Kaizenshogun77
|
Thesis Work!
Star this Commitment
Week 4 of 4
Kaizenshogun77 commits to:
Send 1500 organized words per week from my thesis, from intro to methodology.
4
0
No more reports due
|
My Commitment Journal
 Marco77
May 11, 2021, 4:14 PM
|
|
| Well done ! Did you finish ? | |
 MalvinaM
May 11, 2021, 7:02 AM
|
|
| Congrats! 🥳 | |
 Kaizenshogun77
May 8, 2021, 5:13 PM
|
|
|
There is an urgent need to transition towards an environmentally sustainable model of development on a global scale (Goodland et al., 1993). For instance, it has been discovered that human development already forced the earth to breach 4 out of its 9 planetary boundaries (i.e., climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, and land-system change) (Steffen et al., 2015). Scientists concluded that human activities are destabilizing the Earth’s biosphere which accelerates an upcoming and irreversible ‘planetary scale tipping point’ (Barnosky et al., 2012). Thus, there is an urgent need for a model of development that can preserve the Earth’s limitations (Steffen et al., 2015). More specifically, ‘agricultural production’ is a sector of activity that has a strong and rapid impact in pushing the Earth out of its natural boundaries (Campbell et al., 2017). Therefore, to provide an environmentally sustainable model of development that preserves the Earth natural boundaries, we need to establish why our current agricultural production has such a considerable environmental impact. Agricultural production is not sustainable because current food production is not sustainable. There is evidence that food production causes significant environmental damages and resource depletion (Holden et al., 2018). For instance, cutting down forests to make space for crop cultivation causes enormous losses in natural habitat and plant species (Allen and Prosperi, 2016). Moreover, depending on the region, agricultural production is estimated to be responsible for 80 to 86% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (i.e. originating in human activity) within food systems, additionally food systems produce around 29% of total (GHG) emissions produced by all human activities (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Large food corporations are failing to prevent the side effects generated by their food production operations that ultimately harms the public ‘s health, the economy and the environment (Steier 2011) and even social cohesion (Reisch et al., 2013). Food systems generates numerous environmental issues, such as global warming, species extinction, as well as land and water degradation (Behrens et al., 2017; Heller et al., 2018), and a rapidly changing climate would ultimately harm our ability to grow food reliably (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). By extension if we cannot grow food reliably, economic, health and social consequences will become apparent. There is therefore a need to understand how whole food systems impacts society unsustainably beyond agricultural production. Beyond production, food systems supply chains have social, environmental and economic implications preventing the accomplishment of the sustainable goals (Dania et al., 2018). For instance, food systems can be potentially damaging to the wellbeing of labor force and customers on a local and provincial level (Buttel, 2003). For example, a study examining strategies to improve the economical fairness and sustainability of the Cacao industry in South America found that local producers regularly have issues maintaining price competitiveness due to the influence applied by other industrial sectors and consumers (Fluck, 2014). Agri-food system activities involve multiple social concerns that are interconnected ( i.e. health issues, gender equality, insufficient wages, etc.)(Nemarumane and Mbohwa 2013; FAO, 2016). Food systems, encompass all inputs, actors and activities related to the production, preparation, distribution and consumption of foods (e.g. farms, people, processes, infrastructures, equipment, etc.) as well as the outcomes generated from them (e.g. nutritional, economic, as well as social and environmental outcomes) (Fanzo, 2019). The fields of agricultural production, food systems, nutrition and health are linked together (Kanter et al. 2015), and to the environment as well. There is therefore a need to understand how our production and consumption of food related to overall food systems. The unsustainability of food systems can be traced to how trends in food production and trends in food consumption are interlinked (Reisch et al., 2013). For example, it was found that the amount of increased waste and greenhouse gas emissions the agri-food sector generates is directly correlated to rising food consumption displays across the globe (Li et al., 2014). Moreover, one third of food produced is wasted globally (Gustavsson et al., 2011), which contributes to more GHG emissions (Birney et al., 2017). The environmental crises ( e.g. resource depletion, ecosystems destruction) as well as social crises ( e.g. equal opportunity, health pandemic) are all linked to how we produce and consume goods and services (Bengtsson et al., 2018) and food is no exception. Agri-food systems are threatening human survival on Earth because of their environmental impact (Chao and Feng, 