کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
939285 | 1475379 | 2016 | 9 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
• Environmental consciousness of meat is an understudied sustainability topic.
• Finns have a moderate level consciousness on the subject.
• The number of unsure consumers is relatively high.
• Consumer groups differ most in their problem awareness and support to meat reduction.
• Results call for both information-based and more practical policies.
Global environmental challenges require changes in both the production and the consumption of goods. In this paper we analyse how consumers perceive the high environmental burden of meat. We analysed consumer environmental consciousness, including problem awareness and a support to action dimensions, latter including perceived self-efficacy as well as solutions to problems. The solutions were positioned on a continuum from increasing the efficiency of production to discussing sufficiency levels in consumption practices (techno-optimism, local meat, organic meat and meat reduction, respectively). We used a statistically representative survey sample (n = 1890) from the population of Finland and cluster analysis to explore differences among consumers. The analysis revealed that most Finns seem to be rather unsure of the study topic. At the same time they tend to have a comparably high level of self-efficacy (55 per cent of respondents) and endorsement of particularly local meat solution type (55%), followed by organic meat (35%), meat reduction (25%) and techno-optimism (15%), though the neutral stand was the most common one across the data. We also identified six consumer groups that reveal not only a high number of Highly unsure consumers (40%), but also some Rather conscious (20%) and a relatively small number of Highly conscious (8%). In addition, there were also easily observable groups of Careless conscious (14%), Rather unsure (9%) and Resistant (8%). The results highlight the need for a multitude of political actions to guide meat consumption, as there are groups that may benefit from practical tools for making dietary changes as well as groups in need for more comprehensive selection of measures, including environmental information.
Journal: Appetite - Volume 101, 1 June 2016, Pages 37–45