Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Global Sustainability Science

The Knowledge-Action Gap Related to Meat Consumption
in Sustainability Scientists and its Relevance for Societal
Transformation
Submitted by:
Anna Falkenstein
Leuphana matriculation number: 3029318
ASU ID: 1212059223
Anna.falkenstein@stud.leuphana.de
Rotehahnstraße 20
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Examined by:
Prof. Dr. Paul Upham (Erstprüfer, Co-chair)
Paul.upham@leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C11.323
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Tyler DesRoches (Zweitprüfer, Co-chair)
Tyler.Desroches@asu.edu
School of Sustainability
Arizona State University
PO Box 875502
Tempe, AZ 85287-5502, USA
Prof. Dr. Henrik von Wehrden (Member)
Henrik.von_wehrden@leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C11.325
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Submitted on: July 2, 2018

2

Abstract
Eating meat leads to several environmental threats, hence reducing one’s consumption
can be a direct way to avoid environmental degradation. While sustainability scientists know
about the environmental degradation due to meat consumption, many of them still choose to
eat meat. It is questionable whether a broader societal transformation towards sustainable
consumption is likely if people with the necessary knowledge and values already struggle and
fail to implement a sustainable behavior. How can they expect others to change if they do not
change themselves? This paper addresses the knowledge-action gap that is prevalent among
sustainability scientists regarding their meat consumption and how they deal with it. Qualitative
semi-structured interviews and thematic content analysis are applied to analyze the main
internal barriers to pro-environmental behavior sustainability scientists face as well as what
narratives and rationalizations they use to overcome the dissonance between their knowledge
and actions. The internal barriers they demonstrated were emotional non-involvement and a
perceived lack of power of the individual. The strategies used to overcome the dissonance were
conscious consumption narratives and rationalizing the value of meat consumption, specifically
its perceived sustainable dimensions. This paper also highlights that sustainability scientists do
feel responsible to lead by example in the context of societal transformation, but do not always
follow through with behavior change. This study concludes it is necessary that sustainability
scientists do so more consequently to embrace their role as trendsetters and change agents for
a sustainable transformation.
Keywords: meat consumption; knowledge-action gap; sustainability scientists; internal
barriers; rationalization; transformation

3

4

Table of Contents
Abstract

3

Introduction

7

Theoretical Frameworks

10

Methods

14

Findings

16

Discussion

22

Conclusion

25

References

27

Eidesstattliche Erklärung

31

Appendices (digital):
Appendix 1:

Sample

Appendix 2:

Interview Protocol

Appendix 3:

Codebook

Appendix 4:

Frequency of Meat Consumption

Appendix 5:

Statistics used in Interviews

5

6

Introduction
Meat production as a part of animal agriculture has been identified as one of the leading
causes for several environmental threats like greenhouse gas emissions, land use change,
acidification, eutrophication, and biodiversity loss (Poore et al., 2018). Consequently, reducing
meat consumption and thereby production can be a valid option for climate change mitigation
and other environmental benefits. Dietary changes can potentially have a higher impact than
changes of meat production methods or general technological climate change mitigation
(Hedenus et al., 2014; Springmann et al., 2016; Poore et al., 2018).
Deciding not to eat meat is therefore at least in theory a direct and seemingly easy way
to avoid the negative environmental consequences of meat consumption. While more and more
individuals decide to reduce their consumption or stop eating meat, meat consumption is still
strongly embedded in most parts of societies around the world. Consumption is likely to
increase more over the next decades as populations and their income grow; leading to shifts
towards more meat-centric diets in many parts of the world (de Boer et al., 2013).
A lack of knowledge about the consequences of meat consumption can be a reason for
not following through with a more sustainable behavior – in this context, not eating meat (Hines
et al., 1987; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). However, even within a group with comparably
strong knowledge about sustainability problems and solutions – sustainability scientists – there
still seems to occur a disproportionate gap between what they know about sustainable behavior
and the way they actually behave. This is also the case for their meat consumption. While
sustainability scientists know about the environmental degradation due to meat consumption,
many of them still choose to eat meat (Bearzi, 2009; Šedová et al., 2016; Balmford et al., 2017).
This paper researches the occurrence of a knowledge-gap in the group of sustainability
scientists regarding their personal meat consumption and how they deal with actions that do not
align with their knowledge. It focuses on the negative environmental impacts of meat
consumption; ethical aspects are not addressed as others have done so before (Šedová et al.,
2016).
Research has demonstrated that a linear model of knowledge and sustainable behavior
rarely describes reality appropriately. In many cases people with supposedly higher levels of
knowledge and awareness of environmental issues do not demonstrate the same high level of
sustainable behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2001; Balmford et al., 2017).
This so-called knowledge-action gap, sometimes referred to attitude-behavior gap
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) or value-action gap (Blake, 1999), describes the discrepancy