2018; O’Neill et al., 2017), and the extent of their environmental impacts are strongly associated to how much we consume and produce (Bengtsson et al., 2018). Ensuring sustainable production and consumption is an important part of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) which advocates for efficient use of natural resources, cutting food waste, responsible management of chemicals, sustainable public procurement and for companies to adopt more sustainable practices (Chan et al., 2018). In order to improve the outcomes of sustainable production and consumption, abundant research suggests that instead of focusing on making production more efficient, targeting systemic change that affect the dimensions of consumption, as well as social and institutional changes is a better strategy (Bengtsson et al., 2018).Therefore, focusing on changing the dimensions of food consumption, as well as changing social norms and policies about food are disclosed to be the most efficient strategies in promoting sustainable production and consumption. One standpoint on how to achieve food system sustainability is to target unsustainable consumption patterns (Garnett, 2014). A drastically rising demand for food is contributing to the degradation of the natural environment. Thus, the effects our food systems have on the planetary boundaries are expected to rapidly accelerate since it is projected that the world will have to be able to produce around 70% more food by 2050 (Davies et al., 2009), in order to satisfy the needs of a growing population that was estimated to reach 9.1 billion people by then (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). Therefore, there is an urgent need for a sustainable food systems because the increased population and demand for food, are forcing the intensification of agricultural practices which generates unprecedented environmental impacts (Tilman, 1999). Besides an escalating population, this emergent demand for more food production capacity can also be explained by shifting human consumption patterns. As average wealth increases rapidly around the world, so does the demand for food, and especially the demand for animal products (Campbell et al., 2017; Godfray et al., 2010). For example, the quality of life in Asian countries has been steadily increasing over the past decade, which caused a significant increase in demand for animal products in those countries (Cao and Li, 2013). The rapid increase in demand for processed food and animal products threatens humanity’ s aptitude to grow food since it accelerates the struggle for more land, water and energy (Godfray et al., 2010). Because the livestock industry is responsible for “18% of (GHG) emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use”(Stehfest et al., 2009), increased demand for animal products are placing more pressure on limited amount of environmental resources. Therefore, because of the increase in both our demand for food and the environmental degradation of our natural resources, climate change is predicted to have an negative impact on the quantity and quality of food production as well as the capability to distribute that food equitably (Myers et al., 2017). Not only is there a growing number of people and demand for food, but people are progressively choosing more of the types of foods that cause the hardest damage to both human health and planetary health ( e.g. unprocessed and processed red meat) (Clark et al., 2019). Apart for two exceptions (i.e. fishes and sodas), it was discovered that the foods that are improving human health are the same ones that have the lowest impact on our planet (Clark et al., 2019). For example, increased consumption of meat in Vietnam created a significant increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in the country (Gheewala et al., 2020). While, it was proven that red meat is about 150% more GHG intense than chicken or fish (Weber and Matthews, 2008), we also know that increased meat consumption is linked to increased risks of health issues such as cancers, and that there is even more risks of contracting multiple diseases ( e.g. type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease) with when ingesting processed meat (Boada et al., 2016). Moreover, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) disclosed in 2013 that ‘70% of new viruses contaminating humans come from animals’ and that rising consumption of meat would enhance the risks that new pandemics would appear (Arora and Mishra, 2020). In summary, the eating habits of consumers promote the negative effects of the food production industry (Steier 2011). Thus, the food we produce and consume ties human health and the environment together (Tilman and Clark, 2014). Our contemporary food production and consumption is unsustainable because consumer trends are shifting towards animal based products (Reisch et al., 2013). Thus the rising demand for food is causing challenges to feed the world population appropriately without creating ecological, economic, and social consequences on a global scale (Lindgren et al., 2018). |
|
|
Kaizenshogun77
May 3, 2021, 1:27 AM
|
|
|
