J.J. Boersema

Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution

The shift towards a more sustainable diet necessitates less reliance on foods of animal origin. This study presents data from a representative survey of Dutch consumers on their practices related to meat, meat substitution and meat reduction. The practices reflected a cultural gradient of meat substitution options running from other products of animal origin and conventional meat free meals to real vegetarian meals. To investigate feasible substitution options, a variety of meals without meat were presented using photos, which were rated by the participants in terms of attractiveness and chances that they would prepare a similar meal at home. The results demonstrated the influence of meal formats, product familiarity, cooking skills, preferences for plant-based foods and motivational orientations towards food. In particular, a lack of familiarity and skill hampered the preparation of real vegetarian meals. Based on the findings we propose a diversified understanding of meat substitution and we specify four policy-relevant pathways for a transition towards a more plant-based diet, including an incremental change towards more health-conscious vegetarian meals, a pathway that utilizes the trend towards convenience, a pathway of reduced portion size, and practice-oriented change towards vegetarian meals.

Food and sustainability: Do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards?

We tested how consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information about food production methods that may contribute to a more sustainable agriculture. Nine copy tests were formed, each containing one out of three products and one out of three panels of information. The products were (1) fillet of chicken, (2) semi-skimmed milk and (3) fillet of salmon. The panels of information were (a) a certified organic logo and details about the animal welfare standards of organic products, (b) just the logo, or (c) a statement in which the product was attributed to the world market. About 371 customers of a supermarket in the city of Amsterdam filled in a questionnaire, which included a subset of three copy tests. The results showed that many consumers did not realize that the organic logo already covers all the standards. They were inclined to underestimate the distinctive advantage of the logo; products with logo and details got higher ratings of positive attributes but were also considered more expensive. As a consequence, the detailed information panels enabled consumers to choose more in agreement with their personal values but the net impacts on purchase intentions were small.

Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history

Current patterns of meat consumption are considered to be unsustainable. Sustainable development may require that consumers choose to eat smaller quantities of meat as well as meat that is produced in a more sensible way. A policy tool directed at consumer behaviour is that of enhancing consumer-oriented transparency of the production chain. Transparency is expected to allow people to make more mindful consumption choices, in line with their personal values. As most dietary habits are deeply rooted in the past, an assessment of the effect of transparency on food choices requires a historical perspective to food culture. Such a perspective provides us with at least two trends of relevance to meat consumption: increased concern for animal welfare and an ongoing dissociation of meat from its animal origin. Combined, these two trends may interact to allow people to consume in ways that actually conflict with their personal values: their concern for animal welfare does not translate into corresponding food choices, as the product meat does not remind them of its animal origin. An experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that people sensitive to animal welfare will respond to increased salience of animal origin and of animal welfare, and that they will show this by either avoiding to buy meat or by favouring free range and organic meat. Results confirmed the expected effect. The effect was observed mainly among those with Universalistic values, which limits the ultimate prospects of transparency as a policy tool.

Crossing borders : review of concepts and approaches in research on greenspace, immigration and society in northwest European countries

Abstract Relations between greenspace, immigration and society are emerging issues in policy and science. However, up to now research has been fragmented and no overview of approaches exists. This review describes concepts and approaches in Northwest European research on immigrants’ recreational use and perceptions of nature, rural landscapes and urban parks and on societal aspects of migration and greenspace. We show that national research traditions vary considerably, reflecting national ‘contexts of reception’ and conceptualisations of immigrants. Links between outdoor recreation and perceptions of greenspace have not been properly researched and explanatory factors are only superficially touched upon. Borders seem difficult to cross: learning processes and cooperation of scholars across approaches and countries are scarce. Furthermore, current research often lacks an explicit theoretical framework. We argue that the concept of identity-in-context can form a good starting point to build an internationally relevant theoretical framework on the greenspace–immigration–society interface.

Paying for environmental services: can we afford to lose a cultural basis for conservation?

