sign in sign up
<<
Home , Meat industry, Sustainable diet

20 003 Examensarbete 15 hp Juni 2020

The Environmental Benefits of in the Context of Responsible (Quantitative KAB Survey)

Tijana Kojic Abstract The Environmental Benefits of Veganism in the Context of Responsible Tourism Tijana Kojic

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten Responsible tourism is tourism which aims at minimizing negative environmental, social, and economic impacts, and benefits the local community. One crucial Besöksadress: aspect is being neglected in the context of responsible tourism – the Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 environmental impacts of food consumption. The impacts on the environment may Hus 4, Plan 0 vary depending on the dietary lifestyle. According to research, a vegan is generally less taxing on the environment than for example vegetarian or Postadress: omnivorous ones. In this quantitative study, 161 participants, who consider Box 536 751 21 Uppsala themselves responsible tourists, were asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding the environmental benefits of veganism. The data were Telefon: analysed using linear regressions within the mediation model and two-sample t- 018 – 471 30 03 tests. I found that attitudes partly mediate the relationship between knowledge

Telefax: and behaviour. Vegans are more knowledgeable about the environmental benefits 018 – 471 30 00 of veganism than . Besides, vegans showed the most pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour, followed by vegetarians and omnivores. Less than half of Hemsida: the sample perceive veganism as a part of responsible tourism. Those respondents http://www.teknat.uu.se/student who perceive it so are mainly vegans and vegetarians. A campaign that would raise awareness of the environmental benefits of veganism in the context of responsible travel needs to be implemented. A qualitative study should follow, and further research needs to be done among additional samples, such as typical mass tourists.

Handledare: Göran Lindström Ämnesgranskare: Ulrika Persson-Fischier Examinator: Göran Lindström 20 003

POPULAR SCIENCE SUMMARY Responsible tourists strive to do things right and travel in a more conscious, sustainable way than traditional mass tourists. Responsible tourism aims to minimize negative environmental, social, and economic impacts that tourism can bring. Regarding minimizing impacts on the environment, tourists are advised to avoid travelling by plane, to a green instead of a classical one, or to bring reusable and such. But we should also bear in mind the environmental impacts of the food we consume.

The impacts of different dietary lifestyles vary – omnivores eat both and animal products, vegetarians do not consume , and vegans do not consume meat, either any other animal- based products such as milk, , eggs, and honey. Research has shown that the environmental impacts of a vegan diet are usually the lowest. The raising animals for the production of meat, eggs, and milk causes great damages to the environment. released by the livestock industry contribute to and negatively affect the health of the people living nearby. The production of animal products also uses a lot of lands as well as wastes and pollutes water, which results in the of species living in the water or around.

My study focuses on the environmental benefits of veganism in the context of responsible tourism. I conducted an online survey examining knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding this issue among so-called responsible travellers – members of Facebook groups on responsible tourism, and travelling, vegan travel1 and such. My sample included 161 respondents in total – 70 vegans, 35 vegetarians, and 56 omnivores.

I found that attitudes are mediators – the subjective, emotional component of attitudes apparently plays an important role in the transformation of objective knowledge into responsible environmental behaviour. In other words, having some knowledge about the environmental benefits of veganism may not be enough for reducing the consumption of animal products or to going vegan. We usually need to adopt pro-environmental attitudes and strong beliefs in favour of veganism first.

1 Vegan travel – maintaining a vegan lifestyle while on a travel.

1 The results showed that on average, respondents answered approximately 50 % of the knowledge questions correctly. Vegans are more knowledgeable about the environmental benefits of veganism than omnivores. Vegans also showed the most pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour, followed by vegetarians and omnivores.

Less than half of the participants, mostly vegan and vegetarian ones, perceive veganism as a part of responsible tourism. Some respondents argue that they still consider themselves to be responsible tourists even though they are not vegans. For example, they see more important to know how the meat and other animal-based products were produced, so they buy them from local farmers. Other ones mentioned that veganism is not the right diet for everyone depending on an individual’s health conditions, geographical location, or level of development.

It is important to raise awareness about the damages of the livestock industry on the environment as well as about the environmental benefits of veganism (not only) in the context of responsible tourism. It could be done through a campaign that would compare environmental footprints of a typical vegan traveller with an omnivorous one.

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my subject reader, Ulrika Persson-Fischier, for her consistent support and guidance throughout this project, especially during these uneasy times of COVID-19 pandemic. I would also like to express my thanks to Göran Lindström for his comments on the quantitative methods. Finally, many thanks to my family, partner, and friends for all the unconditional support during studies of this master programme.

3 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...... 5 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 6 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 7 RESPONSIBLE TOURISM AND RESPONSIBLE TOURIST ...... 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF VEGANISM ...... 11 KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE, BEHAVIOUR APPROACH ...... 16 CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE ...... 17 CONCEPT OF ATTITUDE ...... 18 CONCEPT OF BEHAVIOUR ...... 19 THEORY BEHIND KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR RELATIONSHIP ...... 20 KAB SURVEY ...... 20 METHODOLOGY ...... 22 DATA COLLECTION...... 22 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 25 RESEARCH ETHICS ...... 27 RESULTS ...... 28 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 28 KNOWLEDGE ...... 29 ATTITUDES ...... 31 BEHAVIOUR ...... 33 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VEGANS, VEGETARIANS, AND OMNIVORES ...... 35 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIOUR ...... 36 VEGANISM AS A PART OF RESPONSIBLE TOURISM ...... 37 CONCLUSIONS ...... 41 DISCUSSION ...... 43 IMPLICATIONS FOR TOURISM ...... 45 IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH...... 45 REFERENCES ...... 46 APPENDIX...... 49 QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 49

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 28 TABLE 2: OF RESPONSES TO THE KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS ...... 29 TABLE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO THE ATTITUDE QUESTIONS ...... 31 TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO THE BEHAVIOUR QUESTIONS ...... 33 TABLE 5: T-TEST RESULTS ...... 35 TABLE 6: MEDIATION MODEL RESULTS ...... 37 TABLE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES – ATTITUDES QUESTION N. 10 ...... 38 TABLE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES – BEHAVIOUR QUESTION N.7 ...... 39

LIST OF GRAPHS: GRAPH 1: MEDIATION MODEL ...... 26 GRAPH 2: ATTITUDES QUESTION N. 10 ...... 38 GRAPH 3: BEHAVIOUR QUESTION N. 7 ...... 39

4 INTRODUCTION This examines the environmental benefits of veganism in the context of responsible tourism. Responsible tourism is usually understood as a set of tourist interactions that benefit local communities and minimize negative environmental and social impacts.2 Although a lot of various definitions of responsible tourism and responsible tourists can be found, all of them share an important aspect – the responsibility of minimizing environmental impacts. However, in the context of responsible tourism, more ecological means of , greener accommodation alternatives, and plastic-free travel essentials are usually emphasized, while another crucial factor is being neglected – the food consumption and its impacts on the environment. It is important to take into account that some of the dietary lifestyles have a lower impact on the environment than others. Research has shown that generally, a vegan diet is less taxing on the environment than for example vegetarian or omnivorous diet.3

Veganism is a philosophy and a lifestyle that strives for excluding all forms of exploitation of and , for food, clothing, and other purposes. Even though vegan living can be practised in many various ways, there is one thing which is in common for all vegans – a vegan diet that consists of avoiding all animal-based food such as meat (including fish, and insects), dairy, eggs, honey as well as materials derived from animals and products tested on animals.4 Nowadays, the trend of going vegan is growing, especially among younger generations. In general, veganism is perceived as a and various health benefits along with ethical issues are being highlighted by many different actors worldwide.

However, there is one vitally important aspect of veganism that is frequently omitted and undoubtedly deserves much more attention – the environmental benefits of veganism. Although livestock industry is probably a human activity with the biggest impact on the planet5 and many studies have confirmed that a vegan diet is the most in terms of environmental footprint6, meat and dairy production continues growing. The level of awareness of

2 Caruna, R., & et al. (2014). Tourists’ accounts of responsible tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 115. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2014.03.006 3 An omnivorous diet includes both plants and animal foods. 4 Definition of veganism. (n.d.). . https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition- veganism 5 Ghahari, J. M., & Mcadam, J. A. (2018). Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time: Environmental Sustainability of Veganism (with a Socio-Behavioral Comparison of Vegans and Omnivores). Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 4. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2018.1.11 6 Chai, B. C., & et al. (2019). Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability, 11(15), 13. doi: 10.3390/su11154110

5 environmental damages of the animal production industry remains low among the general population. The only research about the environmental impacts of the livestock industry was conducted in 2017 (and published in 2019) among college students in Israel. The authors of this online survey stated that further research among additional population sectors needs to be conducted and that raising awareness about this issue is crucial.7

I believe that this study examining the environmental benefits of veganism among responsible tourists will significantly contribute to the field of responsible tourism. If sustainability really mattered to you, would you be implementing a vegan lifestyle everywhere you go?8

PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The aim of my research is to explore and measure the level of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding environmental benefits of veganism among responsible tourists, or in other words, among tourists that are interested in sustainability, responsible tourism, vegan travel and such issues. This work also strives to raise awareness of this topic, to directly increase knowledge, and to indirectly inspire a behaviour change. This study aims to answer the following research questions: 1. To what extent are responsible tourists knowledgeable about the environmental benefits of veganism and what attitudes and behaviour do they show? 2. Are there any significant differences between the vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores in terms of their knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? 3. What is the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour? 4. Do responsible tourists perceive veganism as a part of responsible tourism?

7 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 4. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 8 A modified question from my survey.

6 PREVIOUS RESEARCH As I have already mentioned, there has been no previous research on veganism in the context of responsible tourism. Thus, my research examining the environmental benefits of veganism among responsible travellers will contribute to bridging this gap. First, it is important to explore how the responsible tourism and responsible tourists are defined in previous research, and how responsible travellers themselves perceive responsible tourism. The second part of this chapter is devoted to the environmental benefits of veganism.

