Social marketing for reducing meat consumption

KunQin
Studentnumber:16850800
Research study to explore how social marketing techniques can be used to
reduce overconsumption of meat at university of Brighton- A case study
approach.
KUN QIN
SUPERVISED BY DAN BENNETT
Word count: 6055

KunQin
1 | P a g e
Executive Summary
This project outlines an exploratory study that was undertaken as part of an
Undergraduate degree, to explore ways that social marketing can be used to
reduce the consumption of meat for students at the University of Brighton.
The study is based on students at the University of Brighton across different
university years.
The findings suggest ways that social marketers could influence students’
consumption behaviour and thereby reduce meat consumption.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dan Bennett, for his continued support and
guidance throughout the completion of this project. I would also like to thank those
who participated in my research for taking the time to complete my questionnaires
and focus groups.

KunQin
2 | P a g e
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................1
Lists of Figures........................................................................................................................4
Lists of Tables.........................................................................................................................4
1.0 The Issue..........................................................................................................................5
1.1 The Opportunity............................................................................................................6
2.0 Aims and Objectives..........................................................................................................7
2.1 Aims and Objectives......................................................................................................7
2.2 Scope of the Project ......................................................................................................7
2.3 Research questions:.......................................................................................................8
3.0 Literature Review..............................................................................................................8
3.1 Social Marketing............................................................................................................8
3.2 Social Marketing for reduce meat consumption research.................................................8
3.3 Initiatives and Practice...................................................................................................9
3.4 Case Study..................................................................................................................10
3.4.1 ‘Veganuary’- Try vegan for one-month campaign....................................................10
3.4.2 ‘The Reducetarian Summit’- Reduce Meat consumption campaign ..........................11
4.0 Behavioural Theory.........................................................................................................11
4.1 Social Cognitive theory ................................................................................................11
4.2 Transtheoretical model................................................................................................13
4.3 Key Findings................................................................................................................14
5.0 Research methodology....................................................................................................15
5.1 Secondary research.....................................................................................................15
5.2 Primary research.........................................................................................................16
5.2.1 Questionnaires .....................................................................................................16
5.2.2 Sample.................................................................................................................17
5.2.3 Questionnaire characteristics.................................................................................17
5.3 Focus Group................................................................................................................18
5.4 Limitations of research ................................................................................................19
5.5 Ethical Consideration...................................................................................................20
6.0 Analysis..........................................................................................................................20
6.1 The audience ..............................................................................................................21

KunQin
3 | P a g e
6.2 No meat consumption behaviour .................................................................................24
6.3 Meat consumption behaviour......................................................................................25
6.4 Awareness of environmental issues..............................................................................27
6.5 Focus group: Findings..................................................................................................29
6.6 Focus group: Analysis ..................................................................................................30
7.Conclusion.........................................................................................................................30
8.0 Recommendation............................................................................................................31
8.1 Raise awareness..........................................................................................................32
8.2 Segmentation..............................................................................................................32
9.Reference:.........................................................................................................................34
10.0 Appendices...................................................................................................................42
10.1 Appendix I – Questionnaire........................................................................................42
10.2 Appendix II – Additional survey data and graphs..........................................................45
10.3 Appendix III – Focus Group Scripts..............................................................................45

KunQin
4 | P a g e
Lists of Figures
Figure 1- Meat Consumption predictions in different part of the world. (Mcmicheal et al., 2017) 5
Figure 2- Veganuary campaign (Veganuary, 2020) ..................................................................10
Figure 3- Reducetarian campaign (Reducetarian, 2020)...........................................................11
Figure 4- Determinates of Human Behaviour. (Bembenutty, White and DiBenedetto, 2016) .....12
Figure 5- Transtheoretical Model. (Prochaska and Diclemente, 1982) ......................................13
Figure 6- Participants gender.................................................................................................21
Figure 7- Participants age......................................................................................................22
Figure 8 - Participants year of study.......................................................................................22
Figure 9- Do participants consume meat? ..............................................................................23
Figure 10- Reasonfor not consuming meat ............................................................................24
Figure 11- Reasonfor consuming meat..................................................................................25
Figure 12- Frequency of meat consumption ...........................................................................26
Figure 13- Thoughts on reducing meat consumption ..............................................................26
Figure 14- What can help to reduce meat consumption..........................................................27
Lists of Tables
Table 1- Aims and Objectives...................................................................................................7
Table 2- Keyfindings.............................................................................................................14
Table 3- Score of environmental awareness ...........................................................................28
Table 4- Focus group finding..................................................................................................29

KunQin
5 | P a g e
1.0 The Issue
The World Health Organisation (2020) stated that world per capita consumption of
meat has increased from 24.2kg between 1964-1966 to 36.4kg between 1997-
1999 and is projected to increase to 45.3kg in 2030 which will be almost double
what it was in 1964-1966 and reaching a total of 385 million tons (United Nations
Sustainable Development, 2015). This upsurge is driven by increasing per capita
income and by population growth as human population has been predicted to
increase to 9.3 billion by 2050 (Godfray et al., 2018; Mclntyre, 2009). Due to the
enormous rising of global per capita meat consumption in the past few decades
and in the foreseeable future (see figure 1), there has been increasing concerns
over the consumption of meat and its detrimental impact on the environment
(Aston, Smith and Powles, 2020).
Figure 1- Meat Consumption predictions in different part of the world. (Mcmicheal et al., 2017)

KunQin
6 | P a g e
Livestock has a considerable impact on the world’s water, land and biodiversity
resources and is a major contributor to climate change (Steinfeld, 2006). Studies
have suggested that depending on the methodology and coefficients, water use
for one kilogram of beef ranges from 27 to 200,000 L (Doreau, Corson and
Wiedemann, 2012). As for land and biodiversity loss, rangelands that supply 10%
of the global meat make up an estimate of 25% of the world’s land area (Alkemade
et al., 2012). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) livestock
farming accounts for 14.5% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
which result in climate change (Happer and Wellesley, 2019; Zhao, X., 2011).
However, Cripps and Thiagarajah (2018) conducted a study showing that
participants agreed that human consumption affects the environment, but many
failed to connect this to individual-level consumption trends. Augstulen et al (2018)
has also affirmed this as their study done in Norway shows that people are not
aware of the impact of meat overconsumption to the environment and that
reduction of meat consumption is perceived as an inefficient alternative to combat
climate change.
1.1 The Opportunity
Scarborough et al. (2014) has suggested that switching to vegetarian diets from a
100g meat per day intake would reduce roughly 2.5 times less GHG emissions.
Sabate et al. (2015) has also suggested that vegetable protein (Kidney beans)
sauces are superior to animal-based protein in terms of their impact on the
environment. For instance, it requires 18 times less land and 10 times less water
to produce a kg of protein from kidney beans than protein from beef.
According to the National Union of Students (2018), 32% of the respondents of
their survey (N=2259) said that they consume meat every day, with 39% of
participants indicating concerns about the impact of meat production on climate
change and the environment. Therefore, this research has chosen students in
higher education as the marketing segments due to their passion for the