In the late 1970s, a young American conservationist, Bill Webber, visited 27 of Rwanda’s 29 secondary schools to show and discuss video footage of mountain gorillas and their habitats (Webber and Vedder 2003). Why did he devote such energy to visiting the 10 000 or so Rwandan elite able to attend these schools? The answer that he observed in the school children’s reactions was that there existed a basis to build both fascination and national pride in this unique natural phenomenon – even what he described as ‘conservation nationalism’. Today, such efforts reach further into Rwandan society, for example through the Virunga Wildlife Clubs in local primary schools. Exactly what role such a cultural basis for conservation plays is hard to measure, but few would doubt that it is significant. Let us fast forward to the present. As we write, the UN Climate Change Conference is meeting in Bali, discussing a proposal for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), an initiative to be piloted now and to become an integral part of the post-2012 UNFCCC agenda. This is a system for paying states money for not cutting down their forests, based on the logic that ‘avoided deforestation’ is a low-cost option for climate change mitigation, alleviating the pain of more expensive efforts to decarbonise our economies. Under such a scheme, the value of forests is equated with their carbon storage capacity, a service which is expressed in terms of its economic value to human society. The Stern Review (Stern 2007) noted that 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions result from deforestation. For the eight countries responsible for 70% of this deforestation, Stern estimated that

Principles of environmental sciences

5 billion per year would offset the opportunity costs from avoided deforestation (largely the foregone income from timber sales and agriculture), thus making it a ‘major opportunity to reduce emissions at relatively low cost’ (p. 543). The World Bank has now launched a

Is sustainable development sustainable

250 million fund for the pilot REDD and countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo will be in the front line for receiving payments. Assuming the Avoided Deforestation initiative takes off in earnest, we will witness a dramatic change in the motivation for protecting forests in developing countries. On the surface, this offers new hope to end deforestation quickly, but should we be cautious about allowing the cultural basis for conservation to be eroded through such commodification of nature? This editorial begins by asking how we got to this point, charting some of the milestones along this journey. It then asks critical questions about the emerging hegemony of economics, and the apparent alliance with conservation biology. Environmental Sciences March 2008; 5(1): 1 – 5

Experts, decision making and deliberative democracy

Preface.-Part 1. Environmental sciences, sustainability, and quality. Biogeochemical cycles. Reconstructing environmental changes over the last 3 million years. Environmental history: object of study and methodology. Human environmental history since the origin of agriculture. Recent developments and trends.-Part 2. General Principles. Specific principles. Social science and environmental behaviour. The Natural Environment. Analytical tools for the environment-economy interaction. Analysis of physical interactions between the economy and the environment. Environmental policy instruments. Environmental institutions and learning: perspectives from the policy sciences. Technology for Environmental Problems. Integration. Environmental modelling. An illustration of the LCA technique. Integrated assessment.-Part 3. Environmental policies in their cultural and historical contexts. National policy styles and waste management in the Netherlands and Bavaria. Land use in Zimbabwe and neighbouring southern African countries. Climate change policy of Germany, UK and USA. Technical progress, finite resources and intergenerational justice. Sustainability is an objective value. A rejoinder to Wilfred Beckerman and Herman Daly. Transitions to sustainability as societal innovations. Agriculture and food problems. Tracing the sustainable development of nations with integrated indicators.-Index.

How to Prepare for the Unknown? On the Significance of Future Generations and Future Studies in Environmental Policy

