environmental damages acquired by the food manufacture. Consumers are less aware of the impact of their nutrient choices, through product and nutrient distribution, than of other popular issues, such equally industrial pollution and wildlife conservation [nineteen]. Awareness is specially low with respect to ecology pollution past the livestock manufacture. Despite the loftier 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 nigh animal food production, just their knowledge on this issue is very minimal and often comes from unreliable sources, and thus many keep to eat animal products [20].
In a study that examined the beliefs and behavior of consumers in Commonwealth of australia with respect to food, 223 participants were asked to rank the about important nutrient-related activities for conserving ecology quality. 'Reducing plastic bags' and 'compost' were establish to be the most important activities while 'reducing meat consumption' was considered by consumers to exist the action with the everyman impact on environmental quality [21].
Consumer attitudes towards pork consumption were examined in a written report that combined the findings from two Eu projects [20,22]. Ane project included eight focus groups with seven to nine participants in each group. In full, 65 people aged xix to threescore from the capital cities of Germany, France, Spain and Britain took role in the discussions. All participants were meat eaters who consumed pork at a frequency of 'at least once a week' to 'nearly every twenty-four hour period.' The discussions were intended to extract information on the participants' opinions and attitudes towards eating meat, safety, and health. In the 2d project, data were nerveless via an online survey conducted among 2437 people anile twenty to lxx in 5 countries: Belgium, Germany, Poland, Greece and Denmark. The data included socio-demographic data about the participants, weight and elevation, attitudes, and information about behavior related to meat consumption. With respect to attitudes, heavy pork consumers supported big-scale pork product systems. 'Intermediate frequency, high diversity' consumers were considered to be more 'environmentally witting' that all of the other groups. Their depression meat consumption in comparing to the heavy consumers may be related to their attitudes towards the environmental consequences of pork product. Rare consumers of grunter ('low frequency, depression diversity') were considered to be more than concerned most fauna well-being and supported small pork production systems. As a rule, it was found that on average beyond the entire sample, attitudes towards environmental quality and animal food production were very weak. Even the consumers who expressed business for the environment with respect to pork production continued to swallow it on a daily basis. Similarly, consumers who indicated that they do not eat pork at all did non avoid it because of environmental concerns just rather due to other reasons.
A long-term study conducted in Switzerland amidst 6189 participants (47% males) examined eating habits and aspects related to nutrition and food consumption [23]. The project lasted one year and studied how people'due south nutrient consumption patterns modify 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 affect on the environment. In contrast, they ranked the option of 'avoiding meat' as beingness the least beneficial to the surroundings. The more meat the participants ate, the more negative their mental attitude towards the do good of reducing meat consumption. Since it is hard for consumers to surrender meat, denying the benefit of reducing meat consumption may exist their strategy for reducing the racket only may also reflects a lack of knowledge. With respect to reducing meat consumption and buying organic food, nigh participants were not willing to brand 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 agile phase) compared to men. People who believed that reducing meat consumption has a positive bear upon on their wellness ate less meat. Conversely, participants who believed that reducing meat consumption has a positive impact on the environs reflected this less through their behavior. Similarly, the ethical aspect of cruelty to animals only afflicted the willingness of consumers to consider reducing meat consumption but not to progress to the active stage. It was besides found that for all consumption patterns, women are more than 'environmentally friendly' than men. The difference was almost marked with respect to purchasing organic nutrient. In addition, men were significantly less willing to reduce their meat consumption.
Due to the low awareness constitute in countries around the world, it is of paramount importance to examine the noesis, attitudes and beliefs of consumers with respect to the ecology consequences of the meat industry. A better understanding of knowledge, attitudes and behavior of consumers might serve to better the current debate on the impact of livestock industry on environs and health.
1.iv. The Relationship between Cognition, Attitudes, and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Knowledge, every bit a cerebral component, is indeed disquisitional, but lone 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 [24]. Despite the complex relationship between the components, researchers accept shown that expanding knowledge via environmental studies and educational activities leads to more positive attitudes towards the environment and more than responsible environmental behavior [25,26].
Pe'er et al. [24] examined the level of environmental literacy of 765 students studying teaching at three teachers' colleges in Israel. It was found that the students had low ecological-ecology knowledge (38.39 out of 100, on boilerplate), only nigh of them expressed positive attitudes (iii.59–4.13 on a scale of ane–5). The Pearson correlation coefficients showed a loftier 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).