KunQin
7 | P a g e
environment, this is affirmed by Pizmony-Levy and Michel (2018) where they
stated that students in higher education are more susceptible with environment
issues and that they are more likely to be motivated to change their consumption
behaviours.
2.0 Aims and Objectives
2.1 Aims and Objectives
Table 1- Aims and Objectives
Aims Objectives
 To explore the attitudes of students at
the University of Brighton towards the
overconsumption of meat
 To use this insight to develop
recommendations to reduce the
overconsumption of meat among
students at the University of Brighton
1. To examine reasons why meat is
being consumed
2. To explore key barriers and
attitudes towards veg/vegan
options
3. To examine the differences
between results and the university
year
4. To underpin the level of support
needed to reduce the meat
consumption
5. To gain an understanding of the
level of current support and areas
already studied through
secondary research
2.2 Scope of the Project
The study will be specific to students at the University of Brighton and will not be
focused on one gender or university year. Therefore, the recommendations are
specific to the University of Brighton and it might differ from other universities as
students may experience different contributing factors depending on their
environment.

KunQin
8 | P a g e
2.3 Researchquestions:
What are the attitudes towards the overconsumption of meat of students at
University of Brighton and how can social marketing methods be applied to reduce
the consumption of meat?
3.0 Literature Review
The literature review intends to answer objectives 1, 2 and 5, give an overview of
the purpose of social marketing and look into previous research carried by social
marketers on the issue of overconsumption of meat. Tools and techniques of both
social and non-profit marketing were looked at.
3.1 Social Marketing
Social marketing has been introduced by Kotler and Zaltman (1971) as ways that
how social causes can be further improved through applying marketing analysis,
planning and control to problems of social change. However, Andreasen (1994)
stated that social marketing as the selling of ‘ideas’ has evolved since the
introduction of the concept, it has now focused on voluntary individual behaviour
change. This is also agreed by Wood (2016) as he suggests that social marketing
is looking at the individual and evaluating how commercial marketing principles
and practices can be applied to achieve social good.
3.2 Social Marketing for reduce meat consumptionresearch
There are evident environmental benefits when it comes to reducing meat
consumptions. However, research has shown that there have been very limited
efforts to include livestock products in climate or environment-related policies or

KunQin
9 | P a g e
interventions (Bogueva, Marinova, and Raphaely, 2017). One of the reasons
behind this is that meat consumption is deeply engrained in most cultures and it is
often associated with power and status in human’s evolutionary past (Chan and
Zlatevska, 2019). These symbolic connections between meat and status remain
today (Bunn, 1981; Milton, 1999; Smil, 2002). However, Hupkens (2000)
suggested that people are more health conscious and that there are no significant
differences between varies socioeconomic status over meat consumptions. Since
meat consumption is deeply entrenched in many factors, therefore, it is very
difficult for people to change their consumption behaviours (Vermeir and Verbeke,
2006). Due to the lack of awareness of the impact that meat consumption has on
the environment, consumers do not consider the environmental issues as their
primary concerns when consuming meat. Thus, the challenge driving this study is
about navigating competing values, views, and consumer behaviour using
behavioural theories to pinpoint and leverage those that suit the consumer as well
as the environment.
3.3 Initiatives and Practice
The University of Brighton offers students vegetarian/vegan options across all
canteens along with meat-free Monday promotions (Eat.brighton.ac.uk, 2020). In
fact, most universities in the UK have been working on providing more plant-based
cuisines in their cafeterias (Ferguson, 2020). Some university canteens have
banned red meat and thereby reduced their carbon emissions by a third per
kilogram of food purchased (University of Cambridge, 2020). According to
Tuco.ac.uk (2020) in the year 2018, over 90 percent of plant-based meals were
consumed by non-vegans. Pointing (2020) has also suggested that over 50
percent of students tried out vegan in the same year.

KunQin
10 | P a g e
3.4 Case Study
3.4.1 ‘Veganuary’- Try vegan for one-month campaign
Figure 2- Veganuary campaign (Veganuary, 2020)
The Veganuary campaign was launched in 2014 where the campaign encourages
people to take on the 31 day vegan challenge. They offer vegan recipes, quick
meal plans and helpful tips to the participants. This is the most effective
interventions as Hannan et al (2007) suggested that the most effective
interventions are practical ones. By 2019 over a quarter of a million participants
took part in Veganuary and 60 percent of participants planned to stay vegan. And
due to this phenomenon, there is now a shift in food outlets offering vegan options.
For example, Greggs has introduced vegan rolls and vegan steak bakes
(Greggs.co.uk, 2020), KFC with its zero-chicken burger (KFC, 2020) and Subway’s
meatless meatball marinara (Subway, 2020). By doing this, food outlets have
expanded their menu and not only does it attract vegans but also encourages
people to try it and therefore reduce meat consumption.

KunQin
11 | P a g e
3.4.2 ‘The Reducetarian Summit’- Reduce Meat consumption
campaign
Figure 3- Reducetarian campaign (Reducetarian, 2020)
The reducetarian movement was introduced in 2017 and it encourages people to
consume less animal product for 30 days. The movement provides health and
environmental benefits of reducing meat whilst also setting manageable and
therefore actionable goals for people to gradually eat less meat (Reducetarian,
2020). This movement has become a success, as they host a summit every year
where people all over the world from various industries whom are passionate about
animal welfare and the environment come together in order to explore strategies
and tactics for reducing societal consumption of animal products and showcasing
plant-based food (Schawbel, 2020).
4.0 Behavioural Theory
4.1 Social Cognitive theory
Bandura (1999) has proposed the social cognitive theory in which human
behaviours are influenced by both personal and the surrounding environment. This
is affirmed by French et al. (2010) as they also suggested that behaviours are
influenced by people learning from one another via imitation, observation and
modelling. Social marketer should take into account both elements to elevate
behavioural changes, for instance, encouraging students to reduce meat