RESPONSIBLE TOURISM AND RESPONSIBLE TOURIST In Davina Stanford’s doctoral thesis (Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourists: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zealand) an exhaustive review of existing definitions of responsible tourism and responsible tourists can be found. The term responsible tourism was used for the first time in 1990 in Smith’s report on the 1989 seminar on “Alternative” Tourism in Tamanrasset in Algeria that was organized by the World Tourism Organisation. The alternative tourism was perceived as socially responsible and environmentally conscious. Later, the term alternative tourism was replaced by a less ambiguous one - responsible tourism. Responsible tourism represented tourism of any form that respects host’s natural, built, and cultural environments as well as the interests of all concerned parties.9

Husbands and Harrison in the introduction to the book Practising Responsible Tourism stated that responsible tourism is rather a framework and set of practices than a brand or a special type of tourism. They conclude that the point of responsible tourism is that tourism can be practised in ways minimizing and mitigating tourism’s obvious disbenefits. Dowling commented that the book’s title Responsible Tourism is misleading since it espouses principles of sustainable tourism. However, responsible tourism is actually tourism that puts principles of sustainability into practice.10

9 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria of Wellington), 40-41. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367. 10 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 41. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367.

7 A more recent and prescriptive definition was provided by the International Centre for Responsible Tourism which says that responsible tourism:

• Reduces negative environmental, social and cultural impacts, • economically benefits local people and enhances their well-being by improving working conditions and access to the industry, • involves locals in decisions affecting their lives and life chances, • positively contributes to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage as well as to the maintenance of the diversity in the world, • provides more enjoyable experiences for tourists in terms of connecting them with locals in a more meaningful way, and a better understanding of local and environmental issues,

• is culturally sensitive and incite tourists and hosts to respect each other.11

Stanford also adds a definition from industry, from the www.responsibletravel.com. It is an online portal offering trips and accommodations with approved environmental, social, and economic criteria. According to the website, responsible tourism can be defined as projects that positively contribute to conservation and the economies of locals while minimizing the negative impacts that tourism can bring. 12

It can be concluded that firstly, responsible tourism covers all forms of tourism, alternative tourism, and mass tourism alike. And secondly, it benefits locals, , environment, and and minimises negative impacts.13

Regarding responsible tourist, Krippendorf describes that a responsible tourist chooses forms of travel that are the least harmful to the environment and disturb the least and benefit the most local people and culture. When choosing accommodation, food, transport, visits, souvenirs, they purchase products and services about which they know the origin and who profits from it.

11 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 41. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367. 12 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 42. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367. 13 Ibid

8 They prepare their journey in advance and stay in the destination as long as possible so that they could really identify with it.14

According to Sharpley, a responsible tourist is more flexible and sensitive to the environment and seeks greater authenticity than a traditional mass tourist.15

Swarbrooke suggests that a tourist is responsible for:

• Obeying local laws and regulations, • not taking part in activities which are widely condemned by society, such as sex with children, • not intentionally offending local religious beliefs or cultural norms, • not intentionally harming the local physical environment, • minimizing the use of scarce local resources.

Furthermore, a responsible tourist is also responsible for:

• Not visiting destinations with a poor record on human rights, • finding out about the destination beforehand the holiday and learning a few words in the local language, • trying to meet locals, learning about their lifestyles, and friendships, • protecting the wildlife, for instance by not buying souvenirs made from living creatures, • accepting all local religious beliefs and cultural values, even if the tourist personally disagrees with some of them, • boycotting local business with too low wages or bad working conditions, • behaving sensibly, not spreading infections such as HIV or hepatitis B,

• contributing as much as possible to the local economy.16

Stanford concludes that a responsible tourist is a tourist who positively contributes to the local economy, protects the social and physical environments while minimising the negative impacts

14 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 42-43. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367. 15 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 43. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367. 16 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 43-44. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367.

9 on them. She also states that a strong and concise definition is still missing and that there should be more research on what influences a tourist to be responsible. 17

In the paper Tourists’ accounts of responsible tourism by Caruana et al., authors state that responsible tourism is usually understood as a set of tourist interactions that engage with and benefit communities while minimizing negative social and environmental impacts. They also add that albeit responsible tourism has a lot in common with sustainable tourism, eco-tourism, ethical tourism and such, the label responsible tourism is the most favourited industry term.

The aim of this study was to examine how tourists themselves perceive responsible tourism.18 It was found that some respondents perceive responsible tourism in a very proto-typical way in terms of engaging with the local community and reducing environmental impacts, whereas others understand responsible tourism as a learning experience, authenticity, or avoiding other types of tourism and other types of tourists. Authors identified nine themes of responsible tourism: Learning and ; participation; preserving economy, culture and environment; authenticity and less typical ones were: Doing the right thing; nice, quiet and small; distancing from tourists; avoiding commercialization; honest . Some of these themes correspond to the definition of industry, while other ones represent tourists’ unique narratives and perceptions. It can be concluded that, from the consumer perspective, the concept of responsible tourism is not fixed, but fluid. 19

Definitions of the industry do not seem to be fixed either. Some of the definitions of responsible tourism are very broad, whereas other ones are quite specific. Most of them agree that responsible tourism is rather a framework and set of practices aiming for preserving physical and social environments and benefiting the local community than a special type of tourism. Mentioned definitions of a responsible tourist seem to be slightly more specific. In my opinion the threshold of a responsible tourist’s responsibilities is adequate, but the responsibilities could be even more specified and exemplified.

17 Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 44. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367. 18 Caruna, R., & et al. (2014). Tourists’ accounts of responsible tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 115. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2014.03.006 19 Caruna, R., & et al. (2014). Tourists’ accounts of responsible tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 122. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2014.03.006

10 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF VEGANISM Regarding the environmental benefits of veganism, they are not discussed among the general population as much this issue deserves. However, this subject was investigated by numerous researchers, and crucial research was conducted especially in the last few years. Most of the written papers related to this issue comprise an overview of environmental damages caused by the livestock industry, a definition of a sustainable diet and research comparing environmental impacts of omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets. However, only one previous research focused on examining awareness of environmental impacts of the livestock industry and the relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behaviour. The research was conducted among college students in Israel and according to the authors, future research needs to be conducted among representative samples of other population sectors.20

I believe that my research examining knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding environmental benefits of veganism among so-called responsible travellers will contribute significantly to the scientific community. It is particularly important to investigate people’s behaviour while traveling, since consumer behaviour is different when on travel. It can be explained by the hedonic nature of tourism and the lack of social constraints.21 As tourists might be misled to think that what they do out of their normal life does not count, they are more prone to be involved in unethical behaviour. However, responsible travellers should be conscious of the fact that tourists’ behaviour can have even higher impacts since tourism usually uses more resources compared to staying at home. Therefore, it is crucial to be responsible and to endeavour to reduce the negative impacts of tourism.

According to the paper Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time: Environmental Sustainability of Veganism (with a Socio- Behavioral Comparison of Vegans and Omnivores) by Ghahari and Mcadam, the animal production represents the greatest threat to the environment, since the industry significantly contributes to the climate change.22 In the article Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge,

20 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 4. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 21 Yinghuan, Z. (2019). Tourist demand for counterfeits and the ethical decision-making process (Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University), 1. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10397/81016. 22 Ghahari, J. M., & Mcadam, J. A. (2018). Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time: Environmental Sustainability of Veganism (with a Socio-Behavioral Comparison of Vegans and Omnivores). Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 3. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2018.1.11

11 Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israelis by Dopelt et al. authors stated that in the

FAO23 report it was estimated that 18 % of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the livestock industry, whereas according to another source the livestock industry accounts for at least 51 % of these emissions. Regardless of the exact percentage, the livestock industry is the second-largest polluter, after the electricity industry and followed by the transportation. Most emissions released by the livestock industry are in the form of methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. Livestock industry accounts for 34-40 % of global methane emissions and 68 % of nitrous oxide emissions worldwide. Methane has 23-times greater potential for global warming than carbon dioxide, whereas nitrous oxide’s potential is even 296-times higher.24According to Ghahari and Mcadam, nitrous oxide is even 300 times more potent. Such emissions affect negatively the health of people working on those farms as well as of those living nearby.25

It should be also mentioned that from large scale factory farms contains various contaminants. Large farms can produce more such waste than some American cities. Moreover, the waste is transmitted to the water, which results in habitat loss as well as decline or even eradication of species in those areas.26

Out of 40 % of the world’s land surface that is used for feeding the population, 30 % is used for animal production. If the land was used for growing the crops directly for human consumption, a vegan diet could undoubtedly reduce worldwide. Furthermore, animal expands to the detriment of tropical .27

23 Food and Agriculture of the United Nations 24 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 14. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 25 Ghahari, J. M., & Mcadam, J. A. (2018). Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time: Environmental Sustainability of Veganism (with a Socio-Behavioral Comparison of Vegans and Omnivores). Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 3. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2018.1.11 26 Ibid 27 Ghahari, J. M., & Mcadam, J. A. (2018). Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time: Environmental Sustainability of Veganism (with a Socio-Behavioral Comparison of Vegans and Omnivores). Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 4. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2018.1.11

12 The livestock industry is also the greatest agricultural water polluter and leads to a significant wastage of water as well as other resources.28 Specifically, one-third of the world’s freshwater is used in livestock production (including meat, milk, and eggs).29

As for the people’s level of awareness of environmental caused by the livestock industry, according to the article Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets by Chai et al, people have been concerned about for centuries, but climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, especially in the context of the livestock industry, have recently started to be discussed.30 Previous studies mentioned in the paper by Dopelt et al. showed that people were aware of environmental problems such as air or , but barely aware of the environmental damages caused by the . Regarding veganism, consumers are highly aware of the health benefits, whereas the environmental benefits are barely known. Another research revealed that according to consumers, reducing plastic bags and composting are the most important activities while they assume reducing meat consumption has the lowest impact on the environment. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the more meat the participants ate, the more negative was their approach towards the benefits of consuming less meat. It was also found that women are more environment-friendly than men. Authors stated that as the awareness of environmental impacts of the is low in countries around the world, it is crucial to examine consumer’s knowledge, attitude, and behaviour on this issue.31