Tuncer et al. [27] examined the relationship between cognition, attitudes, and concern for the environs among 684 teachers in Turkey. One-half of the respondents (51%) defined themselves as 'quite concerned' and only 11% reported a high level of concern for environmental issues. The participants did not limited loftier confidence in their level of environmental noesis, with less than iv% reporting that they were 'quite expert' on ecology bug, and 55% of them having 'some kind of environmental cognition'. Despite the poor knowledge, the teachers' attitudes, on average, were positive towards the surround and their view was considered to be an ecological world view. The researchers found positive relationships betwixt the level of noesis and the level of business for the surround (r = 0.13, p < 0.01) and betwixt environmental attitudes and level of concern (r = 0.xx, p < 0.01).
In summary, increasing knowledge, skills, approaches and values inside the individual with respect to the surround may promote the individual'south feeling of responsibility and adequacy to alter 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 deed to implement them. This is the gap betwixt declared values and bodily decisions [28]. In particular, in the ecology 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.Southward., which constitute that 40% of consumers hold positive opinions nearly 'light-green' products merely in practice they practise non purchase them due to a number of reasons (cost, accessibility, convenience) [thirty].
1.5. The Human relationship between Animal Rearing and Noesis Levels, Attitudes, and Beliefs
The relationship between rearing pets and empathy towards animals has been examined past a number of studies. Paul [31] found that empathy towards animals was significantly related to nowadays 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 subcontract animals and wild animals more than than children who grew up without pets [32]. In add-on, a number of studies have shown that pet owners demonstrate more empathy towards animals and show 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 nutrition is animal welfare [35,36]. In a survey of students, Paul and Serpell [37] establish 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 probable to report avoidance of at least one animal product for upstanding reasons. In a qualitative study in which 11 vegetarians were interviewed, nearly of the interviewees related vegetarianism during adulthood to ownership of pets during their babyhood [38]. In some other study, vegetarian males related more than positively to pets than non-vegetarian males [39]. Moreover, a number of studies accept reported a higher proportion of pet owners among meat-avoiders [xl]. Every bit a rule, it seems that perception of the environment is also afflicted past attitudes towards animals. Pifer, Shimizu and Pifer [41] found a meaning human relationship between business concern for the environment and opposition to experiments on animals and concern for their rights in 11 out of fifteen countries.
From this literature 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 [42]. They exercise not connect nutrient products and ecology quality; and they are barely aware of the environmental impact of the consumption of animal products [23]. The aim of this electric current written report is to examine the level of noesis and sensation of students in State of israel on topics related to environmental pollution caused by industrial creature food production. Similarly, the report aspires to examine the behavior of participants with respect to this issue, and to determine whether there is a relationship between cognition, attitudes, and behavior. The enquiry hypothesis is that positive relationships will exist establish 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 add-on, participants who ain pets or owned them in the past volition demonstrate greater knowledge, awareness, and pro-environmental behavior than other participants.
2. Materials and Methods
ii.1. Study Population and Sample
The study was conducted amidst students enrolled at Ashkelon Bookish College in 2017. According to information from the Higher Education Quango (HEC), 3453 students studied at the college during that year, including 70% women. The sample comprised of 361 students who answered at least lxxx% 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. In that location were no exclusion criteria for the study.
two.ii. Research Tools
For the electric current report, we used an anonymous, airtight, self-completion questionnaire. We did not discover questionnaires that examined the variables in the current study and a new questionnaire was therefore constructed. For this purpose, nosotros conducted an all-encompassing literature review. Since in that location were no similar previous questionnaire testing knowledge on livestock industry influence on the environment (apart from surveys dealing with pork industry that is not relevant to the Israeli context). The questionnaire was validated by sustainability experts using a content validation method. After, a pilot study was conducted among 10 students who practice not report at Ashkelon Bookish College, and two unclear questions were corrected.
Description of Questionnaire Sections:
The questionnaire comprised 46 closed questions every bit follows:
-
Demographic information—six questions most gender, age, marital condition, country of birth, nutritional lifestyle (omnivore/vegetarian/vegan), and whether the respondent previously or currently rears animals.
-
Noesis—13 questions in which respondents were asked to bespeak whether, in their opinion, the statement is correct or incorrect or whether they practice not know. For example: The livestock manufacture causes more environmental pollution than the transportation manufacture. Questionnaire reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.90.
-
Attitudes—xiii questions relating to attitudes towards the livestock manufacture in which respondents were asked to point to what extent they hold with the statement on a Likert calibration of i–5, including the option "I don't know". For example: Information technology is important to me that the food I eat is produced in a mode that preserves animal rights. Questionnaire reliability: Cronbach'south α = 0.88.
-
Behavior—seven questions. Respondents were asked to point at what frequency they act according to the statement on a Likert calibration of 1–5, including the selection "I don't know." For example: I participate in the boxing to prevent hazards from the livestock industry. Questionnaire reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.71.
-
Consumption of animal products—respondents were asked to indicate at what frequency they consume beefiness, chicken, fish, eggs, dairy products, organic vegetables and meat substitutes on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (every day).