KunQin
12 | P a g e
consumption by providing more nutritious veg/vegan recipes. Figure 4 indicates
the correlation between the three factors.
Figure 4- Determinates of Human Behaviour. (Bembenutty, White and DiBenedetto, 2016)
Social norms play a big part in meat consumption, this can be shown by the
dominant patterns in Western culture as it consists of high consumption of meat
and lack of willingness to adopt plant-based diets (Graca et al., 2015). Individuals’
aspects of identity can also perpetuate meat eating as meat-eating is a norm, thus
not socially marked as unique behaviour that requires change (Boer and Aiking,
2017). Since meat consumption is the norm, those who eat it are more likely to
reject reasons for reducing consumption and may not justify their decision to eat
such quantities, often citing habit and society (Boer and Aiking, 2017).
Doubts about self-efficacy can discourage consumers from changing their
purchase behaviour, and studies of self-efficacy have shown that it can predict the
purchase of sustainable foods (Hanss et al., 2016). Believing in the social impact
of one’s won purchase decisions is one of the individual-level factors that motivates
and demotivates people to adopt sustainable behaviours (Hanss et al., 2016). This

KunQin
13 | P a g e
phenomenon is closely tied to individual values and how one sees their place in
the world. It can influence consumer involvement, which is the level of perceived
importance the consumer places on choosing certain products for certain reasons
(Verbeke and Vackier, 2004). However, consumer’s involvements in meat
purchasing is typically low, due to current societal norms, values, lack of
knowledge, and the belief that personal grocery decisions are not relevant for the
health of the environment (Verbeke and Vackier, 2004).
4.2 Transtheoretical model
The Transtheoretical model (stage of change) was introduced in the 80’s and it
proposes that behavioural change does not happen in one step but 5 progressive
steps which are demonstrated in figure 5. This model provides a template for
students and accessing their different stages of change (Prochaska and
Diclemente, 1982). Insights and theory can then be used to underpin why
progression has not yet happened but can occur and how commitment to
behaviour can be sustained (Whitelaw, 2000).
Figure 5- Transtheoretical Model. (Prochaska and Diclemente, 1982)

KunQin
14 | P a g e
It has been suggested by Zimmerman, Olsen and Bosworth (2000) that it is
important to understand which stages of the transtheoretical model a person is at
so that social marketers can then adopt the most suitable approach towards that
person. In the case of reducing meat consumption, initiatives are different for each
stage (Klöckner, 2017). When students are in the pre-decision stage then they can
be benefit from more awareness of the consequences of their current consumption
behaviour and stronger social norms to change. In the pre-action stage, assisting
individuals to identify an alternative that they perceive as both positive and
relatively easy to implement. Students in the action stage, they would be benefited
from a concrete implementation advice, particularly on finding and preparing
vegetarian food. Lastly, when students are at post-action stage, support in keeping
up with changed consumption behaviour should be given.
4.3 Key Findings
Table 2- Key findings
Known Insights
People have limited knowledge about the impact of overconsumption of meat to the
environment
Previous practicehas shownthatpracticalinterventionsareeffective
Individuals behavioursareinfluenced by personaland widerfactors andlastly,there
is a need to review and monitorbehaviour.
Students arewillingtoreducetheirmeat consumptionandthereis someintervention
aimed atstudents
Areas Needed to be Uncovered Further
1. Do attitudes towards overconsumptionofmeatchangedependingon
university year
2. The level of understandingthatstudents inthe University ofBrightonposes
regardingto overconsumptionofmeaton the environment.
3. Whatkind ofsupportis needed to reducethe consumptionofmeatand
whatstage arestudents currently at to adoptinga behaviourchange.Is it
differentindifferentuniversity years?

KunQin
15 | P a g e
4. The effect of socialnorms and dothesedifferon university yearand how
socialnorms canbeused to influencea positivebehaviourchange
5. Key factors affectingthe overconsumptionofmeatforthe Universityof
Brightonstudents and ifthey differbetweenyears
5.0 Researchmethodology
Robson (2002) suggested that exploratory research allows researchers to find out
what is happening, forming insights and generating ideas and hypotheses for new
research. However, Reiter (2017) proposed that in order to achieve greater validity
and prove new and innovative ways for further research, exploratory research
should be conducted in a transparent, honest and strongly self-reflexive way – and
follow a set of guidelines to ensure its reliability. Therefore, in order to formulate
the research questions, aims and objectives of this project, a combination of
primary and secondary researches has been included as this can minimise
limitations that each technique may pose (Smith, 1975). Specific methods and
techniques used will be discussed in this section.
5.1 Secondary research
In order to formulate the research questions, aims, objectives, and to set the issue
in both academic and practical context extensive secondary research was carried
out by looking into a number of books, journals, articles and internet resources.
This has helped to underpin both the academic approach to the problem, and
practical application of the research methodology. Secondary research was
chosen simply because its virtually free and given that university provides a lot of
access to different journals and articles. However, the major limitation of secondary
research is that it is difficult to obtain information specific to this research, and

KunQin
16 | P a g e
additionally, existing research data may not have the currency necessary to be
useful (Cheng and Phillips, 2014). Thus, primary research was then carried out.
5.2 Primary research
Driscoll (2011) proposes that primary research is the information that is collected
first-hand rather than found in a book, database, or journal. Bradley (2013) has
also suggested that primary research allows selected matters to be addressed.
Therefore, primary data of this research was collected from students across the
University of Brighton among different years and genders in order to have a better
understanding of their attitudes towards overconsumption of meat; and exploration
of social marketing and its potential to contribute towards reduction of meat
consumption.
5.2.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires technique was chosen as Mathers, Fox and Hunn (2020)
suggested that questionnaire is the best research method as it is an effective way
to obtain information from a large number of people. This is agreed by Debois
(2020) as questionnaires are inexpensive, practical and offer a quicker way to get
results. It has been suggested that 30 should be the minimum sample number
(Stutely, 2003). However, in order to have a better understanding, questionnaires
consisting of 13 questions were distributed to 100, male and female students at
the University of Brighton across different years of studying. All is done through
Qualtrics provided by the university and it was circulated online and promoted via
social media channels, as well as through the university’s internal networks such
as portal and email. Please see appendix I for the questionnaire.

KunQin
17 | P a g e
5.2.2 Sample
For the purpose of this research, 2 types of non-probability samplings are used,
due to the fact that sample is not representative of the whole population or involve
randomness (Fox, 2010). The target audiences and the exploratory problem is
specific due to the fact that this research is specific to students of University of
Brighton, consequently participants have to fit the criterion. By doing this, it
prevents insights not being representative of the target audiences and avail to
reinforce the reliability of the research (Sharma, 2020). Convenience sampling is
proposed to be utilized along with purposive sampling given that the limited time
and resources resulting in being more practical for participants to be from the same
university (Claridge, 2020). Sampling bias was overcome by selecting different
genders and ages of students.
5.2.3 Questionnaire characteristics
The questionnaire consisted of 11 questions which answered the following areas
and can be divided in give categories:
 About you – e.g. age, gender, meat eater or not
 Meat consumption behaviour- e.g. how often do you eat meat
 Attitude regarding meat consumption- have you thought about lowering
your meat intake- this section will investigate stage of change
 Change in behaviour- what do you think will influence you to lower your
meat consumption
 Environmental awareness- what do you know about the impact
overconsumption of meat has on the environment?