Dopelt et al. also studied the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and pro-environmental behaviour as well as the relationship between animal rearing and knowledge levels, attitudes, and behaviour. It may be inferred that increasing knowledge, skills, approaches, and values regarding the environment may encourage individuals to feel more responsible and to change

28 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 4. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 29.Ghahari, J. M., & Mcadam, J. A. (2018). Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time: Environmental Sustainability of Veganism (with a Socio-Behavioral Comparison of Vegans and Omnivores). Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 3. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2018.1.11 30 Chai, B. C., & et al. (2019). Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability, 11(15), 1. doi: 10.3390/su11154110 31 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 3. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359

13 their behaviour to a more pro-environmental one. However, there may be a value-action gap between people’s declared values and consumer behaviour.32

Within this paper, authors also presented their own research examining the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of college students in Israel on environmental impacts of the livestock industry. It can be concluded from the survey that the higher the knowledge is, the more pro- environmental attitudes and behaviour are. The students’ knowledge was low, their attitudes were moderately pro-environmental, whereas pro-environmental behaviour was not shown. The research also demonstrated that knowledge of participants who rear or reared animals was higher and in general, women’s attitudes and behaviour are more pro-environmental than men’s.33

In the paper Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future Sabaté and Soret assessed the sustainability of current food production and consumption patterns. According to authors, for millennia inputs in agriculture compared to were low, consisting of solar energy, rainwater, animal waste for , which was sustainable. However, nowadays the inputs consist rather of non-renewable energy from fossil fuels, an immense amount of chemicals and oil used to produce nitrogenous and irrigation water.34

A sustainable diet can be defined as: “one with production that has little environmental impact, is protective and respectful of and of , and is nutritionally adequate, safe, healthy, culturally acceptable and economically affordable.”35 According to FAO, sustainable diets are: “those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources” 36Moreover, a sustainable diet can be determined by the

32 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 5. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 33 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 14. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 34 Sabaté, J., & Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl_1), 477S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522 35 Chai, B. C., & et al. (2019). Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability, 11(15), 1. doi: 10.3390/su11154110 36 Sabaté, J., & Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl_1), 476S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522

14 following factors: nutritional adequacy, environmental sustainability, cultural acceptability, and low-cost accessibility.37

Most of the studies concluded that vegan diets are most sustainable since they require less natural resources and are less taxing on the environment.38 In one day, 4164 litres of water, 20 kg crops, 2.8 m2 forested land, 10 kg CO2 and the life of one animal is saved by a vegan person.39 Vegan diet’s environmental footprint is the lowest, unless a lot of industrially, highly processed plant-based and dairy substitutes are consumed by vegans. In such cases, a vegan diet may result in a higher environmental footprint than a vegetarian diet.40 These results were demonstrated for example in research examining self-reported habits of Italian omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans analysed in terms of carbon footprint, water footprint, and . Authors found out that vegetarian and vegan diets are clearly more beneficial to the environment. However, the environmental footprint of the vegan diet was not lower than the one of vegetarians. It can be explained by the high consumption of highly processed, high-fat products.41

Sabaté and Soret concluded that plant-based nutritional lifestyle at a global level is imperative in order to achieve food security and sustainability goals. However, it should not be a drastic dietary shift. Even gradual small steps could extremely help to solve food availability issues and sustainable challenges. 42

37 Ibid 38 Sabaté, J., & Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl_1), 476S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522 39Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 4. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359. 40 Chai, B. C., & et al. (2019). Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability, 11(15), 16. doi: 10.3390/su11154110 41Rosi, A., & et al. (2017). Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diet. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 6-7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8 42 Sabaté, J., & Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl_1), 481S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522

15 KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE, BEHAVIOUR APPROACH Knowledge, attitude, behaviour approach is a theoretical concept explaining the psychology behind these three dimensions that also translate into a survey method called KAB examining what is known, believed, and done in relation to a certain topic.43 In this work, the knowledge, attitude and behaviour approach is seen from both perspectives. Firstly, this chapter acquaints readers with these three dimensions and their relationship as well as with the KAB method in terms of the theory. Secondly, the KAB survey method is used in my research, since I find it interesting to investigate the behaviour of so-called responsible tourists. Do they also practice veganism while traveling? Is lack of knowledge or emotional attitudes reasons why they do not?

The idea that complex aspects of learning should be assessed with more outcome measures appeared in 1956 when the taxonomy of instructional objectives in three domains – cognitive, affective, and psychomotor was developed by Bloom.44 The cognitive domain deals with recall and recognition of knowledge, understanding, and the development of intellectual abilities and skills. The affective domain is comprised of objectives describing changes in interest, attitudes and values as well as the development of appreciations. The third domain includes manipulative and motor skills. According to Bloom, the curriculum emphasizes the cognitive domain. It means that most tests at schools and are developed within this domain while other domains are being neglected. 45

However, researchers from different fields converted Bloom’s taxonomy of instructional objectives into a multi-construct approach that asses knowledge as well as attitudes and behaviours. In other words, such kind of research aims to measure not only knowledge gains, but also the strength of respondents’ attitudes and the impact of these two aspects on behavioural change. The relationship between knowledge, attitude and behaviour was first recognised in 1975 by Schwartz in a nutritional study conducted among high school graduates. Following relationships were suggested by Schwartz:

43 Working group on Monitoring & Evaluation. (2014). Knowledge, atitudes and practices (KAP) surveys during cholera vaccination campaigns: Guidance for oral chorela , Stockpile Campaigns, 6. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/cholera/vaccines/kap_protocol.pdf 44 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 8. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 45 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Three domains - cognitive, affective, psychomotor. In Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classificaton of educational goals. 7. London, : Longmans. ISBN: 978- 0582280106

16 1. Knowledge was directly influenced by attitude and indirectly by behaviour. 2. Knowledge and attitude simultaneously influenced each other. 3. Behaviour was independently influenced by knowledge and attitude.

4. Knowledge showed both direct and indirect influences on behaviour.46 Albeit knowledge, attitude, behaviour (KAB) approach is applied especially in medicine, where a range of various areas from primary care to AIDS prevention is investigated, the KAB survey can be easily adopted in many different fields as well.47

CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE According to Bloom’s taxonomy the cognitive domain concerns knowledge and understanding. Knowledge represents all information on a specific field one possesses or accumulates. In general, knowledge comprises of three forms: 1. Declarative – knowing what 2. Procedural – knowing how 3. Conditional – knowing when and why For instance, an example of declarative knowledge is knowing how to define the word veganism. Knowing how to use RStudio to analyse collected data investigating the environmental benefits of veganism would exemplify procedural knowledge, whereas creating a work plan for writing a thesis with particular steps and deadlines for each part could demonstrate conditional knowledge.

Knowledge does not serve only as a basis for gaining new knowledge, it also helps to direct an individual’s attention whether to focus on a particular element of an environment or not. Given the fact that researchers struggle with capturing knowledge reliably and validly, a number of measuring approaches were found.

One of the approaches is asking a respondent to self-report how much knowledge they possess on a given topic or within a certain domain. Although self-reporting seems to be an easy and cost-effective measuring approach,48 there are two main problems related to the accuracy of

46 Lim, T.-P., & et al. (2016). A structural modeling on food safety knowledge, attitude, and behaviour among Bum Bum Island community of Semporna, Sabah. Food Control, 60, 242. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.07.042 47 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 9. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 48 Ibid

17 self-report data – respondents can be either unable to provide the accurate answer or unwilling to provide truthful information.49 As a result, respondent’s confidence within a particular topic is measured instead of the knowledge itself. However, it was proved that conditionally, self- report data can be reliable as well as valid. To avoid the issues with self-report data, more objective tests measuring knowledge were developed. Knowledge tests usually consist of multiple-choice or other similar forced-choice questions. It is very demanding to them appropriately. It is recommended that survey questions should focus on information that is known by respondents. An adequate survey should be formulated clearly and unequivocally in order to get serious responses. In general, completing a survey should not be threatening, embarrassing, or violating the privacy of respondents and It should not encourage respondents to provide socially desirable answers.50 When constructing a survey, one should avoid lack of item sampling, distractor , and lack of linkages between the items and the examined domain. Researchers also use alternative formats to assess knowledge such as concept mapping, portfolio development, and performance-based measures. 51

CONCEPT OF ATTITUDE The concept of attitude can be also understood in multiple ways. According to Allport’s (1967) and LaPiere’s (1967) definition, an attitude in a behaviour sense is: “a mental and neural state of readiness conditioned by stimuli directing an individual’s response to all objects with which it is related.”52 By contrast, Thurstone defined that: ”an attitude is the affect for or against a psychological object.”53 He also added that attitudes are subjective, since they can be perceived as feelings and dispositions toward a concept, idea, or action.54

49 Kuh, G. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties. Framework & Psychometric Properties, 3. Retrieved from: http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/psychometric_framework_2002.pdf 50 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 9. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 51 Ibid 52 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 10. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 53 Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26(3), 261. doi: 10.1037/h0070363 54 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 10. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905

18 More recently, the definition of attitude was expanded by including three components – cognitive, affective, and conative (behavioural). The cognitive component consists of a belief or idea related to a specific psychological object. The core of affective component is an individual’s evaluation of the psychological object as well as the emotions concerning the object, whereas the conative one is represented by the action or predisposition to action directed toward the object. Contemporary theorists also found out that an evaluative dimension (such as pro-con or positive-negative) is a typical feature of an attitude. Therefore, the result of most assessment techniques is a score positioning the respondent on an evaluative continuum.55