Despite being systematically endorsed as an instrument capable of generating sustainable actions, conventional education is not adapted to efficiently promote sustainable behaviors. Academics and organizations strongly believe that education can guide society towards environmental sustainability (Rowe, 2007; Potter, 2009; Goritz, et al., 2019; UNESCO,1997). For instance, the UNESCO claimed that “education is the most effective means that society possesses for confronting the challenges of the future” (UNESCO, 1997). Moreover, several authors urged educational institutions to put more emphasis on teaching sustainable development as a subject (Rowe, 2007; Mochizuki and Bryan, 2015). However previous educational programs promoting eco-friendly actions are found inadequate (Redman and Larson, 2011; Ramsey, 1993; Redman, 2013). Educational interventions have been unsuccessful at promoting individual and collective actions advancing sustainability because they rely on the assumption that new knowledge leads to new behavior (McKenzie‐Mohr 2000; Redman and Larson 2011; Ramsey, 1993; Simmons and Volk, 2002). The term ‘knowledge’ is defined here as the “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education” and its acquisition has been the main goal of education (Arlinghaus and Johnston, 2017). Informational, knowledge-based approaches to eco-friendly behavior change tend to produce mediocre results (Finger, 1994; Stern, 2000; McKenzie‐Mohr, 2000). The focus on teaching information as the means for changing people’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviors has been termed the Information-Deficit Model (e.g., students just need to understand how the environment works and then they will behave in a sustainable manner) (Suldovsky, 2017). This method has been found inadequate in addressing the motivators and obstacles to changing pro-environmental behaviors (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Monroe, 2003; Pooley and O’Connor, 2000). For example, even though someone may know a lot of information regarding sustainable food behaviors and sustainable waste behaviors, this knowledge is not a reliable determinant of whether they will actually participate in such behaviors (Redman and Redman, 2014). The lack of efficacy in sustainability education can thus be attributed to the incorrect assumption that knowledge leads to action (McKenzie‐Mohr, 2000; Ramsey, 1993; Simmons and Volk, 2002). Most educational interventions rely on the transfer of knowledge because it is assumed to be a precondition to changing someone’s behavior (Frick et al, 2004). Therefore, the environmental education movement as a whole is maladapted to create sustainable actions since it still believes that explaining to someone why they should do an action differently is equivalent to teaching them new behaviors (Heimlich and Ardoin 2008; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002) Despite informational knowledge being insufficient at creating sustainable behaviors, it is still an necessary element of behavior change because it helps an individual understand why a certain action needs to be changed (Arlinghaus and Johnston, 2017). For example, even though the Information-deficit model has been heavily criticized for not understanding the relationship between knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors, it is still considered essential for climate change research and communication (Suldovsky, 2017). If information was enough to alter the way humans conduct themselves; why would anyone still eat unhealthy foods, smoke cigarettes, and not exercise regularly while the information about the benefits and dangers of those behaviors is universally accessible? (Arlinghaus and Johnston, 2017). While information by itself is insufficient in helping chronic cigarettes smokers quit permanently, one should start by learning the facts and information explaining why cigarettes are harmful in order to quit them anyway. So, even though the purpose of education as a whole is to prepare people manage upcoming challenges (Roczen et al., 2013), relying only on informational knowledge to create behavior change generates unsatisfactory outcomes (McKenzie‐Mohr, 2000; Stern 2000,b). As it happens, very few environmental programs actually measure and understand the link between acquiring new knowledge and how it affects behaviors (Redman, 2013). The measurement of different domains of knowledge held by someone can be used to predict and fill knowledge gaps to foster sustainable behaviors. Different domains of knowledge have been identified, each performing different functions in explaining and prompting behavior change (Kaiser and Fuhrer, 2003; Roczen et al., 2013; Redman and Larson, 2011). For example, a framework including 4 domains of knowledge (e.g. declarative, procedural, effectiveness and social knowledge) (Kaiser and Fuhrer, 2003) was used in a study to predict how likely students were to conform with sustainable food and sustainable waste behaviors ( Redman and Redman, 2014). Declarative knowledge is one type of knowledge, and it can be defined as factual, technical socio-ecological information (Redman and Redman, 2014). Researchers ( Redman and Larson, 2011) described the 4 different forms of knowledge using food choices as an example. (1) life cycle analysis, or the human-ecosystem processes by which products are produced, consumed, and decomposed (declarative knowledge); (2) how to read labels and understand the