2.3. Research Process
This study was a cross-exclusive report. In the beginning stage we conducted an all-encompassing literature review for the purpose of amalgam and validating the questionnaire. After blessing from the ethics committee of the college, the questionnaires were programmed using Qualtrics and distributed to the students in March 2017. A reminder to consummate the questionnaire was sent in the same way later on two weeks. On v April 2017, the questionnaire was closed in the program. The time taken to answer the questionnaire was estimated at vii minutes on boilerplate. At that place were 541 entries to the questionnaire, and 361 students completed at least 80% of the questionnaire (67% of those entering the questionnaire), thus 180 participants were omitted from the analysis.
The introductory page to the questionnaire contained 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 information technology at whatsoever stage or to choose not to answer some of the questions. No questions were defined as compulsory.
2.iv. Data Analysis
The information were analyzed using SPSS 5. 23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, Usa). The relationships betwixt the variables were examined by calculating Pearson correlations. Mediation was examined using linear regressions co-ordinate to Baron and Kenny [43]. Differences between groups were examined using independent t-tests. Finally, hierarchical (multiple) linear regression models were built to predict pro-environmental behavior, with gender and rearing animals as covariables. The model included variables that were found to be significantly related to beliefs in the univariate analyses.
3. Results
three.1. Description of Sample Characteristics
The report participants included 361 students aged 18 to 67; the average age was 29 (SD = 8.6). The sample characteristics are presented in Tabular array 1.
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 |
| Born overseas | 85 | 23 |
| Omnivore | 328 | 91 |
| Vegetarian/vegan | 33 | nine |
| Rear/reared an animal | 198 | 55 |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 237 | 66 |
| Wellness Sciences | 53 | 15 |
| Engineering | 37 | eleven |
| Direction | xxx | eight |
Table one shows that well-nigh participants were women (75%), like to the percentage of female person students in the general student population at the higher (77%). Nigh participants were built-in in State of israel (77%) and omnivorous (91%). Half of them are single (49%) and 46% are in a relationship. More half of them rear or previously reared an beast (55%). Two thirds study in the Faculty of Social Sciences, 15% in the Faculty of Health Sciences (psychology, sociology, criminology, social piece of work, etc.), eleven% in the Faculty of Applied science, and 8% in the Faculty of Management.
3.2. Level of Knowledge
The distribution of responses to the statements that examined the level of knowledge with respect to environmental damage cause by the livestock industry is presented below (Table ii).
Table 2
Distribution of responses to the knowledge questionnaire.
| Statement | Correct (%) | Incorrect (%) | Don't Know (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The increase in consumption of meat products contributes directly to climate change. | 35 | 17 | 48 |
| 2. Fertilization and soil waste material produce near 2-thirds of all agricultural emissions effectually the globe. | 28 | v | 67 |
| three. Near 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are from the livestock industry. | 32 | 12 | 56 |
| four. The livestock industry is the second greatest polluter afterward the electricity industry. | 22 | 22 | 56 |
| five. The livestock manufacture causes greater ecology pollution than the transportation industry. | 12 | 39 | 49 |
| six. The average corporeality of h2o consumed by individual homes is estimated at about 5%, while the amount of water consumed by animal agriculture is about 55%. | 26 | thirteen | 61 |
| 7. The corporeality of water required to produce 1 kg meat is at least 50 times greater than the amount of water required for vegetable product. | 22 | xv | 63 |
| eight. About xl% 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 | 11 | 57 |
| x. Well-nigh two.seven trillion marine animals are drawn from the oceans each year. | xxx | 6 | 64 |
| 11. Livestock production takes upwards seventy% of all agricultural state. | 21 | eighteen | 61 |
| 12. Livestock production takes up thirty% of the earth'south state. | 25 | 11 | 64 |
| thirteen. The livestock industry is responsible for nearly 90% of rainforest destruction. | 13 | 27 | 60 |
To construct the variable "level of knowledge almost the amercement caused to the environment by the livestock industry", we counted the number of correct answers provided by each participant. The variable ranged from 0–13. The mean value of the cognition variable was iii.33 (SD = two.38).
iii.3. Attitudes
The distribution of responses to statements that examined attitudes are presented below (Table 3) after combining categories as follows: answers 1 and 2 were combined into the category 'weakly agree,' answer 3 remained 'moderately agree' and answers 4 and 5 were combined into the category 'strongly agree'.