Regarding the measurement of attitudes, it is difficult to predict behaviour just from attitudes, since an attitude is rooted both in the environment and the individual. Thus, the attitude can be seen as a function of a certain situation.56 In KAB research, Likert scales and semantic differentials are usually used for assessing attitudes. However, it is also important to decide how to evaluate the scores, which can be quite challenging. 57

CONCEPT OF BEHAVIOUR Psychologists understand behaviour as an observable action, whereas researchers define behaviour as: ”the manner how a person, organism or group respond to certain conditions”.58 Behaviour can be recorded and measured by a number of techniques. Researchers can either directly record the frequency of behaviours during a set time or apply less direct techniques such as interviews with peers and close friends or participants’ self-reporting via a journal or surveys. Self-report surveys and frequency reports are the most common methods of collecting behavioural data. However, there are some other techniques that can be used such as direct observation, participant interviews, using diaries and logs, or direct outcome measures – for example, sexual conduct could be indicated by the number of pregnancies and births.59

55 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 11. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 56 Krebs, D., Schmidt, P., & Seeman, M. (1993). A historical perspective on attitude research. In New directions in attitude measurement, 3-20. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN: 3110138719 57 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 11. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 58 Ibid 59 Ibid

19 In general, people tend to answer questions about their past behaviour accurately, unless they are asked about sensitive topics or about something that would make them feel embarrassed.60

THEORY BEHIND KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR RELATIONSHIP The unclear relationship between knowledge and behaviour has been studied a lot. Researchers have questioned the directionality of the relationship as well as its actual presence. The relationship between knowledge and behaviour seems to be very complex. Knowledge of a particular topic may influence an individual’s attitude and an individual’s feelings about the topic may impact their behaviour. Alternatively, attitudes can also be linked to behaviours, which indicates that behaviours can inform attitudes. Thus, attitudes can influence an individual’s perceptions and therefore impact the knowledge gain. However, it should be taken into consideration that behaviours cannot be always strongly predicted by knowledge or attitudes. It can be concluded that the relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behaviour is dynamic and can be reciprocal. When conducting a KAB research, one should be aware of the interaction of these three dimensions.61

KAB SURVEY KAB survey, also called KAP survey62, is a representative study conducted among a specific population sector in order to collect data on what is known (knowledge), believed (attitudes) and done (behaviours)63 in relation to a particular and/or general topic.64 In KAB surveys, data are usually collected orally through a structured, standardized questionnaire. Both quantitative and qualitative data may be included, depending on the objectives of the study.65

60 Kuh, G. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties. Framework & Psychometric Properties, 3. Retrieved from: http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/psychometric_framework_2002.pdf 61 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 11-12. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 62 KAP survey – knowledge, attitudes, practices 63 World Health Organization, & Stop TB . (2008). Advocacy, communicltation and social mobilization for Tb control: a guide to developing knowledge, attitude and practice surveys. 6-7. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. ISBN: 978 92415961766-7. 64 Working group on Monitoring & Evaluation. (2014). Knowledge, atitudes and practices (KAP) surveys during cholera vaccination campaigns: Guidance for oral chorela vaccine, Stockpile Campaigns, 6. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/cholera/vaccines/kap_protocol.pdf 65 World Health Organization, & Stop TB Partnership.(2008). Advocacy, communication and social mobilization for Tb control: a guide to developing knowledge, attitude and practice surveys. 6-7. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. ISBN: 978 92415961766-7.

20 Data collected via KAB surveys can be used for the following purposes: • To identify gaps in knowledge, cultural beliefs, and behavioural patterns and therefore needs, problems, and obstacles, which can help to plan and implement interventions. • To understand better what is commonly known, what are people’s attitudes and which factors influence behaviour. • To identify baseline levels and to measure changes resulting from interventions. • To examine communication processes and sources needed for program implementation and effectiveness.

• To facilitate setting program priorities and making program decisions.66

It is very important to first test the KAB survey before conducting the research.67 Usually, the KAB survey is conducted before and after a certain campaign. A pre-campaign KAB survey helps with planning the campaign and the collected data serves as a baseline data that will facilitate measurement of campaign-related-activities. Data obtained during a post-campaign

KAB survey helps to evaluate those activities.68

Conducting KAB surveys requires experts in a particular field as well as staff that are familiar with the method of the research. In some cases, it is necessary to hire a consultant that would help with determining the sample size, designing the questionnaire, conducting the survey in local languages, entering the collected data to a computer, analysing the data and such.69

Although, there are a lot of papers about specific research using the KAB survey method, it was quite difficult to find up-to-date literature about the theoretical concept itself. Therefore, I was forced to use older literature published in the 1990s or early 2000s. However, as usually, such theoretical concepts do not change much with time, I assume that older sources discussing the relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behaviour are still valid and truthful.

66 Working group on Monitoring & Evaluation. (2014). Knowledge, atitudes and practices (KAP) surveys during cholera vaccination campaigns: Guidance for oral chorela vaccine, Stockpile Campaigns, 6. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/cholera/vaccines/kap_protocol.pdf 67 Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 12. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 68 Working group on Monitoring & Evaluation. (2014). Knowledge, atitudes and practices (KAP) surveys during cholera vaccination campaigns: Guidance for oral chorela vaccine, Stockpile Campaigns, 6. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/cholera/vaccines/kap_protocol.pdf 69 World Health Organization, & Stop TB Partnership.(2008). Advocacy, communication and social mobilization for Tb control: a guide to developing knowledge, attitude and practice surveys. 6-7. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. ISBN: 978 92415961766-7.

21 METHODOLOGY The previous chapter acquaints readers with the theoretical concept of knowledge, attitude and, behaviour as well as with the methodology of KAB survey in general, whereas this chapter explains how data for my research examining knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours on environmental benefits of veganism were collected and analysed.

DATA COLLECTION The research was conducted among members of Facebook groups on responsible tourism, sustainability and tourism, vegan travel and such. I suppose that members of Facebook groups enumerated bellow are somehow interested in responsible tourism and have already some knowledge of such topics. Therefore, I found it interesting to investigate whether they were also aware of the environmental benefits of veganism, what are their attitudes and behaviours, and whether they see veganism as one of the aspects of responsible tourism. The survey was posted in the following Facebook groups: • Travel better – Sustainable Travel Community, • Ecotourism forum and sustainable tourism debate, • Responsible tourism networking, • Responsible travel – conscious traveling, • START – Sustainable tourism and responsible travel, • Sustainable travel and tourism, • On tourism and sustainability group, • Responsible travel advice,

• Eco-tourism,

• Global eco-tourism network,

• Solo travelers,

• Biodiversité, ecotourisme, environement,

• Tourisme éco-responsable, les voyages des demaines,

• Responsible rural tourism network,

• Vegan travel, • Vegan travel and couchsourfing,

• Vegan traveller – vegani na cestách,

22 • Traveling vegans, • Vegan Women Who Travel. I expected that the current situation could positively influence Facebook group members’ willingness to complete the questionnaire in view of the fact that the world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic and many people are quarantined now. Therefore, they might have more time to be active on social media and may be more willing to participate in my survey. It proved to be the case since I got 100 answers in only one day and 161 answers in total in ten days of data collection.

As the KAB survey method is quite complex and designing the questionnaire was demanding. I designed a quantitative questionnaire that was anonymous, closed, and self-completed. The survey was conducted online via Google Forms and the time needed for completing the questionnaire ranged between 5-10 minutes. The questionnaire was first tested among people who are not part of the sample.

The research examining environmental damages of the livestock industry in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours presented in the paper Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israelis by Dopelt et al. served me as a source of inspiration for the survey questions as well as for the concept of my research itself. The questionnaire consists of an introduction and four parts - demographic, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour questions (see the whole questionnaire in appendix).

The introduction part acquaints respondents with the KAB survey method and the structure of the questionnaire as well as with the purpose of my research and the use of collected data. Participants were also informed about anonymity and asked to complete the questionnaire on their own without any help from the and such.

The demographic part includes questions about gender, age, nationality, country of residence, level of education, nutritional lifestyle (, vegetarian, vegan), and a question whether the respondent has ever had a pet.

In the knowledge part, ten questions are testing the knowledge of environmental impacts of the livestock industry (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, , and water use) and

23 environmental benefits of veganism. This section consists of multiple-choice questions with one correct answer, statements that should be indicated as correct/incorrect as well as ranking questions. The knowledge part is in the form of a quiz – each question is evaluated by one point except for ranking questions, where the number of points depends on the number of items that should be ranked. The maximum score is sixteen points. Respondents could see their score and correct answers after submitting the survey. In my opinion, the quiz feature attracts more respondents, since they can test how knowledgeable about the topic they are, and they can immediately improve their knowledge.

The attitude part is comprised of ten statements examining attitudes towards the environmental problems in general, livestock industry, environmental considerations related to consumption, vegan diet and veganism in the context of responsible tourism, which should demonstrate to what extent respondents agree with the statement on the Likert scale of 1-7.

In the behaviour part, seven questions are investigating to what extent respondents act according to the statement on the Likert scale of 1-7 in terms of consumption habits, willingness to become vegan, eating habits in the context to responsible tourism and involvement in issues concerning environmental impacts of the livestock industry.

The process of collecting data went smoothly. Group members seemed to be very involved and willing to participate. My posts even got a lot of likes and both positive and negative comments. On one hand, some people liked the survey very much, found the topic very important and appreciated the opportunity to learn something new. On the other hand, there were also a few people who argued that the questions were methodologically unsound and that the survey was too biased towards veganism. I expected such comments given that veganism could be a quite controversial topic. Moreover, the KAB survey method is not very common and known to the general population. However, I acquainted participants with the method in the introduction section of the survey and asked them not to feel discouraged by the knowledge questions. Regarding the bias, the aim was just to make the survey as specific and related to the environmental benefits of veganism as possible and respondents had always an option to express that they strongly disagree. I also got several private messages from participants who showed interest in our master programme Sustainable Destination Development.