KunQin
18 | P a g e
The questions were designed to such a degree so that it was easily interpreted,
therefore objective coding was provided. Open and close ended questions were
used as the study suggested that open-ended questions generally increase
participants engagement and give good responses (Connor Desai and Reimers,
2018). However, it has also been suggested that open-ended questions are time
consuming for both the participants to respond and for researchers to analyze,
thus, only 2/3 of questions are open-ended and the rest are closed-ended
questions so that it makes it easier and quicker for the participants to respond and
for the researcher to analyze (Connor Desai and Reimers, 2018). Introductory and
closing statements were included in the questionnaires in order to make sure that
participants fully understood the purpose and aims of the survey, to assure
confidentiality and show appreciation to respondents for their time and participation.
The data collected from this questionnaire was analyzed using Excel spreadsheets,
graphs and tables where then made to have a better visual presentation.
5.3 Focus Group
O.Nyumba et al. (2018) proposed that focus group is a qualitative approach to gain
an in-depth understanding of the issues. This is affirmed by Kitzinger (1995) stating
that the key advantages of focus groups are that it allows participants to express
their points of views easier than in a semi-structured interview. In order to
maximizes output of information and minimize group dissatisfaction Tang and
Davis (1995) have suggested that an ideal focus group should be between 4-12,
thereby for this study a focus group of 5 third-year university students was used.
Participants consisted of both male and female students both vegetarian/vegan
and meat eaters. The questions were evolved from the questionnaires, with the
intention of uncovering further insights into students’ attitude towards reducing
meat consumption and its impact on the environment.

KunQin
19 | P a g e
Focus group took place on the online platform via the app Houseparty given the
COVID-19 circumstance. The duration of the session lasted 45 minutes of which
5 minutes was used for the introduction of the session and allowing participants to
warm up. The reason for including non-meat-eaters was to better understand what
had encouraged them to give up meat, being beneficial for the project as they will
provide data for analysis and comparison.
5.4 Limitations of research
Due to the unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19, primary research has not
been done as intended. Three focus groups containing each university year of
students was intended to be conducted. However, the only focus group obtained
consisted of third university-year students via online video call. Therefore, the
research failed to further differentiate the change of attitude, if there is any, for
each university year regarding to meat consumption on the focus group. Since it
was not a face to face meeting, it may pose misunderstanding of the questions
and no emotions and spontaneous feedback. The methodology was designed to
minimise possible limitations, but a few unavoidable limitations have been raised.
For instance, the questionnaire sample size of 101 students consisted 54% female
and 45% male respondents. It is thereby a possibility that the responses may not
accurately represent student opinion as the imbalance of the gender may impose
distortion on the results. Along with the gender limitations, there was also a
limitation on the university years, with 26%, 24% and 45% of first, second, third
university year students respectively. As the third university year students were
almost double of other two years, it may not accurately reflect on students in each
year and their attitudes towards the subject as the objective intended to. From the
questionnaire, it has also raised the limitation where some of the questions were
not answered by a few of the participants therefore reducing the accuracy of the
research.

KunQin
20 | P a g e
5.5 Ethical Consideration
Sng, Yip and Han (2016) have stressed the importance of ethical consideration in
any researches and that the deontological view of ethics was followed in this study
(Saunders et al., 2009). Therefore, the targeted audiences in this research were
all above the age of 18 as they can decide whether they would like to take part in
this study or not, rather than needing parental permissions. This research also
followed The Belmont Report where it stated that all researchers should provide
adequate information, comprehension as well as voluntariness (HHS.gov, 2020).
Hence, a cover letter was provided to explain the purpose of the study along with
a consent form attached to acquire informed consent.
Clarke (1991) has proposed that the researcher should provide anonymity and
confidentially to the participants meaning that respondent’s personal details was
remained anonymous throughout the study. During the research, participants were
at ease and were able to express their feelings freely and this complies with
Robson’s (2002) suggestion that researchers should not apply pressure on the
participants.
6.0 Analysis
The following section will be focusing on analysing the findings from the primary
research in-depth using the data, along with relevant secondary research. The
analysis will be predominantly focusing on the research questions and it positions
to shed light on the possible recommendations for social marketers to intervene in
the target audiences.
An explorative questionnaire was partaken by 101 participants at the University of
Brighton. This gained quantitative data on the scope of the issue at University of
Brighton. This section will explore the results of this questionnaire. In order to

KunQin
21 | P a g e
answer the objective to find out if there is an attitude changes towards meat
consumptions from different university year, thereby the data has been cross
tabulated to help understand attitudes of meat consumption across different
university years. Since the focus of this research is on first to third year university
students, data gathered from placement year and further year students was not
analysed much as their data volume was not big enough. More results can be
found in appendix II.
6.1 The audience
Responses to this questionnaire have been converted into percentages to combat
the slight unequal split of genders, ages as well as year of study.
Figure 6- Participants gender
45%
53%
2%
What is your gender?
Male
Female
Prefer not to say

KunQin
22 | P a g e
Figure 7- Participants age
As the figures shows, respondents were greater from females than males, with
53%, 45% of female and male respondents respectively. Along with 2% of
respondents chose not to disclose their gender.
Most of the respondents for the questionnaires are 18-24 years old and consisted
93% then followed with 6% of respondents to be in 25-34 years old and lastly with
1% of the respondents to be in 45-54 years old.
Figure 8 - Participants year of study
93%
6%1%
What is your age?
18-24
25-34
45-54
26%
24%
2%
45%
3%
Q3. Which univerisity year are you in
?
First year
Second year
Placement year
Third year
Further (Masters etc.)

KunQin
23 | P a g e
These figures show some basic information on the respondents. All 101 of the
respondents were from the University of Brighton, with the majority of the
respondents in the target university years. Although there were a few responses
from placement year and further studies, this was due to the fact the
questionnaires were sent out to the university student email and it targeted all
university years. It appears that the most respondents are in their third year in the
university with 45%, followed by first year and then second year with 26% and 24%
respectively. This is due to the fact that the questionnaires were sent out to
researchers’ social media platform where there were more students in third year.
Figure 9- Do participants consume meat?
Surprisingly overall there are 20% respondents that do not consume meat which
is much higher than the national average of 2-3% as Vegetarian Society (2020)
suggested. This affirms Pizmony-Levy and Michel (2018) theory that students are
more susceptible to changes. However, it appears that there were more students
who did not consume meat as they progress with their university life. This can be
shown in the figure as first year students have the highest percent of people
consuming meat with 81%, followed by second year students of 80% and then
lowest with third year students at 76%.
22 20
2
33
4
81
5 5
0
10
0
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
First Year Second Year Placement
Year
Third Year Further
(Masters etc.)
Total
Do you consumemeat?
Yes No