Tabular array three
Distribution of responses to the attitudes questionnaire.
| Statement | Weakly (%) | Moderately (%) | Strongly (%) | Don't Know (%) | Mean ± SD 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The livestock manufacture causes environmental destruction. | 25 | 23 | 30 | 22 | 3.12 ± 1.31 |
| 2. The vegan diet is the best 1 for reducing the environmental touch on of the livestock industry. | 42 | 13 | 27 | 18 | two.64 ± 1.51 |
| iii. The livestock industry leads to great wastage of natural resource (water, food, country). | 34 | 20 | 28 | 18 | 2.90 ± 1.39 |
| four. The production of animal products should be express. | 39 | 20 | 30 | xi | 2.83 ± 1.42 |
| v. It is important to me that the food I eat is produced in an environmentally friendly way. | 15 | 20 | 61 | 4 | 3.81 ± 1.25 |
| 6. Information technology is important to me that the nutrient I eat is produced in a way that preserves creature rights. | 14 | 20 | 62 | 4 | 3.92 ± one.20 |
| 7. The event of environmental destruction by the livestock industry should be much higher on Israel's list of priorities. | 18 | 26 | 51 | 6 | three.54 ± one.22 |
| 8. Information technology is very important to me to preserve environmental quality. | 8 | 16 | 73 | three | iv.10 ± ane.03 |
| 9. Plants and animals exist so that humans will use them for their needs. * | 35 | 21 | 39 | v | 2.11 ± i.41 |
| 10. If had more than knowledge on the issue, I am sure that I would integrate environmental considerations when choosing my food. | 21 | 22 | 50 | seven | three.50 ± ane.27 |
| eleven. The livestock industry should exist obligated to reduce polluting emissions to the surroundings even if this means that the cost for the consumer will rise. | 26 | 24 | 41 | 9 | three.30 ± one.35 |
| 12. The issue of concern for environmental problems is exaggerated. * | 56 | 21 | 16 | vii | 1.28 ± ane.27 |
| 13. Every educatee should be obligated to participate in a class on ecology issues during his/her caste. | 56 | 15 | 23 | half dozen | two.39 ± one.45 |
For the purpose of amalgam the attitudes variable we calculated the mean response of each participant, without the 'I don't know' option, and after reversing the scale for questions 9 and 12. The mean value of the variable was iii.28 (SD = 0.eighty).
3.4. Behavior
The distribution of responses to the statements, after combining categories, is presented below (Table 4).
Tabular array 4
Distribution of responses to the behavior questionnaire.
| Statement | Rarely (%) | Sometimes (%) | Often (%) | Don't Know (%) | Mean ± SD 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i. I buy food made in Israel. | 6 | 23 | 63 | eight | 4.01 ± 0.99 |
| 2. I eat food co-ordinate to the flavour. | 26 | 24 | 47 | 3 | 3.xxx ± one.37 |
| 3. I eat organic nutrient. | 65 | 23 | ix | 3 | two.08 ± 1.07 |
| four. I am considering becoming vegetarian or vegan. | 74 | 9 | 15 | 2 | 1.87 ± one.32 |
| 5. I try to swallow food from the livestock manufacture equally little as possible. | 59 | 20 | 20 | i | two.32 ± 1.40 |
| half-dozen. I participate in the battle to prevent hazards from the livestock industry. | 90 | 4 | 4 | ii | 1.33 ± 0.82 |
| 7. I read manufactures on hazards from the livestock industry. | 65 | 19 | xv | 1 | ii.05 ± 1.23 |
For the purpose of amalgam the variable we calculated the hateful response for each participant, without the 'I don't know' option. The mean value of the behavior variable was 2.41 (SD = 0.71).
iii.v. The Relationships between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior
We found positive and strongly significant relationships between level of knowledge and attitudes (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), between level of knowledge and behavior (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), and between 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-ecology attitudes were related to more pro-ecology beliefs. Therefore, the hypotheses are confirmed.
3.6. Attitudes Mediating the Relationship between Knowledge and Beliefs
According to the method of Businesswoman and Kenny [44], three linear regressions were performed (Effigy i): firstly, nosotros examined the predictive ability of knowledge on behavior (A). Secondly, we examined the predictive ability of knowledge on attitudes (B). Thirdly, knowledge and attitudes were included as independent variables, with behavior as the dependent variable (C). As shown in Figure 1, in the offset regression (path A) we institute that the knowledge variable predicted behavior (β = 0.36, p < 0.001), explaining thirteen% of variance in behavior. In the second regression (path B) nosotros institute that the knowledge variable predicted mental attitude (β = 0.33, p < 0.001), explaining 11% of variance in attitudes. In the third regression (path C) nosotros found that the noesis and attitude variables explained 28% of variance in the behavior variable. When we added the attitude variable, the corporeality of variance explained increased to 23% and the ability 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 we can conclude, according to Businesswoman and Kenny [44] that the attitude variable partly mediates the relationship between knowledge and behavior. In other words, if nosotros controlled for the effect of attitude, there was still a relationship betwixt knowledge and behavior, only it was weaker. Similarly, the change in the per centum variance explained was significant (R2 alter = 0.29, p < 0.001), therefore, confirming our hypothesis.