7

between having environmental knowledge and pro-environmental values but not behaving
accordingly (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Kennedy et al., 2009).
The knowledge-action gap and its influencing factors have been researched for decades,
but the complexity of human behavior makes it difficult to find definitive answers for this issue
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). This paper addresses sustainability scientists’ knowledge-action
gap regarding meat consumption and how they deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance.
For this, it is important to understand what cognitive dissonance means, why people
experience it, and how they deal with it. Cognitive dissonance goes back to Festinger’s (1957)
dissonance theory and describes the discomfort people experience when they are mentally
exposed to inconsistency or incompatibility between their thoughts or beliefs and their actions.
In this case, the dissonance occurs due to the inconsistency between sustainability scientists’
existing knowledge that meat consumption is not sustainable and caring about sustainability,
but not acting on it. To deal with such dissonance most individuals seek ways to dissolve the
dissonance. According to Festinger (1957) there are three general ways how this can be
achieved. The individual can either change their beliefs to align with their actions or they can
change their actions to align with their beliefs. The third way to dissolve one’s cognitive
dissonance, changing how one perceives their action, is achieved by rationalizing the action to
perceive it in a manner that somewhat results in consistency between one’s beliefs and actions.
However, to be able to follow through with either of these options, there needs to be some level
of consciousness regarding the dissonance between belief and behavior (Festinger, 1957;
Gregory-Smith et al., 2013). People tend to avoid changing their beliefs and actions due to
convenience and to evade personal sacrifices. In this case, the knowledge-action gap directly
leads to cognitive dissonance and thereby to a level of uncomfortableness that needs to be
overcome in order to maintain the gap and convenience (Gregory-Smith et al., 2013; Šedová et
al., 2016).
While they are not the only group of individuals who experience the knowledge-action
gap, it is relevant to understand why sustainability experts, who often expect others to change
their behavior to be more sustainable, do not follow through with it themselves.
A transformation towards a sustainable and viable society is necessary considering the
global challenges societies face. To achieve this, extensive adjustments and changes in
infrastructures, systems, and lifestyles at political, societal, and individual levels are needed
(WBGU, 2011). It is questionable whether a broader societal transformation towards
sustainable consumption is likely if people with the necessary knowledge and values already

8

struggle and fail to implement a sustainable behavior. How can they expect others to change if
they do not change themselves?
In the context of societal transformation, sustainability scientists can be an important
element to help accelerate change. They need to realize and embrace their responsibility to be
role models and use their personal behavior as a way to provide conscious, informed, and
content examples of sustainable behavior (Bearzi, 2009; Balmford et al., 2017).
In this regard, it is necessary to detect whether sustainability scientists experience a
knowledge-action gap and how they deal with it specifically related to their meat consumption.
This will be addressed with Kollmuss’ & Agyeman’s (2002) internal barriers to proenvironmental behavior and dissonance reducing strategies adapted from Piazza et al. (2015),
Rothgerber (2014), and Gregory-Smith et al. (2013).
Furthermore, it is also important to understand how sustainability scientists assess their
(personal) role in societal transformation processes. Research has been done on various aspects
of knowledge-action gaps, sustainability scientists, and meat consumption. However, research
is limited on why sustainability scientists partake in certain unsustainable behaviors like meat
consumption, what their views are on their role in change processes, and what implications this
has on a broader societal transformation.
This paper aims to close this research gap and provide the specific reasonings and
narratives sustainability scientists use to cope with the dissonance between what they know
about negative environmental impacts of meat consumption and consuming meat as well as
their place in societal transformation processes. The following research questions guided the
research that has been conducted for this:
1. Do sustainability scientists experience a knowledge-action gap related to their meat
consumption?
a. Why do sustainability scientists eat meat despite knowing about the negative
environmental impacts of meat consumption?
b. How do they deal with the resulting dissonance?
2. How do sustainability scientists perceive their role in societal transformation?
To explore these questions, the following section provides a theoretical overview of
factors that influence pro-environmental behavior as well as psychological mechanisms that
help resolve dissonance in the context of the knowledge-action gap in sustainability scientists
and their meat consumption. The methods section describes how qualitative semi-structured
interviews were used to collect data and how this data base was analyzed. Key findings are
9

presented and later discussed. The last section summarizes the key findings and their relevance
and gives implications for future research and the scientific community.

Theoretical Frameworks
The following concepts are important as a basis for this research as they help understand
different aspects of the knowledge-action gap. The concepts analyze more general factors that
influence individual’s behavior related to sustainability issues as well as specific strategies that
are applied in the context of cognitive dissonance.
The first concept introduced is Kollmuss’ and Agyeman’s (2002) model of proenvironmental behavior that tries to find reasons for the knowledge-action gap. For this paper,
the focus is especially on the internal barriers preventing pro-environmental behavior. The other
main concepts in this paper are by Gregory-Smith et al. (2013), Rothgerber (2014), and Piazza
et al. (2015) and deal directly with the cognitive dissonance that results from the knowledgeaction gap and the strategies people apply to overcome or reduce this dissonance. These
strategies mostly consist of different rationalizations or justifications for their behavior – in this
case rationalizing and justifying meat consumption. This includes compensatory choices
(Gregory-Smith et al., 2013), perceived behavior change, promised improved future behavior
(Rothgerber, 2014) as well as pro-meat justifications (Rothgerber, 2014; Piazza et al., 2015).
Internal barriers to pro-environmental behavior
For their model, Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002) analyzed a number of established
analytical frameworks that try to explain the knowledge-action gap and identified some of the
main factors that influence pro-environmental behavior in a positive or negative way. These
factors are demographics as well as external and internal factors.
This paper explores some of the internal factors that Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002) have
adapted from Fliegenschnee & Schelakovsky (1998) in their paper as such internal processes
are often important but unnoticed in the context of understanding the knowledge-action gap.
The internal factors that were chosen for this paper are emotional involvement (emotional noninvestment and emotional reactions) and locus of control (Hines et al., 1987; Newhouse, 1990).
These factors can either support or hinder pro-environmental behavior.
Emotional involvement and locus of control potentially play a crucial role for the
knowledge-action gap in sustainability scientists, especially in the context of their meat
consumption. Emotional involvement includes emotional non-investment and emotional
reactions. Emotional non-investment can be broken down into a lack of knowledge and
awareness as well as resistance against non-conforming information. Not knowing about the
10