KunQin
24 | P a g e
6.2 No meat consumptionbehaviour
The following section will focus on analysing the responses of the participants who
answered no to meat consumption in order to gain a deeper understanding of their
behaviours.
Figure 10- Reason for not consuming meat
As discussed before, 20% of the participants answered that they did not consume
meat, and their reasons vary but were grouped into 4 categories with
environmental sustainability and animal welfare being the main reasons for not
consuming meat with respectively 50% and 35%. Modlinska and Pisula (2018)
affirmed this outcome as they suggested that individuals with pro-environment or
pro-animal attitude are more likely to accept new forms of food and therefore,
reduce their meat consumption. An example of a response for the environmental
sustainability was “Meat industry is not sustainable and really bad for the
environment” and as for animal welfare, one respondent answered “I do not want
to participate in the enslavement, torture and murder of animals”.
3
1 1
0
2
1 1 1
5 5
0 0
10
7
2
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Sustainability and the
environment
Animal welfare Health Not enjoying meat
What is your reason not consuming meat
First Year Second Year Third Year Total

KunQin
25 | P a g e
6.3 Meat consumptionbehaviour
The next section will focus on analysing the responses of the participants who
answered yes to meat consumption and their subsequent answers to the questions
about their consumption behaviours as well as what kind of practice could motivate
them to reduce their meat consumption.
Figure 11- Reason for consuming meat
As the figure shown, reasons behind student meat consumption vary but were
grouped into five categories with texture and taste of meat and family brought up
to be the dominant factors with 31% and 27% respectively. An example of answer
for taste of meat was “Just enjoy eating meat, the texture of it” and for family
brought up “Haven’t really thought about it, parents cooked meat, so I guess it’s
from the family”. The Figure also shows that there were not significant differences
between students at different university years and their reasons for consuming
meat as their percentages of reasons are consistent throughout the university
years.
6
4
1
8
2
21
3 3
0
4
0
10
3 4
0
8
0
15
6 7
1
10
0
24
2 1 0
3 2
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
First Year Second Year Placement Year Third Year Further (Masters
etc.)
Total
What is the reason behind meat consumption?
Family Brought up Easy Accesse
Protein and Nutrition Texture and taste
Cultural and Religious reasons

KunQin
26 | P a g e
Figure 12- Frequencyof meat consumption
This figure show that most students consume meat on a daily basis and then the
number drops as the frequency of meat consumption decreases.
Figure 13- Thoughts on reducing meat consumption
With all the participants who consume meat, 54% of them have answered yes, 32%
of them have answered maybe and 14% of them have answered no to reducing
their consumption of meat. Of those who have answered yes or maybe, they have
already fallen into the contemplation stages of the transtheoretical model as they
0 1
9
5
7
2 2 3
8
5
0 0 0 1 1
3
5 6 6
13
0 0 0 1
3
5
8
18
21
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Once a week Twice a week 3-4 times a week 5-6 times a week Daily
If you consumemeat, how often do you consume
it?
First Year Second Year Placement Year
Third Year Further (Masters etc.) Total
9 10
2
22
1
44
8
10
0
7
1
26
5
0 0
4
2
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
First Year Second Year Placement
Year
Third Year Further
(Masters etc.)
Total
Would you like to reduce your meat consumption
Yes Maybe No

KunQin
27 | P a g e
have already become aware of the existing problem but with no commitment to
action. On the other hand, where participants answered no, they have fallen into
the precontemplation stage as they showed no intention of changing behaviour.
Figure 14- What can help to reduce meat consumption
This figure demonstrates what practice could motivate participants to reduce their
meat consumption. Participants responses vary but were grouped into these seven
categories where better meat alternatives was said the most by the participants.
With participants answering such as “I’m trying to cut it down already, I guess to
further reduce it would need better meat-alternatives” and “A more meat-like
veg/vegan substitute”.
6.4 Awareness of environmental issues
Q10. How much impact do you think consumption of meat has on the environment?
3 4
0 1 1 2 12
4
1 1 1 1 10 0 0 0 1 1 0
6
10
2
4
6
3
10 0 0 0 0 0 1
11
18
3
6
10
7
4
0
5
10
15
20
What can help you reduceyour meat
consumption
First Year Second Year Placement Year
Third Year Further (Masters etc.) Total

KunQin
28 | P a g e
Table 3- Score of environmental awareness
Environment
Issues
First
Year
Mean
Second
Year
Mean
Third
Year
Mean
Overall
Mean
Overall
Standard
Deviation
Overall
Variance
Biodiversity
Loss
58.42 60.12 69.14 62.56 23.29 542.42
Water
Shortage
59.12 59.78 67.13 62.01 24.13 582.11
Climate
Change
60.25 62.31 71.60 64.72 24.44 597.42
This table illustrates what participants thought of the impact that consumption of
meat has on the environment where participants were able to choose on the scale
of 0-100 with 100 being the most destructive on the subject. As the mean shows,
most participants did have awareness on those 3 environmental issues with means
of 62.56, 62.91 and 64.72 for biodiversity loss, water shortage and climate change
respectively. It appears that as participants progress to their latter year of studying,
their attitude towards the impact meat consumption has on the environment has
deepened. Although the average scores for the environment issues awareness
were high, it appears that there were opposite side of it where people have no
awareness and then there were people showing great awareness since the
minimum of the score is 0 and maximum score is 100.

KunQin
29 | P a g e
6.5 Focus group: Findings
See appendix III for transcript.
Table 4- Focus group finding
Question Key Findings Insightful extracts
1.Do you eat meat and if
so, how often do you
consume it?
4 out 5 participants
consume meat on a
regular basis.
“I’m trying to gain
weight, so I have to eat
meat every meal”
2.What is your reason
behind the meat
consumption? Or why do
you not eat meat?
4 out 5 Participants
influenced by their family
brought up and enjoy the
taste and texture of
meat. Last participant
care about animal
welfare hence not
consuming meat.
“For me, I really enjoy
the texture of meat in
general and I have been
brought up that way”
3.What impact do you
think the consumption of
meat has on the
environment?
3 out 5 participants were
aware of some impact
that meat impose on the
environment but could
not specify. The rest 2
participants did not have
awareness.
All the participants were
shocked when finding
out that livestock farming
contributed 14% of
greenhouse gas.
4.Is there anything that
you think could help
people reduce their meat
consumptions?
Participants agreed that
there should be more
information regarding to
meat consumption and
its effect on the
environment.
Participants also
“I personally think
maybe raising
awareness of its impact
on the environment,
because I don’t think
there’s enough