Attitudes mediate the human relationship between knowledge and behavior.
three.7. Rearing Animals
Significant differences were found betwixt participants who rear/reared animals and participants who do non/did not, in the level of noesis (t (355) = iii.78, p < 0.001), attitudes (t (354) = 3.04, p < 0.01), and behavior (t (329) = two.33, p < 0.05) on issues related to environmental pollution acquired by the livestock industry. Participants who rear/reared animals had more knowledge (hateful = 3.29 vs. ii.62 amidst participants who practice not rear animals), more positive attitudes (mean = 3.40 vs. 3.14 among participants who do not rear animals), and more pro-ecology behavior (mean = 2.49 vs. 2.30 amid participants who do not rear animals), therefore, confirming our hypothesis.
3.8. Differences betwixt Genders
No differences were found between genders in the level of knowledge, only meaning differences were institute between genders with respect to attitudes (t (354) = 2.45, p < 0.05) and behavior on topics related to environmental pollution caused past the livestock industry (t (333) = three.26, p = 0.001). Women had more positive attitudes (hateful = 3.34 vs. 3.10) and pro-ecology beliefs (mean = two.47 vs. 2.20) than men.
3.9. A Linear Regression Model to Predict Pro-Environmental 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 (Table five). The models included variables that were significantly related to behavior in the univariate analyses.
Table v
Results of hierarchical linear regression models to predict pro-environmental behavior.
| Variable | Groundwork Variables | Noesis and Attitudes | Consuming Animal Products | Combined Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | β | β | β | |
| Gender (0—male person, 1—female) | 0.15 ** | 0.09 | 0.04 | |
| Rearing animals (0—no, i—yes) | 0.11 * | 0.01 | 0.12 ** | |
| Knowledge | 0.23 ** | 0.14 ** | ||
| Attitudes | 0.41 ** | 0.28 ** | ||
| Beefiness | −0.xxx *** | −0.25 *** | ||
| Poultry | −0.09 | |||
| Fish | 0.02 | |||
| Eggs | −0.12 * | −0.x * | ||
| Dairy products | −0.13 ** | −0.12 ** | ||
| Organic vegetables | 0.15 ** | 0.12 ** | ||
| Meat substitutes | 0.22 *** | 0.19 *** | ||
| Adjusted R Foursquare | 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 ability of all variables to predict pro-environmental 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 = 0.19, p < 0.001). The combined model shows that noesis, consumption of milk products, organic vegetables and eggs as well predicted behavior (β = 0.xiv, p < 0.01; β = −0.12, p < 0.01; β = 0.12, p < 0.01; β = −0.10, p < 0.5, respectively). The variance explained past the terminal model was approximately 44% (p < 0.001).
4. Discussion
The present study examined the level of cognition, attitudes and beliefs of students on topics related to ecology pollution caused by the livestock manufacture. It was found that participants' attitudes towards damage acquired to the environment by the livestock industry are moderately pro-environmental, and the level of cognition on the subject field is low. Moreover, students practise not demonstrate pro-environmental beliefs in this context. These findings are in line with a number of studies conducted in Europe and the U.Southward., which showed that some consumers are concerned most product of animate being foods simply their knowledge on this topic is very express, and most continue to consume animal products without any intention of reducing consumption [twenty,21,22,45].
The greatest forcefulness in this relationship was found between attitudes and beliefs, followed by the relationship between level of knowledge and behavior and finally between level of knowledge and attitudes. In recent years, environmental problems have attained an increasingly significant identify on the media'southward calendar. Studies in environmental education have found a clear relationship betwixt acquiring knowledge during an educational activity and an increase in positive attitudes towards the environs [20,26,27,46]. Many studies have strengthened this finding and shown that environmental noesis is needed to drive responsible environmental behavior, and that it is a prerequisite for activeness [28,47,48]. The survey conducted by Rickinson [49] likewise showed that ecology knowledge is indeed an important component in the prevalence of supportive environmental behavior and is a prerequisite for formulating attitudes towards environmental problems. However, knowledge is non the primal component affecting behavior [25]; indeed, the findings of the nowadays study show that the force of the human relationship betwixt attitudes and behavior is greater than the strength of the human relationship between knowledge and beliefs.