specific causes and effects or the extent of certain environmental problems can lead to
emotional non-involvement according to Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002). Whereas sustainability
scientists usually have a certain degree of knowledge and awareness of the problem, they might
not be aware of the extent of the problem. The internal barrier of resistance against nonconforming information is based in the theory of dissonance by Festinger (1957) and means
that people are more likely to accept information that supports existing mental frameworks. At
the same time, they avoid or disregard information about environmental problems if this
information threatens basic assumptions regarding e.g. their quality of life (Preuss, 1991;
Fliegenschnee & Schelakovsky, 1998). This is relevant in the context of meat consumption as
people often seem to be attached to meat and state that eating meat is important to them due to
a variety of reasons like taste and entitlement making it an essential part of their perceived
quality of life to (Graça et al., 2015; Piazza et al., 2015).
Emotional involvement also includes a number of emotional reactions, which are denial,
rational distancing, apathy and resignation as well as delegation. Emotional reactions can, but
do not have to trigger pro-environmental behavior. In general, being confronted with extensive
environmental problems often leads to a feeling of distress which leads to so-called secondary
psychological responses that act as a defense mechanism to relieve the individual from negative
emotions (Unterbruner & Weiglhofer, 1994). These defense mechanisms can be a major barrier
to pro-environmental behavior. One of these defense mechanisms is denial or not
acknowledging the reality of an environmental problem. Another mechanism is rational
distancing, meaning that even though someone is aware, they distance themselves emotionally
from the problem. According to Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002) this mechanism is often applied
by scientists and environmentalists to be able to deal with the high number and complexity of
environmental problems. Negative or distressing emotions can also lead to apathy and
resignation, especially when combined with a feeling of helplessness. This can result in the
individual “giving up” on the cause of pro-environmental behavior because they feel like they
cannot make an impact and instead focus on other areas (Fliegenschnee & Schelakovsky, 1998;
Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The last defense mechanism that has been identified in this
context is delegation. By delegating personal responsibility, the individual avoids guilt as well
as personal sacrifice, and instead blames others - people, entire industries, or political
establishments (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
Furthermore, locus of control is one of the internal factors that can impact proenvironmental behavior and is somewhat related to apathy and resignation as well as delegation.
The locus of control is related to how individuals perceive their role in change processes, i.e. if
11

they believe that their own behavior plays a role in change process or not (Hines et al., 1987;
Fliegenschnee & Schelakovsky, 1998). An internal locus of control means that the individual
understands their role to be important and influential, while an external locus of control means
that the individual does not believe to be important in change processes and instead thinks
powerful actors are needed to make a change (Newhouse, 1990; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
Dissonance reducing strategies
Another way people deal with the knowledge-action gap are rationalization strategies
that aim to reduce the cognitive dissonance they experience as a consequence. Rationalization
is “the cognitive process that individuals use to convince themselves that their behavior does
not violate their moral standards” (Tsang, 2002, p. 26). To overcome cognitive dissonance,
individuals tend to accept comparably weak arguments if they help reconstruct their perspective
on their behavior (Tsang, 2002; Mercier, 2011). The dissonance between consuming meat and
knowing about its negative impacts can be eliminated by either becoming vegetarian or
rationalizing meat consumption. This rationalization can be done by applying different
dissonance reducing strategies which help justify one’s behavior towards oneself or one’s peers
to avoid possible feelings like guilt and distress (Tsang, 2002; Piazza et al., 2015; Šedová et al.,
2016).
For this paper, four main rationalization strategies have been identified: pro-meat
justifications (Rothgerber, 2014; Piazza et al., 2015); compensatory choices (Gregory-Smith et
al., 2013); perceived behavioral change (Rothgerber, 2014); and promised improved future
behavior (Gregory Smith et al., 2013; Šedová et al., 2016). People rationalize why they eat meat
mostly by using pro-meat justifications. (Joy, 2010; Rothgerber, 2014) Piazza et al. (2015)
empirically tested the so-called 4Ns of rationalization. These 4Ns – natural, necessary, normal,
and nice – are based on Joy’s (2010) 3Ns framework that includes the first 3Ns - natural,
necessary, and normal - expanding it with nice. The 4Ns are common beliefs people express
they have about meat consumption. The meanings of these 4Ns can be seen in table 1.
NATURAL

Appeals to biology, biological hierarchy, natural selection, human evolution, or the
naturalness of eating meat

NECESSARY

Appeals to the necessity of meat for survival, strength, development, health, animal
population control, or economic stability

NORMAL

Appeals to dominant societal norms, normative behavior, historical human behavior, or
socially constructed food pyramids