This journal proclaims its concern with ‘‘the relationships between science, society and policy and a key aim is to advance understanding of the theory and practice of sustainable development’’. We have certainly endeavoured to publish research articles, from scholars in the natural and social sciences, which put forward what our title calls an ‘‘integrative’’ approach. This integration is intended to be at once interdisciplinary, crossing not only disciplinary divides but also bringing together science and policy and policy and practice. And this integration is to be achieved through a focus on sustainable development as the integrating concept. But, it may be asked, has this concept any validity or utility as the leitmotif of a journal? Is it merely a routine recognition of a normative concept that is now pretty much axiomatic for environmental scientists and policy makers alike? Or, does the concept still retain sufficiently positive, purposive and practical connotations to fulfil its presumed role as an overarching goal of scientific understanding and political policymaking? The answer is, we suspect, a bit of both of these. It all depends on perspective, on value and viewpoint; in short, on what we think we mean by sustainable development. It is worth going back to the original identification and definitions of the concept a generation ago, beginning naturally with the Brundtland pronouncement in 1987. ‘‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ (World Commission 1987, p. 44). This theme has been oft repeated since in a variety of versions and contexts. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), referring in 1997 to radioactive waste stated that society should be protected ‘‘in such a way that the needs and aspirations of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their needs and aspirations’’ (IAEA 1997, Article 1). As might be expected the IAEA had a particular concern that impacts on health ‘‘will not be greater than relevant levels of impact that are acceptable today’’ (IAEA 1995, Principle 4). By contrast, the UK Government of Margaret Thatcher stressed the notion of stewardship involved in sustainable development. The Prime Minister herself announced in a speech to the Royal Society in 1988 that ‘‘we do not hold a freehold on our world, but only a full repairing lease’’. This was formulated as a statement of principle, a moral imperative, in the White Paper This Common Inheritance: ‘‘We have a moral duty to look after our planet and to hand it on in good order to future generations’’ (HMSO 1990, p.10). Over the years such heady and idealistic declarations have, perhaps, become more pragmatic, more vacuous even. By 1999 the UK’s approach was defined as providing ‘‘a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come’’ Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2012, 1–8

Cultural echoes in Dutch immigrants’ and non-immigrants’ understandings and values of nature

In recent years there has been much discussion about the role of experts and expertise in policy making. We commented on some of the issues in an earlier editorial (Vol. 1, No. 2). In particular we noted the concerns about the legitimacy and credibility of policy pronouncements in areas where scientific uncertainty is a prevailing condition. These concerns, we argued, were fuelling a lack of public trust in both scientists and decision makers. The danger in this is that the science used to inform policy making becomes portrayed by some commentators as socially constructed, politically motivated, elitist and authoritarian. Some of the attacks on experts, over BSE or GMOs for instance, have certainly hit their mark. They have served an important purpose in drawing attention to the limitations of science and the difficulties of translating scientific knowledge (which is often provisional and uncertain) into public policy. Indeed, there is now widespread recognition that a precautionary approach must be taken in the absence of scientific certainty to prevent possible harmful consequences becoming unavoidable. And there is evidence of greater intent on the part of policy makers and scientists to build more open and confident relationships between science and society. One way of achieving this, we noted, is through the effort to engage a wider range of stakeholders and the general public in the process of policy making. This does not deny the need for scientific knowledge based on theoretical understanding and underpinned by empirical data (observed or experimental). But, it does recognize the limitations arising from inherent uncertainties especially when dealing with complex problems involving predictions into the far future. There are now many contemporary issues where, as Funtowicz and Ravetz put it in a well known paper, ‘the facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1990, p. 20). This led them to call for a new approach, a ‘post-normal science’ characterized by ‘a new scientific method, neither value-free nor ethically neutral’ (p. 22). This suggests that scientific knowledge, although vital, is not the only relevant knowledge but knowledge based on experience and values must also be an important input into policy making. And, processes of deliberation are increasingly being used as a means of expounding and integrating such knowledge. It is probably fair to say that deliberation is becoming the fashionable approach to public participation in policy making. Deliberation is interaction that encourages the free expression of ideas, views and beliefs. It is a vehicle for identifying what people think and what is important to them. Ideally, deliberation should encourage rational argument as well as enabling participants to articulate their experience and intuitive judgement. Provided the process abides by agreed rules it should be possible for participants to express and understand the provenance and status of different viewpoints. However, like the role of expertise, the role of deliberation requires careful scrutiny, too. It is important here to distinguish between the function of deliberation as an interactive process Environmental Sciences March 2005; 2(1): 1 – 3