It was too plant that attitudes partially mediate the relationship between the level of knowledge and behavior. In other words, if we account for the effect of attitudes, at that place will notwithstanding be a relationship between cognition and behavior, but it volition be weaker. Co-ordinate to Pe'er et al. [25], knowledge is indeed critical but knowledge alone cannot adequately predict responsible ecology behavior. The emotional component, which is related to attitudes and values, is necessary for driving the transformation of knowledge into responsible ecology beliefs. In other words, the ecology behavior of the private may change due to changes in values, beliefs and pro-ecology norms. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) of Fishbein and Aizen [29], which connects beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior, can provide an caption for this finding. Fishbein and Aizen claimed that the intention to deport beliefs is the best predictor of its occurrence, and it depends on the attitudes and norms held past the private. The individual'due south cognition and positive attitudes, alongside social norms that call for environmental conservation, will create a socialization process that strengthens environmental values. These will create motivation and intentions to act to reduce amercement caused to the environs past the livestock industry.
As hypothesized, it was found that participants that rear/reared animals demonstrated more than knowledge, attitudes, and pro-environmental 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 improver, in some studies the proportion of pet owners was college among a group of meat-avoiders [39,41] and that the main cause of vegetarian diet was animal welfare [36,37,twoscore].
The study did not find differences between genders in the level of noesis, just nevertheless meaning differences between genders were establish for attitudes and beliefs. Women had more positive attitudes and pro-environmental behavior than men. Dietz et al. [fifty] reported similar findings, and explained that in their opinion, parenthood leads to greater environmental concern among women than among 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 about the destructive consequences of deteriorating ecology quality, than men. Tobler et al. [24] found that women were much more willing than men to surrender meat. The authors offered the explanation that meat, and in particular red meat, is linked to force and power, which makes it difficult for males to change their attitudes and reduce their consumption.
Finally, a hierarchical (multiple) linear regression model was built to predict pro-environmental behavior, wherein gender and brute rearing were covariates. The model included variables that were constitute to exist significantly related to behavior in the univariate analyses. In the final model information technology was found that knowledge, attitudes, consumption of beef and dairy products (inversely correlated), meat substitutes, organic vegetables, and eggs predict pro-ecology behavior. The explained variance of the terminal model was 44%.
If this is the instance, ecology behavior is a function of increasing knowledge, sensitivity, skills, approaches and values held by the private towards the surroundings. Nevertheless, at that place is sometimes a gap between social and environmental values that a person aspires to believe in and his/her consumer deport [xxx], as was too shown in the study by [24]. A possible reason for this could be that many people do not know what to practise in order to comport in a pro-environmental mode or that pro-environmental behavior involves a conflict between the individual'southward immediate need to the long-term ecology interest [52]. Preferring the present over the time to come is a 'archetype' sustainability problem, since intentional sustainable behavior necessitates long-term thinking and giving preference to futurity benefits over present, short-term benefits [53].
4.1. Limitations of the Written report
The present report was conducted only at Ashkelon Academic College, and may not be a representative sample. The study is a cantankerous-sectional report, and due to a lack of means, other factors linked to pro-environmental beliefs were not examined. Similarly, the research questionnaire written by the researchers (following validity past experts) was used for the outset fourth dimension in this report. It is possible that the knowledge questions were difficult, and putting them at the beginning 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 be the social desirability bias of the participants. Meaning, participants may have marked answers they idea the researchers wanted to receive. Finally, the study used an online questionnaire, and information technology may be that the bailiwick was of concern for those who participated, creating a selection bias. We presume that since the average knowledge, attitudes and behavior were relatively low, these last ii limitations did not lead to pregnant bias in the results, if at all.
4.ii. Recommendations
Students have almost no knowledge about the environmental impacts of the food they consume, and in particular, beast products, indicating that campaigns to raise sensation of this issue are likely to be effective, especially since nosotros constitute that knowledge is positively related to attitudes and behavior. We recommend including an introductory form in environmental studies (from the perspective of climate modify and the relationship betwixt health and the environment) in the study programs of all departments, with an emphasis on health subjects. Moreover, this issue is not adequately emphasized in public health schools in Israel; indeed, discussion of the impacts of the livestock industry is central due to aspects related to human diet as well as aspects related to the many damages caused by this industry to the environment, as described in this report.
Time to come inquiry to examine the level of knowledge, attitudes, and behavior needs to be conducted on a representative sample of other populations, such as school children, adult populations, wellness and medical professionals, and more. A more in-depth study could include focus groups and interviews in to better examine the knowledge and sensation of consumers with respect to food choices.
5. Conclusions
In this written report we found that students take most no knowledge most the environmental impact of the food they consume, their attitudes are moderately pro-ecology yet they are not strict near pro-environmental behavior. Students with higher levels of environmental knowledge demonstrated more pro-environmental attitudes and behavior; attitudes mediate the relationship between level of knowledge and behavior with respect to environmental pollution caused past the livestock manufacture. 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.