NICE

Appeals to tastiness of meat, or that it is fulfilling or satisfying

Tab. 1: 4Ns of pro-meat justifications. Adapted from Piazza et al. (2015).
12

These rationalizations are a way for people who do consume meat to justify their
behavior when criticized or questioned (Piazza et al., 2015), but also to convince themselves
that their behavior does not contradict their moral standards (Tsang, 2002; Rothgerber, 2014).
Another rationalization strategy people use to overcome their cognitive dissonance is
compensatory choices. They feel the need to compensate the choice that is deemed
unsustainable with a perceived more sustainable alternative, which helps them bridge their
knowledge-action gap (Gregory-Smith et al., 2013). In the case of meat consumption this can
mean replacing the type of meat one consumes by a different type of meat that in some way can
be justified to be more sustainable. For example, replacing beef by chicken (or other nonruminant meat) because of the lower CO2 emissions (Hedenus et al., 2014) or buying meat that
is labeled organic (Gregory-Smith et al., 2013).
Instead of replacing meat by more sustainable meat, perceived behavioral change is
another strategy people use to rationalize their meat consumption. This can be used as a
substitute to actually changing one’s behavior or to (unconsciously) exaggerate how much the
behavior has actually changed. By applying this strategy people attempt to convince themselves
and others that they either do eat less meat or no meat at all. While this perception can be linked
to actual behavioral change, people tend to overestimate the degree of their behavior change
(Rothgerber, 2014).
When the experienced cognitive dissonance results in guilt or regret, people manage
these highly negative emotions by promising to improve their behavior in the future. This might
be something they do end up following through with, however, it might also be a way out of
the guilty conscious they’re confronted with by the knowledge-action gap (Gregory-Smith et.
al, 2013; Šedová et al., 2016).
This paper looks into the role internal barriers play in influencing sustainability
scientists’ pro-environmental behavior – or lack thereof, regarding their meat consumption as
well as into rationalization strategies they apply when they experience cognitive dissonance as
a result of their knowledge-action gap. Figure 1 recaps the different barriers and strategies
identified in this section.
INTERNAL BARRIERS:
Resistance
Denial
Distancing
Resignation
Delegation
Locus of control

RATIONALIZATIONS:
Pro-meat justifications
(Perceived) behavior
change
- Compensatory choices
- Promised improved
future behavior
-

Fig. 1: Internal barriers and rationalization strategies. Based on Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002); Piazza et al. (2015);
Rothgerber (2014); and Gregory-Smith et al. (2013).
13

Methods
To answer the research questions, a qualitative data analysis based on semi-structured
interviews with a sample size of 22 meat-eating sustainability scientists was conducted. The
interviews were used to explore if sustainability scientists experience a knowledge-action gap
and to understand why they eat meat despite knowing about negative environmental impacts.
Specifically, the rationalizations that sustainability scientists use to explain why they do
consume meat although they are aware of negative environmental impacts were elicited as well
as how they try to overcome the resulting cognitive dissonance. The following provides details
on how the data was collected and analyzed and declares the ontology underlying this research.
Participant and Recruitment Procedure
The study sample consisted of 22 meat-eating sustainability scientists at different career
stages at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany. Leuphana University leads the way for
sustainability and transformation in teaching and research with Germany’s only faculty of
sustainability (Barth, 2014). The participants were first selected based on a convenience sample,
i.e. personal contacts of the author. Graduate students (including Master students from the
Global Sustainability Science program and PhD students), post-doctoral researchers, and
professors at the different institutes in the faculty of sustainability at Leuphana University were
considered. The convenience sample was driven by demographic and professional variables,
seeking diversity in terms of gender, career level, and disciplinary background. To enhance the
convenience sample, more participants were recruited through online research of the faculty
members and then contacted via email. Of the 70 potential interviewees that were contacted, 17
were unavailable and 15 did not eat meat, making them ineligible for the study. 16 people did
not respond to the request to participate in the study. In total, 22 people were interviewed.
The recruitment process aimed at achieving a partially stratified sample by contacting
and interviewing a significant number of the members of the faculty as shown in table 2. The
participants represent different disciplinary and cultural backgrounds (see appendix 1).
N

Interviewed %

Professors

29

3

10

Post-docs

~40

5

13

Graduate students 160

14

9

Tab. 2: The faculty in numbers. Based on https://www.leuphana.de/universitaet/fakultaet/nachhaltigkeit.html.

14

Data Collection
The qualitative semi-structured face-to-face interviews were chosen to gain in depth
information about sustainability scientists’ meat consumption, their environmental knowledge
and values, their strategies to deal with their resulting knowledge-action gap, and their role in
societal change. The basis of the interviews was a semi-structured questionnaire (see appendix
2) beginning with general questions about the interviewee’s professional background. The
central part of the interview consisted of 25 questions and a set of prompts that were used
whenever answers were short and/or unclear. The length of the interviews varied between 18
and 60 minutes. After the interview, the participants received a short debrief that explained the
goal of the research and allowed them to reconsider if they wanted to be part of it. No participant
dropped out. The general background questions as well as the core questions were audio
recorded, the introductory part and debrief were not. The interview protocol was pilot tested
with two sustainability scientists at the graduate level. Their insights and comments were used
to adapt and improve the protocol before the actual interviews were conducted.
Data Analysis
Thematic content analysis was chosen to deductively and inductively analyze the data
set. It can be used to identify, analyze, and report patterns or themes within the data set (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). The audio recordings from the interviews were transcribed using intelligent
verbatim transcription (Hadley, 2015), the overall tone of the interviewee was also transcribed.
These transcriptions were then organized and coded using the MAXQDA qualitative data
analysis software. The codes were deducted from the thematic frameworks described above to
investigate the narratives given by the interviewees. The codes were sorted according to the
different frameworks of internal barriers to pro-environmental behavior and dissonance
reducing strategies. The analysis and coding for the paper, however, was not purely deductive,
but also included inductive coding for emerging themes. Therefore, other codes were added in
the three rounds of coding and recorded in a codebook. The codebook (provided in appendix
3) was used to guide the coding process. The codebook consists of the different overarching
codes and the affiliated codes. For the codes, a definition and examples were also recorded to
help the coding. For example, “We, in fact have canine teeth, which are indicate of meat eating
animals. Herbivores have flatter teeth, but we don’t.” was coded according to Joy (2010) and
Piazza et al. (2015) as natural as it justifies meat consumption by referring to biology and the
evolutionary naturalness of eating meat.
A total of 15 deductive and inductive codes were used to analyze the data set.
Additionally, a second coder verified the accuracy by coding 10% of the data (two randomly
15

selected interviews). This coding was in line with the coding of the author of this paper. Patterns
in the statements of the interviews were analyzed as themes with the help of quotes from the
interviews. The themes’ frequency adds a quantitative approach to the analysis as well.
Ontology
The ontology that underlies this research lies between social constructionism and critical
realism, i.e. the understanding that there is no one true reality in which every statement made
by people can be seen as the truth and facts. Instead statements are made-up realities, or
rationalizations, which to some degree become true to the people when they believe in them.
These multiple realities can have some common features of shared human experience and
understanding. This means that statements and narratives can still partly be representative
descriptions of experiences and behavior (Seamon & Gill, 2016).