meaning of different certifications, such as organic and fair trade (procedural knowledge); (3) the broader impacts of switching to a more sustainable diet, for instance, how fair trade affects the livelihoods of farmers or how organic farming minimizes pollution while maintaining soil fertility (effectiveness); and, (4) the social desirability of individual decisions and underlying reasons for cultural norms, such as high-meat diets in the U.S. (social knowledge). Using those domains to predict sustainable behaviors, a study found that procedural and social knowledge were robust predictors of sustainable food behaviors; while procedural, effectiveness, and social knowledge domains were able to predict sustainable waste behaviors accurately ( Redman and Redman, 2014). This approach of merging knowledge domains together involves concepts such as: values, social norms, attitudes, and beliefs (Ajzen, 1985; Cialdini et al., 1990; Stern, 2000), which were developed by behavioral scholars trying to understand what motivates and prevents behavior. Therefore, an educational program that comprise all domains of knowledge about a compon environmental goal, will be able to understand can foster environmental behaviors more meaningfully that any single form of knowledge alone (Kaiser and Fuhrer 2003; Redman and Redman 2014; Roczen et al., 2013). Educational interventions must therefore create programs that do more than simply transmit information in order to target and impact the predictors of sustainable behaviors ( Redman and Redman, 2014). Sustainable educators must implement behavioral theories into their practice to promote transformational actions efficiently. For instance, numerous academics argue that, to improve the inefficient information-based model, it is critical to incorporate several categories of knowledge based on behavioral theories into sustainability education( Redman and Larson 2011; Redman and Redman, 2014) and environmental education (Roczen et al. 2013; Heimlich and Ardoin 2008). For example, a model of behavior change called “ theory of change” was used to improve transdisciplinary sustainable education in the classroom (Armitage et al., 2019). Our current educational approach prevent sustainable education to create transformative actions because it commonly disregards both the subjective paths to acquiring knowledge, as well as disregarding the potential withheld inside the collected works of behavior change science (Redman and Redman 2014; Redman and Larson 2011). Subsequently, sustainability educators advocate to not just teach knowledge, but shift from a ‘transmissive’ to a ‘transformative’ type of teaching so that future generations can be armed with the proper tools to fight against the dangers of climate change (Burns, 2011). Instead of focusing on purely informational learning, a transformative learning approach must try to change a person’ attitudes, so that learners can embrace sustainability as a new standard (Taimur et al., 2020). Environmental attitudes are determined by the beliefs and emotions one holds towards an certain environmental occurrence (Pooley and O’Connor, 2000), and several studies revealed that they are much stronger and more reliable predictors of sustainable behaviors than environmental knowledge (Indriani et al., 2019; Roczen et al., 2013; Laner, 2018). For instance, the approach of merging different realms of knowledge previously mentioned extents past the traditional views of knowledge (Kaiser and Fuhrer, 2003) to include the subjective and dynamic processing of our environment as a form of knowledge ( Redman and Larson, 2011). Attitudes towards nature and ecological actions are frequently studied within the context of education aimed to induce pro-environmental actions because they may be essential in predicting and modifying various eco-friendly behaviors (Kaiser et al., 1999). Which explains why many theories of behavior change within the field of environmental education are targeting ‘attitudes’ to try to change them as a way to change ultimately change behaviors ( e.g. Theory of planned behavior; Integrated model of behavioral prediction; Responsible environmental behavior model) (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). That is the case because, in order to teach environmental behaviors, educators must teach about both the cognitive (i.e. rational thinking based on factual knowledge) and the affective (i.e. belief, emotions, attitudes) processes accompanying the particular behavioral skill being taught (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). There is a link between environmental knowledge and attitudes towards environmental behaviors. For example, it was found that while environmental knowledge does not directly influence green product purchase intention (Indriani et al, 2019) it has a moderate effect on environmental attitudes (Arcury, 1990), which in turn consistently and positively influences the intention to buy eco-friendly products (Indriani et al., 2019). Environmental knowledge positively influence environmental attitudes (Bradley et al., 1999) and those two factors are regularly being taken into account in the context of environmental education (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). People with strong eco-friendly attitudes are found more