24 DATA ANALYSIS This study is clearly a quantitative one, which enabled me to conduct the research among a higher number of respondents and to measure and quantify the general level of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding the environmental benefits of veganism among so-called responsible travellers. A qualitative study might be helpful for a better understanding of people’s personal opinions about veganism as a part of the responsible tourism on a deeper level and in a larger context. However, given the current situation of the pandemic, conducting quantitative research among Facebook group members seemed to be the most adequate method covering a relatively large and significant population sample. Furthermore, some of the participants shared their opinions on this topic in the form of comments, which can be considered to be a qualitative material, spontaneously created and unintentionally collected. Thanks to this survey I gained some contacts that I could turn to with additional questions, which would enable me to conduct further qualitative research on this topic as a next step.

There are various approaches towards measuring Likert-scale data which are usually perceived as ordinal data. In general, ordinal data are described as data that can be ordered, but one cannot be sure whether the distances between the consecutive values are equal. On one side, some experts argue that ordinal data should be rather treated as qualitative data and for example the mean should not be calculated. But on the other side, according to other specialists, it is possible to quantify ordinal data, especially when the data describe personality traits, behaviour, or attitudes.70

It is also vitally important to distinguish Likert-type items from Likert-scales. Likert-type data are usually a series of individual stand-alone questions with Likert response options, whereas

Likert-scales data are a series of questions which when combined measure a particular trait. 71 In my research, the Likert response options are used for a series of questions describing attitudes and behaviour. Therefore, these data are treated as Likert-scales. The mean, standard deviations, Pearson correlation, ANOVA, t-test, and regression are adequate statistical tools to use for analysing Likert-scales data.72

70 Oh Ordinal data, what do we do with you? (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2020, from https://creativemaths.net/blog/ordinal/ 71 Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2014). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2). Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/tt2.php 72 Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2014). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2). Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/tt2.php

25 The data were analysed using RStudio and Excel. Firstly, I calculated the mean (average) of the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour variables as well as the standard deviation. The standard deviation is a number indicating how the data are spread out from the mean73: To make the analysis easier, attitudes and behaviour variables were rescaled according to the knowledge scale (from 0 to 16).

The t-test for two groups is a statistical test used for determining significant differences between the means of two groups.74 To answer the second research question examining whether there are significant differences between vegans and non-vegans in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour, nine two-sample t-tests were run. The first three t-tests examined the differences between the knowledge of vegans & vegetarians, vegans & omnivores, and vegetarians & omnivores. The other t-tests were conducted also for the attitudes and behaviour variable.

Graph 1: Mediation model

MEDIATOR (ATTITUDES)

INDEPENDENT DEPENDENT VARIABLE VARIABLE (KNOWLEDGE) (BEHAVIOUR)

To investigate the third research question, the mediation model consisting of three linear regressions was conducted. The mediator is a variable that accounts for the relation between the independent variable (predictor) and the dependent variable (criterion). When a variable operates as a mediator, the following conditions must be met: 1. The independent variable significantly affects the mediator in the first equation (path a – graph 1). 2. The independent variable significantly affects the dependent variable in the second equation (path b – graph 1)

73 Standard Deviation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/measures-of-spread- standard-deviation.php 74 What is a T-test. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t-test.asp

26 3. In the third equation, both the independent variable and the mediator are controlled (path c – graph 1). The mediator significantly affects the dependent variable and the relation between the independent and dependent variable is no longer significant. If the independent variable has zero effect on the dependent variable when the mediator is

controlled, the mediation is perfect.75 The significance is determined by t-value > |1,96| and p < 0,05. In my case, the independent variable is represented by knowledge, the dependent variable by behaviour, and the mediator by attitudes.

Tables and graphs created in Excel helped me analyse the last research question investigating if so-called responsible travellers perceive veganism as a part of responsible tourism. Besides, the results were supplemented with a few qualitative comments that some of the respondents wanted to share with me and other members of the Facebook groups.

RESEARCH ETHICS I expected problems with posting the questionnaire in some of those Facebook groups since the survey might be considered as unrelated content or spam and therefore deleted. Although in some Facebook groups posting the questionnaire required the admin’s approval, I did not encounter any problems with the survey. The questionnaire was completely anonymous, and participants were informed about its purpose and how the collected data would be used.

As veganism could be a quite sensitive and controversial topic, it was important to formulate the questions carefully, so that respondents would not feel in a way that what they are doing as responsible tourists is not enough if they are not vegans. However, the study may be limited to a certain extent by the social desirability bias of the respondents. In other words, some participants could have marked answers they thought the researcher wanted to get.76

75 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1176. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 76 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 13. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359

27 In the introduction part of the questionnaire, I asked participants to complete the survey on their own without any help from the internet and such. Hopefully, the respondents’ behaviour was ethical as well and they did not use any sources that could help them find the right answers for the knowledge questions.

RESULTS This section acquaints readers with the results of the research. Firstly, the sample characteristics are described. Secondly, the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour parts of the questionnaire are discussed successively, and all three variables are quantified. Thirdly, the other research questions are answered using statistical tools such as the t-test and mediation model.

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS In total, 161 respondents participated in the study. As some of the survey questions were not mandatory, the number of respondents for each question can slightly vary. The following table describes the sample characteristics. Table 1: Sample Characteristics

Character n % Gender Female 138 85,7 Male 23 14,3 Age 18-24 27 16,8 25-34 50 37,3 35-44 33 20,5 45-54 25 15,5 55-64 14 8,7 65-74 1 6,0 75 or older 1 6,0 Level of education Less than a high school diploma 3 1,9 High school degree or equivalent 12 7,5 Bachelor’s degree 65 40,4 Master's degree 57 35,4 Doctorate 16 9,9 Other 8 5,0 Nutritional lifestyle Omnivore 56 34,8 Vegetarian 35 21,7 Vegan 70 43,5 Pets Yes 139 86,3 No 22 13,7

28 Most frequent nationalities American 26 16,3 British 10 6,3 Canadian 9 5,6 Other education = Associate degree, trade/technical/vocational training

The table shows that although men were encouraged to participate as well, most of the respondents are women (85,7 %). It may suggest that women are more interested in this issue and may care more about the environmental impacts of food they consume than men. Regarding the age, most participants (37,3 %) belong to the age group of 25-34, whereas there are no participants under 18 years old, only one person belonging to the age group of 65-74 and just one person is 75 years old or older. The highest level of education attained by the majority of participants is either a bachelor’s degree (40,4 %) or a master’s degree (35,4 %). As for the nutritional lifestyle, vegans represent 43,5 % of the sample, followed by omnivores (34,8 %) and vegetarians (21,7 %). As many as 86,3 % of respondents have ever had a pet. People of 54 different nationalities participated in the survey. However, the most frequent ones are American

(16,3 %), British (6,3 %) and Canadian (5,6 %).

KNOWLEDGE As already mentioned, the knowledge part of the questionnaire was designed as a quiz. Therefore, participants could see their score and correct answers after submitting the survey. The level of knowledge ranged from 0-14, meaning that the maximum score of 16 points was not reached by anybody. The mean value of the variable was 7,89 (SD = 2,15). I am positively surprised that the average level of knowledge reached almost half of the maximum score. As environmental benefits of veganism are not discussed enough among the general population, either in the context of responsible tourism, I expected that the level of knowledge among responsible travellers would be even lower. Table 2: Distribution of responses to the knowledge questions

1. Please, rank following sectors according to their contribution to the environmental pollution: (1st = the greatest polluter) Electricity industry 1st 2nd 3rd n 22 40 96 % 13.9 25.3 60.8 Livestock industry 1st 2nd 3rd n 110 33 17 % 68.8 20.6 10.6 Transportation 1st 2nd 3rd n 39 87 34 % 24.3 54.4 21.3

29 2. Approximately, what is the percentage of Less 10 – 30 % 30 – 50 % total greenhouse gas emissions coming from the than livestock industry? 10% n 6 84 71 % 3.7 52.2 44.1 3. The majority of livestock emissions are in the Methane Nitrous Carbon form of: oxide dioxide n 117 8 36 % 72.7 5,0 22.3 4. If everyone went vegan by 2050, the food- Correct Incorrect related greenhouse gas emissions would reduce by 20 %. n 130 31 % 80.7 19.3 5. Please, rank following food products according to their greenhouse gas emissions per 100 grams of protein: (1st = highest GHGE) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th n 140 15 0 4 1 % 87.5 9.4 0.0 2.5 0.6 Milk 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th n 32 107 18 2 1 % 20.0 66.9 11.2 1.3 0.6 Eggs 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th n 6 28 102 17 3 % 3.8 17.9 65.5 10.9 1.9 () 1st 2nd 3th 4th 5th n 2 8 40 91 9 % 1.3 5.3 26.7 60.7 6.0 Peas 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th n 2 6 15 21 91 % 1.5 4.4 11.1 15.6 67.4 6. Livestock industry can cause habitat loss and Correct Incorrect extinction of species living in the water or around. n 154 7 % 95.7 4.3 7. Livestock farming uses around ...% of 50%; 70%; 30% 90%; 70% agricultural land and around….% of earth’s 10% land. n 41 107 13 % 25.4 66.5 8.1 8. One kg of beef requires 16 times 60 times 160 times approximately….times more land use than one more more more kg of rice or one kg of potatoes. n 36 78 47 % 22.4 48.4 29.2

30 9. Livestock industry accounts for around…. % 25% 50% 75% of in the Brazilian Amazon . n 26 55 80 % 16.1 34.2 49.7 10. It takes more than 9 000 litres of water to Correct Incorrect produce half a kilo of meat, whereas half a kilo of wheat requires 9 litres of water. n 130 30 % 81.3 18.7

Correct answers are marked in green, incorrect answers are marked in red

The table above shows that less than half of the respondents answered correctly the questions number 1, 4, and 8. Around 50 % of the participants provided correct answers for the questions number 2,9,10, whereas questions number 3,5,6 and 7 recorded the most correct answers. Regarding the ranking questions, the first one asking respondents to rank the sectors was very unsuccessful, while the other one with five food products was answered very successfully. The results demonstrate that the questions with the correct/ incorrect options were the most problematic ones, in the case when the incorrect option was the right answer – it may suggest that respondents just assumed that the statement was correct without critically thinking about it.