Findings
This section provides answers to the research questions presented in the form of the key
findings from the data analysis, which are supported by direct quotes from the interviews.
Knowledge-action gap and meat consumption
All participants demonstrated that they are knowledgeable about the negative impacts
of meat consumption and the majority also linked these impacts to their personal meat
consumption. All of them stated that behaving environmentally friendly is very important to
them personally. They reflect and think about their behavior and impact regularly, however
some prioritize other aspects of their life in certain circumstances.
“I do my research on environmental behaviors so I’m always thinking about it. I live in
a way that mostly aligns with my values and it’s something I constantly struggle with.
So, it’s important to me to think about my environmental behavior and the impact of
my lifestyle.”

14 participants reported that being educated and/or working in sustainability has
impacted their behavior: they stated that they reduced their meat consumption because of the
knowledge and awareness they gained. This seemed to be most relevant for the master students,
who all reported that studying sustainability science had led them to be more conscious about
their behavior and reducing their meat consumption. It seemed least relevant for the PhD
students with only one reporting such an impact. 8 participants did not change their behavior
as a result of sustainability education or experience. Partly because they were already on a selfreported pathway of conscious meat consumption or their behavior was simply not affected by
potential new knowledge.
16

The results suggest that sustainability scientists do in fact experience a knowledgeaction gap related to their meat consumption, based on the collected data sample.
“Of course, this leads to a lot of knowledge and insights but personally I haven’t just
stopped eating meat […]. But there is also as usual a gap between knowledge and
behavior and so many people know about it and when they go to a restaurant and it’s
a nice atmosphere, you don’t want to think about it. You just eat what you want. This
gap is very important here.”

The frequency of how often the interviewees eat meat in a week varied between less
than one to ten times a week as can be seen in figure 2 (also appendix 4).

N (22)

6
4
2
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Frequency of meat consumption / week
Fig. 2: Frequency of meat consumption of the 22 participants.

Except for one participant, they all agreed that societies need to eat less meat in order
to avoid environmental degradation, specifically Western societies. Three people think it would
be desirable if (Western) societies switched to a meat free diet. Relating this to their personal
meat consumption, half of the interviewees think they should decrease their own meat
consumption and two people considered giving up meat completely.
Internal barriers
So, why do sustainability scientists eat meat despite knowing and caring about the
environmental impacts? First of all, they appear to experience a number of internal barriers that
stop them from following through with pro-environmental behavior, in this case not eating
meat. In total 20 out of the 22 participants, i.e. 91% demonstrated such internal barriers. The
interviews revealed that there are mainly two overarching barriers sustainability scientists in
this study face in relation to pro-environmental behavior: lack of emotional involvement and
perceived lack of the power of the individual.
Emotional non-involvement
Despite caring about the state and development of the environment overall, 16 out of
the 22 participants seemed to be not highly emotionally involved or invested – at least when

17

questioned about or confronted with the impacts of meat consumption. Six of them denied the
specifics or the dimension of the problem and thereby avoided negative emotions.
“I’m not sure how big that impact is, I’m a little skeptical about that.”
“Again, it depends when we talk about meat consumption, because I do consume meat, but I don’t
think I have a huge impact because it’s totally different.”

A common theme was also the resistance against non-conforming information. The
participants were confronted with a number of statistics (see appendix 5) about the negative
environmental impacts of meat consumption and a study that stated the necessity of the
adoption of a global plant-based diet for the mitigation of climate change. 11 interviewees
strongly resisted these statements and numbers, some discredited the sources or reacted
generally defensive to the information that clearly did not align with their beliefs.
“I would need to understand the study. This assumption… I don’t know what it’s based
on. I don’t think so, I think it’s very provocative and it just tries to say that meat
consumption is a problem.”
“I think that’s not true. I think that depends on what meat you’re eating. If you’re eating
sustainable, organic meat like I eat in South Africa…”

Another way to not be emotionally involved is rationally distancing oneself from the
problematic aspects of one’s behavior. 11 out of the 22 participants were aware of the problem
and accepted its implications to some degree, however, they did not demonstrate any emotional
response to it but instead distanced themselves from the issue and focused on different details
and circumstances of meat consumption instead.
“I think about [the negative impacts of meat consumption] every time I eat meat and I
don't try to push it away, but it's pretty neutral. I don't feel bad when I eat meat. it's a
decision that I'm aware of and if it would affect me every day negatively, I think I would
be vegetarian.”
“The thing is even if you switch to a completely meat-free diet, wouldn’t deforestation
still take place to grow crops and soy beans and stuff? Aren’t there just too many people
on the planet?”

Power of the individual
The perceived lack of power of the individual in the context of averting environmental
degradation was a factor that impacted 19 out of the 22 participants of the study. 8 interviewees
showed such an external locus of control related to their personal meat consumption.
“You can always make it seem insignificant, I'm just one person in this world and if I do
this once today it won't have a huge impact.”

18

Resulting from this external locus of control and feelings of overwhelming helplessness,
7 participants to some degree retreated into resignation and apathy.
“I sometimes don’t want to know because it’s too much.”
“[…] sometimes I get overwhelmed and know the numbers and facts and figures and
know that individual behavior is really not going to create the type of change that we
need, and I get depressed and figure if my impact doesn’t make a difference then I
should pursue other goals than just the environmental impact.”