KunQin
30 | P a g e
outlined that better
meat-alternatives would
help people reduce their
meat consumption.
knowledge surrounding
the issue.”
6.6 Focus group: Analysis
It appears that most participants consume meat due to their family upbringing and
there was some awareness around the issue, but participants could not link to
specific issues. Research also suggested that participants agreed that there
should more awareness raised for the environmental issues that meat
consumption imposed on it. This is supported by the questionnaire results,
however, respondents in the questionnaires seemed to have more awareness than
the participants in the focus group.
7.Conclusion
The research carried out aimed to answer the research questions stated previously
in this report and provide conclusions and recommendations on how social
marketing can be used to help reduce the consumption meat.
It has suggested that students have a much higher vegetarian percentage than the
national average.
The research showed that there is a correlation between students in different
university years and their meat consumption behaviour. It has been concluded that
as students progress to latter year, they tend to consume less meat, and their
attitude towards reducing meat consumption also strengthens. This is true as 40%
of first year participants stated that they would like to reduce their meat
consumption comparing to over 50% of third year participants stating they would
reduce their meat consumption.

KunQin
31 | P a g e
The analysis found that one of the key reasons for students to consume meat was
due to family upbringing. This can be linked to the social cognitive theory where it
is social norms of the western culture to consume meat (Graca et al., 2015). As
they have been brought up eating meat and would consider eating meat as a norm,
some of participants were more likely to reject reasons for reducing consumption.
Along with social norms that impacted on the participants’ consumption behaviours,
insufficient vegetarian/vegan options that are offered at most restaurants raise
doubt about self-efficacy meaning it discourages participants from changing their
consumption behaviours.
In addition, it was discovered that students are aware of the impact that meat
consumption has on the environment. However, students in the latter university
year demonstrated greater awareness. When it comes down to motivating
students to reduce their consumption of meat, they have concluded that raising
awareness of environmental issues surrounding meat consumption, better meat-
alternatives that mimic meat texture and taste would further help them to reduce
meat consumption.
The aims and objectives of this research has been achieved as insights have been
gained on the issue and significant primary and secondary research has been
carried out in order to understand the barriers and motivators surrounding meat
consumption. The conclusions that were drawn from this insight and the analysis
have led to the following recommendations.
8.0 Recommendation
Taking into account this research, a social marketing approach has been adopted
to develop recommendations capable of encouraging students of University of
Brighton to reduce their meat consumptions.

KunQin
32 | P a g e
8.1 Raise awareness
Even though the majority of students are aware of the impact meat consumption
has on the environment, it appears that students in the earlier university years
demonstrated less awareness than the latter university years students. This leads
to the recommendation that the university could set out a campaign to students
targeting especially the earlier university years students emphasising what effect
the overconsumption of meat has on the environment, and the benefit reducing
meat consumption has on the environment and health. The university could use
reducetarian as an example where they provide all the information about the issue
and offers students recipes that do not contain meat and are easy to cook therefore
increase students’ self-efficacy and encourages students to reduce their intake of
meat.
8.2 Segmentation
Primary research has identified that there were many different practices but were
grouped into seven categories that could motivate the students to reduce their
meat intake, and those categories were environmental sustainability, better meat
alternative, better recipes, more veg/vegan options, protein-dense veg, cheaper
greens and health.
Social marketer could segment the target group based on needs and set out
independent campaigns to target each of the category needs. For example, there
are a lot of meat alternatives in the market right now that ‘looks’ and ‘tastes’ like
meat, such as the impossible burger, beyond meat, but most people do not know
about it and presume that meat alternatives generally have bad textures and do
not taste like meat, thereby social marketers can set up online campaigns and
social media pages to share these products and even to work with those
companies to send out samples so people can try them out. They can further

KunQin
33 | P a g e
encourage people by creating forums or hashtags to allow people to share what
good meat alternatives they have found.
As for cheaper greens, social marketers could team up with local farmers and offer
cheaper veg boxes, the University of Brighton has already had something like this
where veggies box is offered to students, but this is not widely accessible and most
of the students are not aware of it, along that the type of vegetables they offered
was limited. Therefore, the university could work with the local farmers and expand
on their options, put posters on student unions and buildings to inform students
about it such as what kind of vegetables they are offering and where it is taking
place. By doing so, students will become aware of the deal and get their cheaper
greens hence reducing meat consumptions.

KunQin
34 | P a g e
9.Reference:
Alkemade, R., Reid, R., van den Berg, M., de Leeuw, J. and Jeuken, M. (2012)
‘Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland
ecosystems’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol 110, No 52,
pp20900-20905
Andreasen, A. R. (1994) ‘Social marketing: Its definition and domain’. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, Vol 13, No 1, pp108–114
Austgulen, M., Skuland, S., Schjøll, A. and Alfnes, F. (2018) ‘Consumer Readiness
to Reduce Meat Consumption for the Purpose of Environmental Sustainability:
Insights from Norway’. Sustainability, Vol 10, No 9, pp3058
Bandura, A. (1999) ‘Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective’. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 2, No 1, pp21-41
Bembenutty, H., White, M. and DiBenedetto, M. (2016) ‘Applying Social Cognitive
Theory in the Development of Self-Regulated Competencies Throughout K-12
Grades’. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality, pp215-239
Boer, J. and Aiking, H. (2017) ‘Pursuing a Low Meat Diet to Improve Both Health
and Sustainability: How Can We Use the Frames that Shape Our
Meals?’. Ecological Economics, Vol 142, No C, pp238-248
Bogueva, D., Marinova, D. and Raphaely, T. (2017) ‘Reducing meat consumption:
the case for social marketing’. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol
29, No 3, pp477-500
Bradley, N. (2013) ‘Marketing Research: Tools And Techniques’. 3rd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bunn, H. (1981) ;Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene
hominids from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge’. Nature, Vol 291, No 5816, pp574-
577

KunQin
35 | P a g e
Chan, E. and Zlatevska, N. (2019) ‘Jerkies, tacos, and burgers: Subjective
socioeconomic status and meat preference’. Appetite, Vol 132, pp257-266
Cheng, H. and Phillips, M. (2014) ‘Secondary analysis of existing data:
opportunities and implementation’. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry, Vol 26, No 6,
pp371-375
Claridge, T. (2020) ‘Social, capital and participation theories’. [online]
https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Social-
Capital-and-Participation-Theories.pdf [accessed 25 February 2020]
Clarke, J. (1991) ‘Moral dilemmas in Nursing Research’. Nursing Practice, Vol 4,
No 1, pp22-25
Connor Desai, S. and Reimers, S. (2018) ‘Comparing the use of open and closed
questions for Web-based measures of the continued-influence effect’. Behavior
Research Methods, Vol 51, No 3, pp1426-1440
Cripps, J. and Thiagarajah, K. (2018) ‘What Do College Students' Think on Meat
Consumption and Environmental Sustainability? An Exploratory Study’. Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol 50, No 7, pp16-17
Debois, S. (2020) ‘10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Questionnaires - Survey
Anyplace’. [online] https://surveyanyplace.com/questionnaire-pros-and-cons/
[Accessed 29 March 2020]
Doreau, M., Corson, M. and Wiedemann, S. (2012) ‘Water use by livestock: A
global perspective for a regional issue?’. Animal Frontiers, Vol 2, No 2, pp9-16
Driscoll, D. (2011) ‘Writing Spaces: Reading On Writing’. West Lafayette, Indiana:
Parlor Press, pp153-174
Eat.brighton.ac.uk. (2020) ‘Plant Based Living - Brighton University Hospitality’.
[online] https://eat.brighton.ac.uk/ethics/plants/ [accessed 1 April 2020]