Time to come campaigns on environmental didactics should identify accent on the contribution of the individual to impacts on the environment, consumer habits relevant to the environment and the ecology and health benefits of consuming establish-based foods and organic food. Agriculture, and in particular animal husbandry, produces pregnant pollution and it will exist possible to influence consumer'south food choices if they understand the environmental impacts of the livestock industry. Reducing consumption of animal products will probably be promoted most effectively by describing the health benefits of this activity, equally well as the upstanding aspects of preventing cruelty to animals.
Different initiatives around the world are now being promoted, such equally Meatless Monday, increasing awareness to nutritional values found in other products than livestock manufacture products and awareness campaigns. All these practices should be evaluated in lodge to promote best practices to tackle this pressing issue.
Writer Contributions
Conceptualization, One thousand.D., and P.R.; methodology, K.D., and N.D.; software, P.R.; validation, Grand.D., P.R. and Northward.D.; Formal assay, K.D., and P.R.; investigation, K.D.; information curation, P.R.; writing—original typhoon preparation, Grand.D., and P.R.; writing—review and editing, N.D.; supervision, K.D.; projection administration, P.R.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
2. Oppenlander R. Food Selection and Sustainability: Why Ownership Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Babe Steps Won't Piece of work. Hillcrest Publishing Group; Minneapolis, MN, Us: 2013. [Google Scholar]
3. Ilea R.C. Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased ecology concerns, and ethical solutions. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2009;22:153–167. doi: 10.1007/s10806-008-9136-three. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
iv. McMichael A.J., Powles J.West., Butler C.D., Uauy R. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet. 2007;370:1253–1263. doi: x.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-two. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Goodland R., Anhang J. Livestock and Climatic change: What If the Key Actors in Climate change Are… Cows, Pigs, and Chickens? World Sentinel; Washington, DC, USA: 2009. pp. ten–19. [Google Scholar]
7. Leytem A.B., Dungan R.S., Bjorneberg D.L., Koehn A.C. Emissions of ammonia, marsh gas, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide from dairy cattle housing and manure direction systems. J. Environ. Qual. 2011;40:1383–1394. doi: 10.2134/jeq2009.0515. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
eight. Leitzmann C. Diet ecology: The contribution of vegetarian diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003;78:657S–659S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/78.three.657S. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Ceballos 1000., Ehrlich P.R., Barnosky A.D., García A., Pringle R.M., Palmer T.M. Accelerated modernistic human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 2015;ane:1–5. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Herrero Thousand., Thornton P.K., Gerbe P., Reid R.Southward. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: Understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009;1:111–120. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.x.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Krätli S., Huelsebusch C., Brooks S., Kaufmann B. Pastoralism: A disquisitional asset for food security under global climate change. Anim. Front. 2013;iii:42–50. doi: 10.2527/af.2013-0007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Eshel G., Shepon A., Makov T., Milo R. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United states. 2014;111:11996–12001. doi: ten.1073/pnas.1402183111. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Worm B., Barbier E.B., Beaumont Due north., Duffy J.E., Folke C., Halpern B.S., Sala E. Impacts of biodiversity loss on bounding main ecosystem services. Science. 2006;314:787–790. doi: x.1126/science.1132294. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Jacobson M.F. More and Cleaner H2o. Half dozen Arguments for a Greener Nutrition: How a More Establish-based Nutrition Could Relieve Your Health and the Surroundings. Heart for Science in the Public Interest; Washington, DC, USA: 2006. [Google Scholar]
16. Ruini 50.F., Ciati R., Pratesi C.A., Marino One thousand., Principato Fifty., Vannuzzi Eastward. Working toward healthy and sustainable diets: The "double pyramid model" adult by the Barilla Middle for Food and Diet to Raise Sensation about the Ecology and Nutritional Affect of Foods. Front. Nutr. 2015;ii:one–6. doi: x.3389/fnut.2015.00009. [PMC gratis 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 L. Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Fauna Feeding Operations. U.Due south. Environmental Protection Agency—Office of Research and Evolution; Washington, DC, USA: 2004. [Google Scholar]
xix. Dunlap R.Eastward., Jorgenson A.Thousand. Environmental problems. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; Hoboken, NJ, U.s.: 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Krystallis A., de Barcellos Chiliad.D., Kügler J.O., Verbeke W., Grunert 1000.G. Attitudes of European citizens towards sus scrofa product systems. Livest. Sci. 2009;126:46–56. doi: x.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Grunert Grand.G. 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 Eastward., Worsley A. Australian consumers' food-related ecology behavior and behaviors. Ambition. 2008;50:207–214. doi: ten.1016/j.appet.2005.07.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Verbeke W., Pérez-Cueto F.J., de Barcellos Thousand.D., Krystallis A., Grunert K.G. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Sci. 2010;84:284–292. doi: ten.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 Due south., Goldman D., Yavetz B. Environmental literacy in teacher training: Attitudes, knowledge, and ecology behavior of beginning students. J. Environ. Educ. 2007;39:45–59. doi: x.3200/JOEE.39.1.45-59. