Pre-Focus Group Survey

I conducted a survey prior to the focus group discussion to determine existing knowledge and views of environmental harm caused by livestock production (see chapter three). The survey, consisting of nine questions, revealed some notable patterns, particularly when broken down by age group.

The first question asked about the causes of climate change, and explicitly sought to determine if participants believe anthropogenic activities are the main cause of climate change. All participants, with the exception of two in the 65+ year age group, believed anthropogenic activities are primary the cause.

The second question was about Amazon deforestation and the relationship to agricultural production. Little difference was noted in this instance, between the three age groups, when asked if they are aware that an estimated 70% of the Amazon

53 deforested lad is being used for livestock production. One individual in the 16 to 21 year age group and two in each of the older age groups indicated that they were aware. In short, there were no significant results in terms of age, while overall this demonstrates that for the participants at least, awareness of the issue was mixed. A significant difference between the oldest group and the two younger age groups was however noted when it came to asking about the leading cause of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; livestock production and transport were provided as alternate choice responses for this question. Two in the 16 to 21 year old age group and three in the 35 to 50 year old age group believed that the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions is livestock production. However, all participants in the 65+ year age group erroneously believed transport to be the leading cause.

There was a strong belief across all age groups that individual action can make a difference to environmental sustainability. In response to this fourth question, three people in the 16 to 21 year age group, three in the 65+ age group, and all four in the 35 to 50 year age group believe that individual action can make a difference.

On quite a different note was a question about oceanic dead zones and the relationship of this to livestock production. There were broad differences between the age groups when asked if the ocean dead-zones are occurring as a result of livestock production run-offs and global warming. One individual in the 16 to 21 year old age group and two in the 65+ year age group did not accept this information, while all participants in the 35 to 50 year age group did.

A further notable difference between the 65+ year age group and the two younger age groups occurred in relation to a question about biodiversity loss. Two in each of the 16 to 21 year old age group and 35 to 50 year old age groups accepted the claim made by Carrington (2014) that without engaging in environmentally sustainable practices, 80% of the Earth‟s species are predicted to be extinct in fifty years. No one in the 65+ year age group accepted that this was the case.

Question seven asked whether livestock production is the single largest cause of environmental harm. The response to this question revealed the largest difference between the age groups. All four in the 65+ year age group disbelieved livestock

54 production to be the single largest cause of environmental harm, while three in each of the 16 to 21 and 35 to 50 year age groups accepted that this was true.

In response to question eight whereby participants were asked if they thought it should be the government‟s responsibility to introduce environmentally sustainable policies, there was mainly a consensus. Three participants from each of the groups answered „yes‟, and one from each group answered „unsure‟. In short, no one thought that the government definitely should not be involved in environmental sustainability policies.

The final question revealed a significant difference between the older age group and two younger age groups. When asked whether there is anything that would potentially influence them to eat less meat, other than one in the 16 to 21 year age group who responded „not really‟, all others in the 16 to 21 and 35 to 50 year age groups responded with scenarios that could possibly influence them. For example, two comments made in the 16 to 21 year old group were: “where it came from e.g. caged farmed chicken” and “if other options that could replace meat products were cheaper, like if vegan foods were cheaper”. Basically, animal welfare and affordability were noted as possible drivers of change. In the 35 to 50 year age group, different factors were mentioned: “Easy vege recipes; access to vege food, i.e. lots of variety and (better) cost”, and “weight loss”; and “others in the family becoming vegetarian”, while another person noted that “smaller portions” would mean that they would eat less meat. What is particularly interesting with this final question though, was that in the 65+ year old age group, three individuals responded “no” to the question of whether there was anything that would encourage them to reduce their meat consumption. The fourth participant though, did note that health reasons rather than environmental reasons could be influential, health reasons were not mentioned at all in two younger age groups.

The questions on environmental harm caused by, or related to, livestock production elicited very different responses from the older age groups compared to the two younger age groups. The 65+ year age group overwhelmingly rejected the information on environmental harm caused by livestock production, and subsequently didn‟t consider that they would want to alter their meat consumption practices due to any concerns about the environmental impact of agricultural

55 production. In contrast, the two younger groups predominantly accepted the information, and noted a range of reasons as to why and how they may consider reducing meat consumption. The information was provided immediately prior to the focus group, all were previously unaware of the extent of environmental harm livestock production caused, however the two younger groups were receptive to the information and endeavoured to seek potential behaviours with which to assist in mitigating environmental harm caused by livestock production. One participant in the 16 to 21 year old age group observed “now that I know this, should I change”, while another asked “can it all be traced back to our growing population, when we will have too many people”. This query prompted a further response from this group on the topic of the growing population being at the foundation of environmental harm “I don‟t think people will care about the growing population, well, I don‟t think they will take any action until it affects them, I don‟t know how it will affect them, but maybe no food, nowhere to live, and bad storms”.