KunQin
36 | P a g e
Ferguson, D. (2020) ‘Vegan college menus on the rise as students return to
university’. [online] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/22/vegan-
college-menus-on-rise-as-students-return-to-universitys [accessed 1 April 2020]
Fox, R. (2010) ‘Nonprobability Sampling’. Wiley International Encyclopedia of
Marketing.
French. J. et al (2010) ‘Social marketing and public health: theory and practice’.
Oxford: Oxford Press
Godfray, H., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J., Key, T., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert,
R., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M. and Jebb, S. (2018) ‘Meat consumption,
health, and the environment’. Science, Vol 361, No 6399, pp5324
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M. anuela, & Oliveira, A. (2015) ‘Attached to meat?
(Un)Willingness THE MEAT OF THE MATTER 94 and intentions to adopt a more
plant-based diet’. Appetite, Vol 95, pp113–125
Greggs.co.uk. (2020) Greggs. [online] https://www.greggs.co.uk/bakes/vegan-
sausage-roll [accessed 11 April 2020]
Hannan P, Larson N, Newmark-Staiener D, Story M. (2007) ‘Family meals during
adolescence are associated with higher diet quality and healthful meal patterns
during young adulthood’. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol 107,
No 9, pp1502-1510
Hanss, D., Böhm, G., Doran, R. and Homburg, A. (2016) ‘Sustainable
Consumption of Groceries: the Importance of Believing that One Can Contribute
to Sustainable Development’. Sustainable Development, Vol 24, No 6, pp357-370
Happer, C. and Wellesley, L. (2019) ‘Meat consumption, behaviour and the media
environment: a focus group analysis across four countries’. Food Security, Vol 11,
No 1, pp123-139

KunQin
37 | P a g e
HHS.gov. (2020) ‘Read the Belmont Report’. [online]
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-
belmont-report/index.html [accessed 10 March 2020]
Hupkens, C. (2000) ‘Social class differences in food consumption. The explanatory
value of permissiveness and health and cost considerations’. The European
Journal of Public Health, Vol 10, No 2, pp108-113
KFC. (2020) KFC | Vegan. [online] https://www.kfc.co.uk/vegan [Accessed 4 April
2020]
Kitzinger, J, (1994) ‘The Methodology of Focus Groups: the Importance of
Interaction Between Research Participants’. Sociology of Health and Illness. Vol
16, No. 1, pp103-121
Klöckner, C. A. (2017) ‘A stage model as an analysis framework for studying
voluntary change in food choices – The case of beef consumption reduction in
Norway’. Appetite, Vol 108, pp434-449
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971) ‘Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned
Social Change’. Journal of Marketing, Vol 35, No 3, pp3-12
Mathers, N., Fox, N. and Hunn, A. (2020) ‘Survey and questionnaires’ [online]
https://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/12_Surveys_and_Questionnaires_Revision_2009.pdf
[Accessed 15 April 2020]
McIntyre, B. (2009) ‘International Assessment Of Agricultural Science And
Technology’. Washington, D.C.: Island.
McMichael, A., Powles, J., Butler, C. and Uauy, R. (2007) ‘Food, livestock
production, energy, climate change, and health’. The Lancet, Vol 370, No 9594,
pp1253-1263

KunQin
38 | P a g e
Milton, K. (1999) ‘A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human
evolution’. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, Vol 8, No 1,
pp11-21
Modlinska, K. and Pisula, W. (2018) ‘Selected Psychological Aspects of Meat
Consumption—A Short Review’. Nutrients, Vol 10, No 9, pp1301
O.Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. and Mukherjee, N. (2018) ‘The use of focus
group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in
conservation’. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 9, No 1, pp20-32
Pizmony-Levy, O. and Michel, O. (2018) ‘Pro-Environmental Attitudes and
Behaviors in Higher Education: Investigating the Role of Formal and Informal
Factors.’ Academic Commons Colombia, pp1-21
Pointing, C. (2020) ‘Record Number of Students in the UK Going Vegan’. [online]
https://www.livekindly.co/university-students-vegan-huge-numbers/ [accessed 2
January 2020]
Prochaska, J. and DiClemente, C. (1982). ‘Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a
more integrative model of change’. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice,
Vol 19, No 3, pp276-288 Figure 2, p. 283
REDUCETARIAN. (2020) ‘REDUCETARIAN’. [online] https://reducetarian.org/
[accessed 10 April 2020]
Robson. (2002) Real world research 2nd ed, Oxford:Blackwell
Sabaté, J., Sranacharoenpong, K., Harwatt, H., Wien, M. and Soret, S. (2014) ‘The
environmental cost of protein food choices’. Public Health Nutrition, Vol 18, No 11,
pp2067-2073
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thronhill, A. (2009) Research methods for business
students. 1st ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Schawbel, D. (2020) ‘Brian Kateman: Why And How He Launched The
Reducetarian Movement’. [online]

KunQin
39 | P a g e
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/04/18/brian-kateman-why-and-
how-he-launched-the-reducetarian-movement/#3e209526de6d [accessed 11
April 2020]
Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D., Travis, R. C., Bradbury,
K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014) ‘Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-
eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK’. Climatic Change, Vol 125, No 2,
pp179–192
Sharma, G. (2020)‘All research journal’ [online]
http://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2017/vol3issue7/PartK/3-7-69-
542.pdf [accessed 13 January 2020]
Smil, V. (2002) ‘Eating Meat: Evolution, Patterns, and Consequences’. Population
and Development Review, Vol 28, No 4, pp599-639
Smith, (1975) Strategy of social research, The methodological imagination,
Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice hall.
Sng, B., Yip, C. and Han, N. (2016) ‘Legal and ethical issues in research’. Indian
Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 60, No 9, pp684
Steinfeld, H. (2006) Livestock's long shadow. Rome: FAO
Stutely, M. (2003) NumbersGuide: The Essentials of Business Numeracy. London:
Bloomberg Press
Subway, (2020) ‘Subway I Vegan’. [online] https://cms.w.subway.com/en-
GB/MenuNutrition/Menu/Product?ProductId=7558&MenuCategoryId=760
[accessed 7 January 2020]
Tang, K. and Davis, A. (1995) ‘Critical factors in the determination of focus group
size’. Family Practice, Vol 12, No 4, pp474-475
The National Union Of Students. (2020) ‘Students And Meat Consumption - New
Research | EAUC’. [online]