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Bradley J.C., Waliczek T.M., Zajicek J.Grand. Relationship betwixt environmental knowledge and ecology attitude of high schoolhouse students. J. Environ. Educ. 1999;xxx:17–21. doi: x.1080/00958969909601873. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Dori Y.J., Tal T. Manufacture-environs projects: Formal and informal science activities in a community school. Sci. Educ. 2000;84:95–113. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<95::Help-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-W. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Tuncer G., Tekkaya C., Sungur S., Cakiroglu J., Ertepinar H., Kaplowitz Chiliad. Assessing pre-service teachers' environmental literacy in Turkey as a mean to develop teacher pedagogy programs. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2009;29:426–436. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.10.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley; Reading, MA, Usa: 1975. [Google Scholar]
xxx. Homer P., Kahle L. A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-Beliefs Hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988;54:638–646. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Cohen Grand., Murphy J. Exploring Sustainable Consumption. Ecology Policy and the Social Sciences, New Jersey Found of Applied science; Newark, NJ, USA: 2001. [Google Scholar]
32. Paul E.S. Empathy with animals and with humans. Are they linked? Anthrozoös. 2000;13:194–202. doi: 10.2752/089279300786999699. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Bjerke T., Kaltenborn B.P., Odegardstuen T.Southward. Animal-related activities and appreciation of animals among children and adolescents. Anthrozoös. 2001;fourteen:86–94. doi: x.2752/089279301786999535. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Bjerke T., Ødegårdstuen T.S., Kaltenborn B. Attitudes toward animals amongst Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozöos. 1998;2:79–86. doi: 10.2752/089279398787000742. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Prokop P., Özel M., Usak Yard. Cross-cultural comparing of pupil attitudes toward snakes. Soc. Anim. 2009;17:224–240. doi: ten.1163/156853009X445398. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Cooper C.K., Wise T.N., Mann Fifty.S. Psychological and cerebral 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. Association of the Environmental Attitudes" Preservation" and" Utilization" with Pro-Animal Attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2015;10:477–492. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2015.255a. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Paul E.S., Serpell J.A. Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in immature adulthood. Anim. Welf. 1993;2:321–337. [Google Scholar]
39. Janda S., Trocchia P.J. Vegetarianism: Toward a greater understanding. Psychol. Mark. 2001;18:1205–1240. doi: 10.1002/mar.1050. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Preylo B.D., Arikawa H. Comparison of vegetarians and non-vegetarians on pet attitude and empathy. Anthrozoös. 2008;21:387–395. doi: 10.2752/175303708X371654. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Rothgerber H. A meaty matter. Pet nutrition 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 1000., Pifer R. Public attitudes toward fauna research: Some international comparisons. Soc. Anim. 1994;2:95–113. doi: 10.1163/156853094X00126. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Mekonnen M.M., Hoekstra A.Y. A global cess of the water footprint of farm beast products. Ecosystems. 2012;15:401–415. doi: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Baron R.One thousand., Kenny D.A. The moderator–mediator variable stardom in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986;51:1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.half-dozen.1173. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Vanhonacker F., Van Loo Eastward.J., Gellynck X., Verbeke W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite. 2013;62:seven–16. 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 past secondary teachers in the Hualien surface area of Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res. 1998;iv:229–249. doi: x.1080/1350462980040301. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Hines J.M., Hungerford H.R., Tomera A.N. Assay and synthesis of research on responsible ecology behavior: A meta-assay. J. Environ. Educ. 1987;18:1–eight. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Kuhlemeier H., Van den Bergh H., Lagerweij N. Environmental knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs in Dutch secondary educational activity. J. Environ. Educ. 1999;30:4–fourteen. doi: 10.1080/00958969909601864. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Rickinson M. Learners and learning in environment education: A disquisitional review of the evidence. Environ. Educ. Res. 2001;seven:207–320. doi: 10.1080/13504620120065230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
fifty. Dietz T., Stern P.C., Guagnano G.A. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental business 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 Ecology Business concern. Environ. Behav. 1993;25:322–348. doi: ten.1177/0013916593255002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Pieters R., Bijmolt T., Van Raaij F., de Kruijk Chiliad. Consumers' attributions of pro-environmental behavior, motivation, and ability to self and others. J. Public Policy Mark. 1998;17:215–225. doi: 10.1177/074391569801700206. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Thaler R.H., Sunstein C.R. Nudge: Improving Decisions virtually Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale Academy Press; New Haven, CT, USA: 2008. [Google Scholar]
Articles from International Journal of Environmental Enquiry and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518108/
0 Response to "The Effects of Animal Agriculture on the Environment Scholarly Peer Reviewed Articles"
Post a Comment