ATTITUDES Attitudes regarding the environmental benefits of veganism were examined on the 7-point Likert scale with strongly disagree (1) – strongly agree (7) options. As I treat attitudes variable as Likert-scale data, the mean was used to describe the central tendencies. The mean is 6,05 (SD = 1,51). For further calculations, the values were rescaled according to the knowledge scale (from 0 to 16). Thus, the scaled mean of attitudes is 13,83. Table 3: Distribution of responses to the attitude questions

1. Concerns regarding Strongly Rather Rather Strongly environmental problems are Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree exaggerated.

n 107 23 11 1 3 6 8 % 67,3 14,5 6,9 0,6 1,9 3,8 5,0

31 2. Preserving environmental Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree quality is very important for me. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

n 0 0 0 2 11 23 124 % 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,2 6,9 14,4 77,5

3. The livestock industry causes Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree environmental damages. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

n 1 2 2 7 15 4 120 % 0,6 1,3 1,3 4,3 9,3 8,7 74,5

4. The livestock industry wastes Strongly Rather Rather Strongly natural resources (water, land, Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree food).

n 2 1 1 4 10 17 115 % 1,3 0,6 0,6 8,7 6,3 10,6 71,9

5. Animals and plants are here Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree for humans’ needs. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

n 72 22 21 23 9 9 4 % 45,0 13,8 13,1 14,4 5,6 5,6 2,5 6. The vegan diet is the best one in terms of reducing the Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree environmental impact of the Disagree Disagree Agree Agree livestock industry. n 6 6 8 14 18 24 85 % 3,7 3,7 5,0 8,7 11,2 14,9 52,8

7. The production of animal Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree products should be limited. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

n 6 7 9 10 14 19 96 % 3,7 4,3 5,6 6,2 8,8 11,8 59,6 8. It is important to me that the Strongly Rather Rather Strongly food I eat is produced in an Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree environmentally friendly way. n 2 0 0 4 20 38 95 % 1,3 0,0 0,0 2,5 12,6 23,9 59,7

9. If I knew more about the issue,

I would definitely integrate Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree environmental considerations Disagree Disagree Agree Agree when choosing my food. n 1 2 5 19 18 35 81

32 % 0,6 1,2 3,1 11,8 11,2 21,8 50,3 10. Vegan travel is an essential part of sustainable tourism. (If sustainability really mattered to Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree people, they would be Disagree Disagree Agree Agree implementing a vegan lifestyle everywhere they go.) n 9 8 13 15 23 23 70 % 5,6 5,0 8,1 9,2 14,3 14,3 43,5

The table above demonstrates that overall, the options strongly agree (or strongly disagree when the formulation of the statement was reverse) were the most commonly selected options for each attitude statement. It can be observed that around 70 % of respondents strongly agreed with the first four statements which were more general than the following ones. In the case of the statements 5-10, the answers were more spread out. However, the strongly agree option was still the most frequent answer selected approximately by 50 % of the respondents. I find it interesting that the last statement examining whether respondents think that vegan travel is an essential part of the sustainable tourism recorded the least strongly agree answers – this option was chosen only by 43,5 %.

BEHAVIOUR Behaviour regarding the environmental benefits of veganism was examined on the 7-point Likert scale as well. The mean is 5,20 (SD = 1,13). For further calculations, the values were rescaled according to the knowledge scale (from 0 to 16). Thus, the scaled mean of behaviour is 11,88. Table 4: Distribution of responses to the behaviour questions

1. I try to consume food from the livestock Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree industry as little as Disagree Disagree Agree Agree possible. n 6 5 11 9 16 23 91 % 3,7 3,1 6,8 5,6 9,9 14,4 56,5 2. I am considering becoming vegan. (If you Strongly Rather Rather Strongly are already a vegan, Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree please select “Strongly Agree”.)

n 14 13 13 17 12 15 77 % 8,7 8,1 8,1 10,5 7,5 9,3 47,8

3. I buy local food as Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree much as possible. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

33 n 1 2 7 12 41 32 66 % 0,6 1,2 4,3 7,5 25,5 19,9 41,0

4. I eat as Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree much as possible. Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

n 3 8 13 17 26 35 59 % 1,9 5,0 8,1 10,6 16,1 21,7 36,6

5. I seek information about the environmental Strongly Rather Rather Strongly impacts of the livestock Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree industry (articles, videos, etc.)

n 7 10 11 26 35 32 40 % 4,4 6,2 6,8 16,1 21,7 19,9 24,9

6. I am involved in an activism that aims at Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree preventing hazards from Disagree Disagree Agree Agree the livestock industry.

n 32 21 25 36 18 13 15 % 20,0 13,1 15,6 22,5 11,3 8,1 9,4 7. I am a responsible traveller – I reduce/avoid Strongly Rather Rather Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree consumption wherever I go. n 9 6 17 12 16 21 80 % 5,6 3,7 10,6 7,5 9,9 13,0 49,7

The strongly agree options are the most frequent answers for six out of seven statements, but the answers are noticeably more spread out compared to attitudes. The last statement “I am a responsible traveller - I reduce/avoid animal products consumption wherever I go” surprisingly recorded more strongly agree answers (49,7 %) than the last attitude statement exploring whether respondents think that vegan travel is an essential part of the sustainable tourism (43,5 %). Only in the case of the sixth statement investigating whether respondents are involved in an activism that aims at preventing hazards from the livestock industry, the most frequent answer was neutral and very few agree or strongly agree options were selected. It is important to remember that, as mentioned in the Methodology chapter, some answers to attitudes and behaviour questions might be influenced by the social desirability bias of

34 respondents. To a certain extent, participants might select desirable answers that did not fully reflect what they really think or how they truly behave.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VEGANS, VEGETARIANS, AND OMNIVORES Nine two-sample t-tests were conducted to find out if there are significant differences between vegans & vegetarians, vegans & omnivores, and vegetarians & omnivores in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour. Table 5: T-test results

Knowledge Vegans Vegetarians Omnivores Mean 8,30 8,09 7,25 Vegans & Vegetarians Vegans & Omnivores Vegetarians & Omnivores CI (-0,74; 1,17) (0,33; 1,76) (-0,17; 1,84) Attitudes Vegans Vegetarians Omnivores Mean 15,20 14,16 11,91 V & VT V &O VT & O CI (0,52; 1,57) (2,74; 3,84) (1,55; 2,94) Behaviour Vegans Vegetarians Omnivores Mean 13,45 11,74 10,02 Vegans & Vegetarians Vegans & Omnivores Vegetarians & Omnivores CI (0,87; 2,55) (2,67; 4,17) (0,75; 2,67) Significant differences are marked in green; CI = confidence interval

The table shows that the mean of vegans’ level of knowledge is the highest (8,30), followed by vegetarians (8,09) and omnivores (7,25). The t-test demonstrated that there is a significant difference between the knowledge of vegans & omnivores. CI represents the confidence interval which helps us claim with a 95% confidence that the real value of the estimate is somewhere between the two limits. It can be stated that with 95 % confidence, the difference between the true mean of all vegans and all omnivores lies in the interval (0,33; 1,76). This interval does not contain zero, therefore the difference between the knowledge of vegans and omnivores is significant. There is not a significant difference between the knowledge of vegans & vegetarians, either between vegetarians & omnivores suggesting that can be perceived as a transition phase towards veganism – vegetarians already have some level of knowledge, which is higher than the one of omnivores but lower than vegans’ knowledge.

35 The mean of vegans’ attitudes is again the highest (15,20), followed by vegetarians (14,16) and omnivores (11,91). In the case of attitudes, significant differences were found between all the groups – between vegans & omnivores (0,52; 1,57), vegans & vegetarians (2,74; 3,84) and vegetarians & omnivores (1,55; 2,94).

The mean of vegans‘ behaviour is again the highest (13,45), followed by vegetarians (11,74) and omnivores (10,02). As in the previous case, significant differences were shown between all the groups – between vegans & omnivores (0,87; 2,55), vegans & vegetarians (2,67; 4,17) and vegetarians & omnivores (0,75; 2,67).

It can be concluded that the more plant-based diet respondents follow, the more pro- environmental their approaches and behaviour are. One can notice that within the three variables, the mean values of knowledge are the lowest. The mean values of attitudes are the highest, almost double than that of knowledge. The mean values of behaviour are slightly lower than that of attitudes, but also greatly higher than that of knowledge.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIOUR Three linear regressions were conducted to test the mediation model. I examined the predictive ability of knowledge on attitudes, the predictive ability of knowledge on behaviour and the predictive ability of both knowledge and attitudes on behaviour, successively.