likely to adopt eco-friendly behaviors, despite ‘attitudes’ being a fragile predictor of actual eco-friendly behaviors (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). For example, a study found that college students’ attitudes were the strongest predictor of the intent they had to act environmentally, which in turn had a softer but still positive influence on the actual environmentally friendly behaviors (Laner, 2018). This is because attitudes are strong predictors of the intention one has to do a certain action, but intentions are in turn, only moderately successful predictors of real behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Recurrent findings reveal important inconsistencies between environmental knowledge, attitudes and their matching behaviors (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Padel and Foster, 2005; Yamoah and Acquaye, 2019). … Past environmental programs have failed because there is a gap between an individual’s thinking and their actions (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Padel and Foster, 2005). For example, in consumption behaviors there can be an inconsistency between the values, beliefs and attitudes someone holds towards buying certain ethical products, and the products the same person actualy buys (Carrington et al., 2014). More specifically, there is a persistent attitude behavior gap paradox within the sustainable food industry that is still largely unexplored by researchers (Yamoah and Acquaye, 2019). For example, while many consumers show a positive attitude towards purchases of organic food products (67%), only a small number of consumers (4%) purchased those products (Joshi and Rahman, 2015). As Dr. Harold Hungerford, a renown environmental educator, stated: “Environmental educators still believe—so very strongly—in the knowledge; attitude; behavior model of learning when, at the same time, we know how desperately inadequate this is when it comes to changing the citizenship behaviors of large numbers of learners over long periods of time” (Simmons & Volk, 2002). Although numerous studies and theoretical frameworks were designed and used to explain the gap between environmental knowledge, consciousness, and behaviors, no conclusive explanations was established yet (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). For instance, not a single research investigation was able to fully comprehend why a consumer holding positive attitudes towards environmental products fails to turn into an actual eco-friendly purchase (Gupta and Ogden, 2009). Although no clear consensus has been reached regarding to what extent, or by which method attitudes can influence environmental behaviors (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008), some scholars argued that they can be used as effective predictors of environmental actions if measured properly (Kaiser et al, 1999). The environmental attitude-behavior gap declines when the attitude measured is especially specific to the condition surrounding the ecological behavior (Weigel et al., 1974). Studies reliably show that general eco-friendly attitudes by themselves seldom create specific behavioral conversions (Monroe, 2003; Bell et al. 1996; Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008), however it was uncovered that in field experiments that specific attitudes more reliably predict actual gasoline purchasing behaviors than general attitudes (Heberlein and Black, 1976). Attitudes towards specific behaviors (e.g. buying an electric vehicle) are better predictors than attitudes held towards the object of the behavior (e.g. the environment ) (Jaccard et al., 1977). General attitudes towards the environment do not necessarily predict if a person will act out a specific behavior (e.g. buying an electric vehicle), on the other hand specific attitudes towards specific problems ( e.g. attitude towards cars emissions polluting the atmosphere) will improve the prediction of the specific behavior (i.e. actual purchase of an electric vehicle) (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008; Bell et al. 1996). In other words, the questions measuring ‘attitudes’ must be designed specifically towards a precise behavior to reliably predict the probability of its occurrence (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). One piece attitude-behavior paradox puzzle can be explained by the fact that attitudes must be measured while highly specific to the behavioral context. Furthermore, other factors such as normative influences and accessibility were found to have an effect on the attitude behavior gap (Bell et al. 1996; Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). Attitudes and behaviors are dependent on specific context. |
|
This Commitment has no photos.
Displaying 1-4 of 4 results.
April 30 to May 7
Successful
Success
Success
mitzuyley
- Referee approval report
Kaizenshogun77
- Committed user success report
April 23 to April 30
Successful
Success
Success
mitzuyley
- Referee approval report
Kaizenshogun77
- Committed user success report
April 16 to April 23
Successful
Success
Success
mitzuyley
- Referee approval report
Kaizenshogun77
- Committed user success report
April 9 to April 16
Successful
Success
Success
mitzuyley
- Referee approval report
👏
Kaizenshogun77
- Committed user success report
.