13 out of the 22 participants attached little importance to the power of the individual by
delegating their responsibility and potential feelings of guilt onto others. They blamed others
or saw the problem of meat related environmental degradation in the capitalistic system. Most
of the participants specifically blamed industrial agriculture for the environmental impacts of
meat.
“Related to my personal consumption behavior I do feel a little guilty, but there I really
blame others to be honest. […] everyone else is eating meat and they're doing it more
than I am and less conscious than I am.”
“So, me having 100g of meat a week or every two weeks, the effect of that is so small
in comparison to the entire effects livestock production has.”

Dissonance reducing strategies
Besides experiencing internal barriers to pro-environmental behavior, the participants
of the study sample also made use of certain narratives that frame meat consumption as
conscious. They also rationalized their meat consumption to overcome or reduce the cognitive
dissonance they’re dealing with resulting from their knowledge-action gap by justifying their
meat consumption. Except for one participant, all applied multiple dissonance reducing
strategies.
Conscious consumption narratives
The most commonly used narrative to rationalize meat consumption in this sample was
(perceived) behavior change. 19 out of the 22 participants rationalized consuming meat by
emphasizing that they do eat less meat and are more conscious about their meat consumption
especially compared to the rest of society.
“I've been a lot more conscious about my meat consumption for example when I eat
meat and what kind of meat. […] I'm eating less meat now.”

Another conscious consumption narrative that was expressed was compensatory
choices. 16 interviewees elaborated on how important it is to them to eat meat that they perceive
to be (more) sustainable with an emphasis on local and organic meat.
19

“We try to buy organic meat because I think it has a lower environmental impact […].”
“I think if you do consume meat, then it is important to try and reduce the impact or
try to make it as sustainable as possible within the boundaries that you can do within
that consumption.”

Nine participants promised to improve their behavior in the future and stated that they
will eat less meat in addition to using the other conscious consumption narratives, specifically
when they were confronted with the statistics about the environmental impacts of meat
consumption.
“Well, of course now reading those figures I will try to reduce it at least here while
eating in the [cafeteria], I will try to find alternative dishes.”
“I should eat less meat. I know that I don't have very strong discipline, so I know I will
never stop eating meat, but I should get back on track to eat less.”

Value of meat consumption
A prevalent way the participants of the study rationalized their meat consumption was
justifying why eating meat has value to them personally and in general. 21 of the 22 participants
justified their behavior on this base.
20 of them used the 4Ns of pro-meat justifications, 13 used two or more of the Ns to
rationalize their consumption. Quotes from the interviews for each of the 4Ns can be seen in
table 3.
I don’t see a reason to stop eating meat because we are omnivores. So, I think that
we should, eating meat is part of the requirements I think.
I have easy access to abounded, wild meat which I hunt myself to keep the
NECESSARY
population at the same size once a year.
NATURAL

NORMAL

Humans have been eating meat for quite some time.

NICE

I really, really like eating meat. My favorite dishes are meat dishes.

Tab. 3: Exemplary quotes for the use of the 4Ns amongst the participants.

They especially justified eating meat to be normal and nice. Some also thought it was
necessary and a minority felt like eating meat was natural. The distribution of these
justifications can be seen in figure 3.

Fig. 3: Distribution of the 4Ns amongst the participants.
20

In addition to these justifications why meat consumption has a value of some sort, two
other rationalization strategies in this category emerged in nine interviews. 4 people justified
eating meat because they think that it is a valuable way to experience cultures.
“[…] For me, when I travel [I like] to experience the culture through food.”
“I wouldn’t want to miss out on things when I visit a place, to taste the traditional dishes
and enjoy the culture and stuff. This kind of experience that would get lost because
these traditional dishes contain meat.”

The last justification for meat consumption that was used by 7 of the participants was
the sustainable impact meat consumption can have in their perception. For some, this
sustainable impact was achieved by avoiding meat food waste by eating meat instead of being
vegetarian. Others argued that they were helping to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity
through meat consumption.
“If I become vegetarian, I wouldn't be able to accept meat in situations where it’s good
to eat meat. For example, when I go somewhere, and they offer me meat and otherwise
they would throw it away.”
“[… It is] not good to skip all of these animals from our ecosystems and our landscapes.
I think they have a crucial position in this interaction, they are something like ecosystem
engineers. For example, cattle […] produce cattle pats and a lot of insects rely on these
cattle pats like dung beetles and so on. […] I think that my personal meat consumption
has an impact on the environment, but I think it’s a positive one, especially for the dung
beetles.”

Overall, all 22 participants did either face internal barriers to pro-environmental
behavior or applied specific strategies to overcome the dissonance between their knowledge
and behavior. Most of them demonstrated a combination of both. If not, there was a tendency
that the participants who experienced no or only a few internal barriers, seemed to more actively
employ more rationalizations for their meat consumption. Similarly, the two participants that
did not demonstrate internal barriers, did use a higher number of dissonance reducing strategies.
Role of sustainability scientists
The last question this study aims to answer is how sustainability scientists perceive their
role in societal transformation. Communication was the most commonly identified role of
sustainability scientists. 19 out of the 22 participants did associate the role of sustainability
scientists with the responsibility to lead by example in order to be authentic and credible. All
participants stated that they felt like they do lead by example in some areas of their personal
lives.

21

“Well, I guess apart from our work, we are walking billboards and examples for people.
We are outlets on a personal level for information flow. We have personal relationships
with people and they look up to us. We have a responsibility to lead by example.”

