Awareness of Climate Change and the Dietary Choices of Young Adults in Finland: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Climate change is a major public health threat that is exacerbated by food production. Food items differ substantially in the amount of greenhouse gases their production generates and therefore individuals, if willing, can mitigate climate change through dietary choices. We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study to assess if the understanding of climate change, concern over climate change or socio-economic characteristics are reflected in the frequencies of climate-friendly food choices. The study population comprised 1623 young adults in Finland who returned a self-administered questionnaire (response rate 64.0%). We constructed a Climate-Friendly Diet Score (CFDS) ranging theoretically from −14 to 14 based on the consumption of 14 food items. A higher CFDS indicated a climate-friendlier diet. Multivariate linear regression analyses on the determinants of CFDS revealed that medium concern raised CFDS on average by 0.51 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.98) and high concern by 1.30 points (95% CI 0.80, 1.80) compared to low concern. Understanding had no effect on CFDS on its own. Female gender raised CFDS by 1.92 (95% CI 1.59, 2.25). Unemployment decreased CFDS by 0.92 (95% CI −1.68, −0.15). Separate analyses of genders revealed that high concern over climate change brought about a greater increase in CFDS in females than in males. Good understanding of climate change was weakly connected to climate-friendly diet among females only. Our results indicate that increasing awareness of climate change could lead to increased consumption of climate-friendly food, reduction in GHG emissions, and thus climate change mitigation.

Can Climate Change Awareness Predict Pro-Environmental Practices in Restaurants? Comparing High and Low Dining Expenditure

“…For example, public awareness of heat waves influences attitudes towards the influences of heat waves on the society and the reframing and communication strategies [7]. Increasing climate change awareness brings greater use of eco-friendly food on the basis of reducing GHG emissions and mitigating climate change [2]. Public opinion on climate change concerns is also related to environmental attitudes and the adoption of energy efficient behavior to reduce emissions [4].…”

“…The constructs represented climate change awareness, climate change mitigation pursuing actions, anticipated pride, anticipated guilt, subjective norm, attitude, and perceived behavioral control, and intention. Six items addressing the construct of climate change awareness were generated from prior research [2,8,33]. Six items to assess the construct of climate change mitigation pursuing actions were adapted from the literature [5,10,35].…”

“…Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the individual measures they can take to mitigate climate change, including waste reduction [1], dietary change [2,3], energy and resource conservation [4,5] and adopting a low-carbon lifestyle [6]. Climate change awareness overall positively encourages consumers' attitudes toward climate change mitigation and associated behaviors [7,8].…”

How to write the discussion section of a scientific article

“…We did not study intentions but assessed the actual food intake frequencies. Therefore our study adds to the previous knowledge: the high concern about climate change might actually concretize the intentions to make dietary adjustments" (Korkala, Hugg, & Jaakkola, 2014).…”

Public disclosure for carbon abatement: African decision-makers in a PROPER public good experiment

“…In addition, females polluted more than males. This result is quite unexpected, since studies have found that climate change often burdens women more than men, that marginalization of women makes them more vulnerable to climate change impacts than men, and that women are generally more concerned about climate change than men (Korkala, Hugg, & Jaakkola, 2014;McCright, 2010;Habtezion, 2012;Olsson et al, 2014). 10 Furthermore, the subjects who were of the opinion that it is unfair for Africa to reduce emissions polluted more (kept 2.7 more red cards) than their counterparts who thought it was fair.…”