As the table below shows, positive and significant relationships were found between all three variables suggesting that the higher knowledge, the more pro-environmental were attitudes as well as behaviour. In the first equation, it was confirmed that knowledge affects attitudes – by an increase of the indicator of knowledge by one unit, the indicator of attitudes would increase by 0,15. According to the second equation, knowledge affects behaviour – by an increase of the indicator of knowledge by one unit, the indicator of behaviour would increase by 0,19. In the third equation, I found out that attitudes strongly predict behaviour (ß = 10,50) and the knowledge variable decreased (ß = 0,98). Thus, it can be concluded that attitudes partly mediate, or in other words account for, the relationship between knowledge and behaviour.77

77 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 10-11. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359

36

The results suggest that the knowledge about the environmental benefits of veganism directly influences the behaviour. However, this influence is much higher when pro-environmental attitudes are adopted. In other words, gaining objective knowledge about the environmental benefits of veganism may not be a sufficient argument for behaving in that way, since we also need to have some subjective opinions or beliefs related to the issue in order to adopt a vegan lifestyle. Table 6: Mediation model results

Knowledge → Attitudes 12,63 Intercept t = 20,87*** 0,15 Knowledge t = 2,05* Knowledge → Behaviour 10,34 Intercept t = 13,50 *** 0,19 Knowledge t = 2,08* Knowledge + Attitudes → Behaviour 0,09 Intercept t = 0,08 0,07 Knowledge t = 0,98 0,81 Attitudes t = 10,50*** *p = ( 0,01; 0,05); *** p < 0,001

VEGANISM AS A PART OF RESPONSIBLE TOURISM In the questionnaire, there were two questions directly examining whether participants perceive veganism as a part of responsible tourism: • Vegan travel is an essential part of sustainable tourism. (If sustainability really mattered to people, they would be implementing a vegan lifestyle everywhere they go.) – question n.10 in the attitudes part. • I am a responsible traveller – I reduce/avoid animal products consumption wherever I go. – question n. 7 in the behaviour part.

37 The table below shows that 70 respondents out of 161 (43,5 %) strongly agree that vegan travel is an essential part of responsible tourism. Although the strongly agree option was selected by less than half of the sample, it represented the most frequent answer. Table 7: Distribution of responses – attitudes question n. 10

Stongly Rather Rather Strongly disagree Disagree disagree Neutral agree Agree agree n 9 8 13 15 23 23 70 % 5,6 5,0 8,1 9,3 14,3 14,3 43,5

The distribution of answers according to the nutritional lifestyle of participants can be seen in the graph below. If we examine the most frequent answers by each group, we can observe that 53 out of 70 vegans (75,7 %) and 11 out of 35 vegetarians (31,4 %) strongly agreed with the statement. By contrast, 12 out of 56 omnivores (21,4 %) rather disagreed with the given statement. Furthermore, no level of disagreement was shown by vegans. No vegetarian selected the strongly disagree option, whereas answers of omnivores were the most spread through the whole 7-point Likert scale. Graph 2: Attitudes question n. 10

Vegan travel is an essential part of sustainable tourism.* 80

70 6

60 11

50

40

30 53 20 8 6 8 10 9 9 12 9 6 4 6 9 0 2 1 2 Strongly Disagree Rather Disagree Neutral Rather Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

Vegans Vegetarians Omnivores

* Vegan travel is an essential part of the sustainable tourism. (If sustainability really mattered to people, they would be implementing a vegan lifestyle everywhere they go.)

Regarding the statement in the behaviour part I am a responsible traveller – I reduce/avoid animal product consumption wherever I go, almost half of the respondents (49,7 %) strongly agreed with the statement, as shown in the table below.

38 Table 8: Distribution of responses – behaviour question n.7

Strongly Rather Rather Strongly disagree Disagree disagree Neutral agree Agree agree n 9 6 17 12 16 21 80 % 5,6 3,7 10,6 7,5 9,9 13,0 49,7

As for the distribution of the most frequent responses according to the nutritional lifestyle of participants, as many as 64 out of 70 vegans (91,4 %) strongly agreed with the given statement, as shown in the graph below. Agree option was marked by 13 out of 35 vegetarians (37,1 %), whereas 17 out of 56 omnivores (30, 4 %) rather disagreed. All the statements of the behaviour part of the survey required a reflection on participants’ behaviour, therefore these results are very logical – vegans strongly agree, since they do not consume animal products at all. Vegetarians agree, as out of the animal products, they do not eat meat. Omnivores rather disagree, but their consumption of animal products and the willingness to reduce such products may vary a lot from person to person.

However, it also depends on how participants interpret their behaviour in the context of responsible tourism – they may or may not consider reducing or avoiding animal products for the reason of being responsible travellers. Therefore, this question and the attitudes question n. 10 discussed above complement each other, making it easier to see some patterns. Graph 3: Behaviour question n. 7

I am a responsible traveller - I reduce/avoid animal product consumption wherever I go. 90

80 5 70 11 60

50

40

30 64

20 5 9 10 17 7 13 7 6 6 0 2 5 1 3 Strongly Disagree Rather Disagree Neutral Rather Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

Vegans Vegetarians Omnivores

39 The results suggest that participants perceive veganism just partly as an aspect of responsible tourism, especially those of them who are vegans and vegetarians. Some of the respondents also expressed their opinion about veganism in the context of responsible tourism through a comment under my post in the Facebook groups. Most of the people who contributed with a comment mentioned that they were either omnivores or flexitarians.78 These participants argued that they considered themselves as responsible travellers although they were not vegans. Some of them believe that it is more important to care about how the food was produced and to support local farmers. It was highlighted that there should not be only one right diet for all the people around the world. According to one of the respondents, veganism is a habit of people living in developed countries, because they have the privilege to choose what they want to eat, whereas in some developing countries plant-based diet is the only, forced option. Therefore, veganism is perceived there rather as a sign of poverty and malnutrition. By contrast, products from the livestock industry consumed only on special occasions represent a luxury. Others also argued that for example Arctic regions are very abundant in fish, but not adapted for growing . One participant added that in her opinion, a vegan diet is suitable just for urban continental environments. Another one stated that cultural sensitivity is also a part of responsible tourism. Thus, when you are offered a traditional dish with meat while travelling, you should not refuse to try it.

78 Flexitarians eat meat and fish just occasionally.

40 CONCLUSIONS This study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding environmental benefits of veganism among responsible travellers. The sample consisted of 161 members of Facebook groups on responsible tourism and such. As many as 138 respondents were women (85,7 %). Regarding the nutritional lifestyle of participants, the sample included 43,5 % vegans, 21,7 % vegetarians, and 34,5 % omnivores. The majority of respondents belonged to the age group of 25-34 (37,3 %) and a bachelor’s degree was the highest level of education attained by most of the participants (40,4 %).

It was found that the overall success rate of the respondents in the knowledge quiz was nearly 50 %. It means that on average, participants gained 7,89 points out of 16. The mean value of attitudes was the highest – 13, 83 (initially 6,05 when measured on the 7- point Likert scale from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 7, then rescaled according to the knowledge scale from 0 to 16.) The mean of the behaviour variable reached 11,88 (initially 5,20 when measured on the 7-point Likert scale from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 7, then scaled according to the knowledge scale from 0 to 16.)

The mean values of the variables above apply to the whole sample. However, the investigation showed some significant differences between vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores. The average level of knowledge was the highest among vegans (8,30), followed by vegetarians (8,09) and omnivores (7,25). T-tests revealed a significant difference in the level of knowledge between vegans & omnivores. The mean of vegans’ attitudes is again the highest (15,20), followed by the attitude of vegetarians (14,16) and omnivores (11,91). Significant differences in attitudes were found between all the groups – between vegans & omnivores, vegans & vegetarians as well as vegetarians & omnivores. The means of behaviour were 13,45; 11,74 and 10,02 for vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores, respectively. As in the case of attitudes, significant differences in behaviour were shown between all the groups.

Nevertheless, it should be considered that some of the respondents’ answers might be biased in a sense of social desirability.

Three linear regressions conducted within the mediation model confirmed that positive and significant relationships exist between all the variables. Knowledge affects attitudes. Attitudes

41 strongly predict behaviour and also partly mediate the relationship between knowledge and behaviour. It means that when the effect of attitudes was controlled, the relationship between knowledge and behaviour still existed, but was weaker.79

The perception of veganism as a part of responsible tourism was directly examined through two survey questions: • Vegan travel is an essential part of sustainable tourism. (If sustainability really mattered to people, they would be implementing a vegan lifestyle everywhere they go.) – question n.10 in the attitudes part. • I am a responsible traveller – I reduce/avoid animal products consumption wherever I go. – question n. 7 in the behaviour part. The strongly agree option was the most frequent answer for both questions – 43,5 % of respondents strongly agreed with the first statement, whereas almost half of them (49,7 %) expressed strong agreement with the second one. It can be concluded that, veganism is seen as a part of responsible tourism just partly, mainly by vegan and vegetarian participants.

79 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 10. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359.

42 DISCUSSION The research investigating knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour regarding the environmental benefits of veganism was conducted among the so-called responsible travellers. I found it interesting that although the data were collected in Facebook groups on responsible tourism whose members are both female and male, the majority of my respondents were women (85,7 %). But only one chosen Facebook group out of nineteen consisted of women only – Vegan Women Who Travel. It may suggest that women were more willing to participate, since this topic may be more interesting for them and they may be more concerned about the environmental impacts of food they consume than men.

Other researchers also found that women’s attitudes and behaviour tend to be more pro- environmental. Women are usually more willing to give up eating meat. In general, meat, and especially , is associated with strength and power, which may make it more difficult for men to overcome this mindset, to adopt a new attitude and eventually to reduce meat consumption.80

It was found that the higher knowledge about the environmental benefits of veganism, the more pro-environmental were attitudes and behaviour. However, the analysis demonstrated that the relation between attitudes and behaviour was stronger than the relation between knowledge and behaviour. It can be concluded that knowledge is undoubtedly crucial for adopting pro- environmental behaviour and it is a prerequisite for embracing pro-environmental attitudes. The subjective, emotional component of attitudes apparently plays an important role in the transformation of objective knowledge into responsible environmental behaviour.81 In other words, knowledge of the environmental benefits of veganism may not be a sufficient reason for reducing the consumption of animal products or for becoming vegan. One needs to adopt pro- environmental attitudes and strong beliefs in favour of veganism first. Nevertheless, there may be a gap between an individual’s beliefs and the actual consumer behaviour, since people sometimes do not know what to do exactly in order to behave more environmentally friendly or they just prioritize their immediate need over the long-term environmental interest.82

80 Tobler, C., & et al. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3), 678. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010 81 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 12. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 82 Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 13. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359

43

Vegans are more knowledgeable about the environmental benefits of veganism than omnivores. However, no significant difference was found between the level of knowledge of vegans & vegetarians, either between vegetarians & omnivores. It suggests that vegetarians may be in a transition phase towards veganism since they know more about the topic than omnivores, but still less than vegans. Sometimes, vegetarians can even have strong attitudes in favour of veganism while still following a vegetarian diet – for some people the behavioural change is harder and takes more time.