KunQin
40 | P a g e
https://www.eauc.org.uk/students_and_meat_consumption_new_research
[accessed 10 April 2020]
Tuco.ac.uk. (2020) ‘Vegan and Vegetarian in the City - London | TUCO’. [online]
https://www.tuco.ac.uk/academy/professional-development/study-tour/vegan-
and-vegetarian-city-london [accessed 6 January 2020]
United Nations Sustainable Development. (2020) ‘UN projects world population to
reach 8.5 billion by 2030, driven by growth in developing countries’. [online]
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2015/07/un-projects-world-
population-to-reach-8-5-billion-by-2030-driven-by-growth-in-developing-
countries/#:~:text=The%20world's%20population%20is%20projected,United%20
Nations%20report%20released%20today. [accessed 8 March 2020]
University of Cambridge. (2020) ‘Removingbeef and lambfrom menu dramatically
reduces food-related carbon emissions at Cambridge University’. [online]
https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/removing-beef-and-lamb-from-menu-dramatically-
reduces-food-related-carbon-emissions-at-cambridge [accessed 4 January 2020]
Veganuary. (2020) ‘Veganuary’. [online] https://uk.veganuary.com/ [accessed 9
April 2020]
Vegetarian Society. (2020) ‘Facts And Figures | The Vegetarian Society’. [online]
https://www.vegsoc.org/info-hub/facts-and-figures/ [accessed 27 April 2020]
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006) ‘Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the
consumer “attitude - Behavioral intention” gap’. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, Vol 19, No 2, pp169–194
Who.int. (2020) ‘WHO | 3. Global and regional food consumption patterns and
trends’. [online]
https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.html [accessed
8 March 2020]
Whitelaw, S. (2000) ‘The status of evidence and outcomes in Stages of Change
research’. Health Education Research, Vol 15, No 6, pp707-718

KunQin
41 | P a g e
Wood, M. (2016) ‘SocialMarketing for Social Change’. Social Marketing Quarterly,
Vol 22, No 2, pp107-118
Zhao, X. (2011) ‘Is Global Warming Mainly Due to Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas
Emissions?’. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Effects, Vol 33, No 21, pp1985-1992
Zimmerman, G., Olsen, C. and Bosworth, M. (2000) ‘A'stages of change' approach
to helping patients change behavior’. Am Fam Physician, Vol 61, No 5, pp1409-
1416

KunQin
42 | P a g e
10.0 Appendices
10.1 AppendixI – Questionnaire

KunQin
43 | P a g e

KunQin
44 | P a g e

KunQin
45 | P a g e
10.2 AppendixII – Additional survey data and graphs
10.3 AppendixIII – Focus Group Scripts
Q1. Do you eat meat and if so, how often do you consume it?
P1: I won’t lie, I’m massive meat eater, I’m trying to gain weight as well so I have
to eat meat every meal.
P2: Yes I do , I would say I eat it pretty much every day.
P3: No, I’m a vegan.
12
10
1
20
2
15
14
1
23
1
0 0 0
2
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
First year Second year Placement Year Third Year Further Study
(Masters etc.)
Gender agnistuniversity year
Male Female Prefer not to say
27
24
2
40
00 0 0
4 3
0 0 0 0 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
First Year Second Year Placement Year Third Year Further (Master
etc.)
Age agnistuniversity year
18-24 25-34 45-54

KunQin
46 | P a g e
P4: Yes, haven’t really thought about how often, I guess every day.
P5: Yes, I don’t eat it that often, I would call myself flexitarian.
Q2: What is your reason behind the meat consumption? Or why do you not eat
meat?
P1: Haven’t really thought about it other than to get enough protein, meat have low
calories and high protein content so its perfect for me as I don’t take supplements.
P2: Same, haven’t really thought about it, I have always been eating meat since
growing up and now I guess it’s turning into a habit. Since meats is everywhere,
it’s hard not to.
P3: As I said I am a vegan. The reason that I don’t eat meat is due to animal cruelty.
I’m not the stereotype vegan, I’m fine with other people eating meat, but I just can’t
do it myself after watched loads videos about how horrible animals getting treated.
P4: For me, I really enjoy the texture of meat in general and same as P2, I’ve also
been brought up that way.
P5: I do enjoy meat as well, but I have seen the issues rises with meat consumption,
for example, it is not very sustainable and bad for the environment, so I try not to
eat meat as much as I can, but still sometimes on a night out I still can’t resist the
power of chicken kebab.
Everyone: (laughing)
Q3. What impact do you think the consumption of meat has on the environment?
P1: I don’t really know, haven’t really heard about it, mainly just the animal rights.
P2: I have seen it somewhere that it takes up too much land and water to feed
those animals. Oh, also doesn’t it have a big impact on the climate change?
Interviewer: Yes, it does, in fact it contributes about 14% of it.

KunQin
47 | P a g e
Everyone: (shocked)
P3: Funny you ask, I’ve literally just watched one documentary about it, there are
a lot of water shortage problems around the world and cattle farm are the main
cause of it. And obviously as P2 said it has massive impact on the climate change.
P4: Same as P1, I don’t really know any impact of it.
P5: Yeah, just as I said before it is not sustainable, and I know it’s really bad for
the environment, but I didn’t know the specific problems.
Q4. Is there anything that you think could help people reduce their meat
consumptions?
P1: I don’t think I would reduce my meat intake unless there are better version of
vegetables that consist the calorific values, low in calories and carb but high in
protein and cheap. I think this goes to most of the people that is interested in
building a good physique.
P2: I don’t know about other people, but I personally think maybe raising
awareness of its impact on the environment, because I don’t think there’s enough
knowledge surrounding the issue.
P3: Yeah, I agree with P3, and also companies should invest in better meat
alternatives, even though I’m vegan, but there are some very bad meat substitute
out there and it’s putting people off.
P4: I agree with P3 too, I feel like there’s not enough information about it, like
myself. I haven’t heard about it.
P5: I agree with P3, I think if only there’s a more meat-like alternatives then I would
fully go veggie.

Social marketing for reducing meat consumption

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Social marketing for reducing meat consumption

Similar to Social marketing for reducing meat consumption (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Social marketing for reducing meat consumption