5 participants combined this perspective on the role of sustainability scientists with
another justification for their meat consumption: they argued that by eating meat in a conscious
way they remain relatable to the greater public, which they identified to be necessary in order
to have an influence as a role model.
“I rather say even if I work in sustainability and I know these things, I am not perfect.
This degree of imperfection is something that we all share, yet I try to do my best being
aware of eating very little meat only in certain situations and so can you. I’m in general
much more in favor of this practical wisdom.”
“I think the conversation about sustainability is easier to have if the people that you’re
trying to talk to don’t see you immediately as an extremist. I think if I say I eat meat, so
I understand you, but we still need to change the way we look at things, I’ve just had
the experience a number of times that I get taken more seriously through that. I have
made the experience that I can argue in a totally different way because I get seen not
as an extremist but as someone maybe more relatable because of that.”

Discussion
Similar to Šedová et al. (2016), this paper sheds light on the knowledge-action gap and
its implications in a group of highly informed and aware omnivores – sustainability scientists.
It demonstrates that sustainability scientists do in fact experience the knowledge-action gap
related to their meat consumption, which is in line with previous quantitative and qualitative
empirical research (Kennedy et al., 2009; Šedová et al., 2016; Balmford et al., 2017). However,
knowledge seemed to influence most of the interviewees, apparently leading more than half of
them to reduce their meat consumption significantly. Therefore, having the necessary
information about a problem and its solution is still effective and thus being informed is the
first step to change behavior even if behavior change is not a linear and instead a far more
complex process.
Gender was not a factor that stood out as an influencing factor on the participants of the
interviews. Contradictory to research that states that while women usually know less about
environmental issues, they are more concerned and emotionally engaged in the matter
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002), demonstrating a higher willingness for behavior change than
men (Tobler et al., 2011; Dowsett et al., 2018; Pfeiler & Egloff, 2018), this study sample did
not show these results. The 9 women and 13 men interviewed for this study had similar levels
of knowledge and were emotionally involved or not involved to a comparable degree. While
22

gender should not be neglected in the analysis of environmental behavior, it is necessary to
understand that men and women are not two separate homogenous groups, but instead
individuals that are impacted and influenced by much more complex variables. In fact, women’s
knowledge and role in environmental issues have historically often been underestimated due to
outdated ideas and gender power relations (Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency, 2016). However, it cannot be ruled out that this insignificance of gender only applies
specifically to this sample of highly informed people.
The internal barriers that prevent sustainability scientists from stopping to eat meat are
the main source for the knowledge-action gap identified in this paper. This does not mean that
the barriers are the only influence on this gap. The participants demonstrated that even though
they are aware of the problem and do strongly care about behaving environmentally friendly,
this does not result in the same level of emotional involvement. Some were not invested or did
respond with deconstructive apathetic emotions; both typically obscure pro-environmental
behavior. The participants that responded more emotionally were also more likely to consider
eating less meat, which is something Grob (1991) and Kollmuss &Agyeman (2002)
hypothesized before.
These internal barriers could be considered to be unconscious dissonance reducing
strategies in themselves. Taking it back to Festinger’s (1957) three ways to achieve consistency
between one’s beliefs and actions – change beliefs, change actions, change perception of
actions – these internal barriers might not be a way to change how one perceives their action
as the other dissonance reducing strategies do, but instead they might be a fourth option to
overcome experienced dissonance. The internal barriers could be a way of changing how one
perceives their beliefs by denying or resisting information that does challenge one’s beliefs.
However, as mentioned before, these internal barriers are only a small part of the influencing
factors that are relevant for behavioral psychology and this is the first time they have been
empirically explored in a specific sample like this.
Some of the narratives and rationalizations sustainability scientists used in this study
are comparable to the ones used by the broader population, especially the 4Ns of pro-meat
justifications (Piazza et al., 2015) and (perceived) behavior changes (Rothgerber, 2014). The
strong focus on conscious consumption narratives and sustainable dimensions of meat
consumption found in this study appear to be more specific to this group. There seemed to be a
consensus among the participants that the negative environmental problems of meat
consumption can be averted by avoiding meat that comes from industrial meat production. This
is something Šedová et al. (2016) found as well. Their research also indicates that (perceived)
23

behavior change and the promised improved behavior narratives are widely used dissonance
reducing strategies in their study with students of environmental studies. The deemed
sustainable dimensions of meat consumption in terms of cultural experiences and perceived
positive impacts of meat consumption as well as the need for relatability to role models are
novel rationalization strategies that have emerged from this research. They appear to be very
specific to the group of sustainability scientists as other studies conducted within the broader
population did not find these rationalizations (e.g. Rothgerber, 2014).
This paper identified that sustainability scientists consider themselves to have a
responsibility to lead by example in the context of societal transformation. They do not always
demonstrate this in their personal lives because their rationalizations help them in being
comfortable despite the knowledge-action gap, even though they think it is important to do so
in general. An increasing number of sustainability scientists emphasize the importance of
leading as role models to trigger societal transformations (Bearzi, 2009; Balmford et al., 2017).
Literature identifies different kinds of roles that can play a part in societal transformation.
According to Bicchieri & Funke (2018) there is a need for norm abandonment to achieve
change, specifically for deeper behavior change. The initiators of such abandonment are socalled trendsetters who spearhead change and initiate broader change processes. Another way
to perceive the role of sustainability scientists in societal transformation processes is the concept
of change agency. Stephens et al. (2008) state that universities themselves as places of
production, perpetuation, and dissemination of knowledge have the potential to accelerate
societal transformation. These institutions can be a model for sustainable practices by setting
an example for sustainable behavior that first spreads on the university campus and then
transcends towards the rest of society. They can also educate change agents, i.e. people who
advance “more sustainable practices in different cultures and contexts” (ibid, p. 318) and “help
create a sustainable future” (Svanström et al., 2008, p. 347).
What implications does this have for sustainability scientists and their role in a broader
societal transformation? First of all, it shows opportunities for ways in which sustainability
scientists can trigger (i.e. act as trendsetters) and accelerate (i.e. act as change agents) a
transformation towards more sustainable consumption by starting with incremental changes in
their own behavior. It also serves as a reminder on how unique and privileged their role can be
in societal transformation and how valuable it could be to embrace it.
Limitations
A general limitation of this research is the not accounting for potentially more complex
reasons or influencing factors that stayed hidden in the study. There is no certainty that the
24