Regarding attitudes and behaviour, significant differences were found between all the groups. Vegans showed the most pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour, followed by vegetarians and omnivores. Regardless of other motives of being vegan, the highest level of knowledge of vegan participants and the strongest attitudes probably account for their most pro- environmental behaviour. However, in reality some people initially for other than environmental reasons, such as health reasons or ethical ones. But eventually, they may become aware of the environmental aspects as well.

Examining veganism in the context of responsible tourism can be seen as a relatively new perspective. It can explain why participants, especially vegan and vegetarian ones, perceive veganism just partly as an aspect of responsible tourism. Some respondents argue that they still consider themselves to be responsible tourists although they are not vegans – some of them for example find more sustainable to eat animal products produced by smaller local farmers. Other ones state that veganism is not an adequate diet for everyone – it may depend on an individual’s health conditions, geographical location, or countries’ level of development.

As veganism is a very controversial topic, people have many different opinions about it. The aim of the study is to raise awareness about the environmental impacts of the livestock industry and environmental benefits of veganism in the context of responsible tourism. My work is not trying to persuade everyone to become vegan and to present a vegan diet as the only sustainable lifestyle. I would just like to inspire people to think more about the environmental impacts of food they eat and to encourage them to reduce the consumption of animal products, especially the ones coming from mass production farming.

44 IMPLICATIONS FOR TOURISM Environmental benefits of veganism are insufficiently discussed in general, and usually not at all in the context of responsible tourism. One can find various tips on how to be a more responsible traveller – from not taking a plane to bringing reusable cutlery. However, food consumption and its environmental impacts is usually an omitted topic in this context. Therefore, I suggest that there should be a campaign aiming at raising awareness of the environmental benefits of veganism in the context of responsible travel. For example, this campaign could compare environmental footprints of a typical vegan traveller with an omnivorous traveller, arguing for more environmentally friendly behaviour.

Promoting vegan travel in a conscious way could be also a good opportunity for businesses involved in tourism. For instance, if more companies were focusing on stay offers for vegans, more people would probably go vegan, since vegan travelling would become more accessible, easier, and more comfortable.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Firstly, qualitative research needs to be done next to explore responsible tourists’ perceptions and opinions about veganism as a part of responsible tourism on a deeper level and in a larger context. Secondly, the selected target group including so-called responsible travellers was relatively specific and narrow. Thus, the KAB survey examining the environmental benefits of veganism needs to be conducted among additional population samples. It would be particularly interesting to compare my observations with findings of research conducted among typical mass tourists that would be expected to have a lower level of knowledge and less pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour.

45 REFERENCES 1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173 2. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Three domains - cognitive, affective, psychomotor. In Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classificaton of educational goals. London, United Kingdom: Longmans. ISBN: 978-0582280106 3. Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2014). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2). Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/tt2.php 4. Caruna, R., & et al. (2014). Tourists’ accounts of responsible tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 115–129. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2014.03.006 5. Definition of veganism. (n.d.). The Vegan Society. https://www.vegansociety.com/go- vegan/definition-veganism 6. Dopelt, K., Radon, P., & Davidovitch, N. (2019). Environmental Effects of the Livestock Industry: The Relationship between Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior among Students in Israel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 1359. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081359 7. Ghahari, J. M., & Mcadam, J. A. (2018). Combating Climate Change One Bite at a Time: Environmental Sustainability of Veganism (with a Socio-Behavioral Comparison of Vegans and Omnivores). Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 1–11. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2018.1.11 8. Chai, B. C., & et al. (2019). Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability, 11(15), 4110. doi: 10.3390/su11154110 9. Krebs, D., Schmidt, P., & Seeman, M. (1993). A historical perspective on attitude research. In New directions in attitude measurement, 3-20. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN: 3110138719 10. Kuh, G. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties. Framework & Psychometric Properties, 1-26. Retrieved from: http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/psychometric_framework_2002.pdf

46 11. Lim, T.-P., & et al. (2016). A structural modeling on food safety knowledge, attitude, and behaviour among Bum Bum Island community of Semporna, Sabah. Food Control, 60, 241–246. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.07.042 12. Oh Ordinal data, what do we do with you? (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2020, from https://creativemaths.net/blog/ordinal/ 13. Rosi, A., & et al. (2017). Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diet. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 6105. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8 14. Sabaté, J., & Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl_1), 476S–82S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522 15. Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 8–15. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140430905 16. Standard Deviation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical- guides/measures-of-spread-standard-deviation.php 17. Stanford, D. (2006). Responsible Tourism, Responsible Tourist: What makes a responsible tourist in New Zeland (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington), 40-44.. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/367. 18. Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26(3), 249-269. doi: 10.1037/h007036 19. Tobler, C., & et al. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3), 674–682. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010 20. What is a T-test. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t- test.asp 21. Working group on Monitoring & Evaluation. (2014). Knowledge, atitudes and practices (KAP) surveys during cholera vaccination campaigns: Guidance for oral chorela vaccine, Stockpile Campaigns. Retrieved from: https://www.who.int/cholera/vaccines/kap_protocol.pdf 22. World Health Organization, & Stop TB Partnership.(2008). Advocacy, communication and social mobilization for Tb control: a guide to developing knowledge, attitude and practice surveys. 6-7. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. ISBN: 978 92415961766-7.

47 23. Yinghuan, Z. (2019). Tourist demand for counterfeits and the ethical desicion-making proces (Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10397/81016.

48 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE Hello, I am a student of the master programme Sustainable Destination Development at Uppsala University. This survey examining environmental benefits of veganism is a part of my master’s thesis.

The questionnaire is in the form of a KAB survey, therefore consists of three parts - Knowledge, Attitude, and Behaviour questions. Please, do not feel discouraged by the knowledge part and complete the questions on your own, without any help from the internet or such. After submission of the survey, you will see your score and the correct answers to the knowledge questions, which will help you immediately increase your knowledge on this issue!

Participation in this survey is anonymous. The collected data will confidentially and solely be used for the stated purpose.

Thank you very much for your participation!

Demographic questions: 1. How old are you? o Under 18 o 18-24 o 25-34 o 35-44 o 45-54 o 55-64 o 65-74 o 75 or older

2. What is your gender? o Female o Male o Other

3. What is your nationality?

4. What country do you live in?

5. What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Less than a high school diploma o High school degree of equivalent o Bachelor’s degree o Master’s degree o Doctorate o Other (Associate degree, trade/technical/vocational training...)

49 6. What is your nutritional lifestyle? o Omnivore (eats both plant and animal foods) o Vegetarian o Vegan

7. Have you ever had a pet? o Yes o No

Knowledge questions: Livestock industry = raising animals for the production of meat, eggs and milk.

1. Rank following sectors according to their contribution to the environmental pollution: (1st = the greatest polluter) o Electricity industry o Livestock industry o Transportation

2. Approximately, what is the percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions coming from the livestock industry? o Less than 10 % o 10 – 30 % o 30 – 50 %

3. The majority of livestock emissions are in the form of: o Methane o Nitrous Oxide o Carbon Dioxide

4. If everyone went vegan by 2050, the food-related greenhouse gas emissions would reduce by 40 %. o Correct o Incorrect

5. Rank following food products according to their greenhouse gas emissions per 100 grams of protein: (1st = food product with the highest greenhouse gas emissions) o Beef o Milk o Eggs o Tofu (soybeans) o Peas

6. Livestock industry can cause habitat loss and extinction of species living in the water or around. o Correct o Incorrect

50 . Livestock farming uses around …..% of agricultural land and around….% of earth’s land. o 50 %, 10 % o 70 %, 30 % o 90 %, 70 %

8. One kg of beef requires approximately….times more land use than one kg of rice or one kg of potatoes. o 16 times more o 60 times more o 160 times more

9. The livestock industry accounts for around…. % of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. o 25 % o 50 % o 75 %

10. It takes more than 9 000 litres of water to produce half a kilo of meat, whereas half a kilo of wheat requires 9 litres of water. o Correct o Incorrect

Attitudes questions: 1. Concerns regarding environmental problems are exaggerated. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

2. Preserving environmental quality is very important for me. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

3. The livestock industry causes environmental damages. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

51 4. The livestock industry wastes natural resources (water, land, food). o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

5. Animals and plants are here for humans’ needs. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

6. The vegan diet is the best one in terms of reducing the environmental impact of the livestock industry. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

7. The production of animal products should be limited. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

8. It is important to me that the food I eat is produced in an environmentally friendly way. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

9. If I knew more about the issue, I would definitely integrate environmental considerations when choosing my food. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree

52 o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

10. Vegan travel is an essential part of sustainable tourism. (If sustainability really mattered to people, they would be implementing a vegan lifestyle everywhere they go.) o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

Behaviour questions: 1. I try to consume food from the livestock industry as little as possible. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

2. I am considering becoming vegan. (If you are already a vegan, please select “Strongly Agree”.) o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

3. I buy local food as much as possible. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

4. I eat organic food as much as possible. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree

53 o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

5. I seek information about the environmental impacts of the livestock industry (articles, videos, etc.) o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

6. I am involved in an activism that aims at preventing hazards from the livestock industry. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

7. I am a responsible traveller, therefore I reduce/avoid animal product consumption wherever I go. o Strongly Disagree o Disagree o Rather Disagree o Neutral o Rather Agree o Agree o Strongly Agree

54