results and their implications can be transferred onto other sustainability scientists or
individuals beyond this group. Beyond the ontology of critical realism, it is also not certain
whether the participants did consciously or unconsciously tell the truth or if they were
influenced by the interviewer or the interview situation. Especially the later could limit the
dependability of the data. Even though it was stated that there were no right or wrong answers,
the circumstances of the interview might have not aligned with that. One participant specifically
said that he has the impression that “sustainability scientists tend to think there is always a right
answer to such questions”.
It can be argued that interviewing 10% of the faculty of sustainability, with variety in
gender, age, cultural and disciplinary backgrounds as well as career level, is somewhat
representative of the faculty. However, it is possible that people who are more knowledgeable
and involved in sustainability and meat consumption were more willing to participate. It is also
possible that especially people who perceive themselves to eat only little amounts of meat were
more likely to take part in the study. Others who eat meat very frequently possibly did not
respond to the request to participate due to predominant social norms that might exist at a
faculty of sustainability. This group of sustainability scientists might experience the
knowledge-action gap not at all or to a different degree. However, there was variety in the selfreported frequency of meat consumption in the participants including higher consumption.
While these implications might be generalizable and transferable to other sustainability
scientists or individuals with similar levels of environmental awareness and values, they might
be limited to this specific group of people. Nevertheless, the study provides insights and novel
findings regarding the knowledge-action gap of sustainability scientists.

Conclusion
This study points out the existence of the knowledge-action gap in sustainability
scientists regarding their meat consumption, its reasons and impacts, and the implications this
potentially has on broader societal change. Distinctive results are the novel rationalization
strategies of declaring a sustainable value to meat consumption and the element of relatability
of role models, which are closely related to the characteristics of the group of sustainability
scientists.
The findings presented provide insights into sustainability scientists’ knowledge-action
gap regarding their meat consumption, which establishes a base for further research. A next
step could be a quantitative validation of the results of this study in a bigger group of
sustainability scientists, especially for the novel rationalization strategies. Research should also

25

be done on how the knowledge-action gap can be dissolved and what specific role the different
strategies might play in that.
This research hopes to get sustainability scientists to reflect on and potentially
reconsider their meat consumption as well as to not underestimate their role in change
processes. While all participants did experience a knowledge-action gap regarding their meat
consumption and applied rationalizations to justify their behavior, knowledge played a role in
forming a somewhat conscious behavior. The role of knowledge should therefore not be
underestimated or even neglected.
Considering the need for drastic reductions in meat consumption to mitigate
environmental degradation (Springmann et al., 2016), there is a need for people who lead the
way towards sustainable consumption. This makes it necessary that sustainability scientists
embrace their role in societal transformation by actively triggering and accelerating change.
This implies that they implement such change in their own lives more and eat less or no meat
at all. They also need to find effective ways to communicate about their behavior changes and
ensure that the rest of society gains access to the necessary knowledge as well. Of course, this
is a lot of responsibility and it is important to remember that sustainability scientists, in the end,
are only human as well. Maybe being completely consequent and without flaws does not have
to be the goal, but all efforts are valuable, and relatability does indeed help. As one participant
put it:
“That’s why I think sustainability scientists should not all be the ideal type of person
that’s completely environmentally friendly because then a lot of people would not be
able to relate to that person or type and that’s why I think some of them should be very
idealistic that we can see 100% is possible, but also 80% or 50% is possible.”

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the participants of the study, my academic advisors
and additional reviewers, who helped improve my research, Rebecca Gerigk and Leo Reutter
for the useful feedback during the pilot interviews and writing process, and my sister Eva for
the support and knowledgeable insights.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of interest: none.

26

References
Balmford, A., Cole, L., Sandbrook, C., & Fisher, B. (2017). The environmental footprints of
conservationists, economists and medics compared. Biological Conservation, 214(July),
260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.035
Barth, M. (2014). Implementing Sustainability in Higher Education: Learning in an Age of
Transformation. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/lib/asulib-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1818153#
Bearzi, G. (2009). When swordfish conservation biologists eat swordfish. Conservation
Biology, 23(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01142.x
Bicchieri, C., & Funcke, A. (2016). Norm Change: Trendsetters and Social Structure. Social
Research, 85(1), 1–22.
Blake, J. (2007). Overcoming the “value - action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions
between national policy and local experience Overcoming the ’ Value-Action Gap ’ in
Environmental Policy : tensions between national policy and local experience,
9839(May). https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599
Boer, J. De, Schösler, H., & Boersema, J. J. (2013). Climate change and meat eating: An
inconvenient couple? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.09.001
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Dowsett, E., Semmler, C., Bray, H., Ankeny, R. A., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2018). Neutralising
the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite, 123, 280–
288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fliegenschnee, M., & Schelakovsky, M. (1998). Umweltpsychologie und Umweltbildung:
eine Einführung aus humanökologischer Sicht. Wien: Facultas Universitätsverlag.
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and
intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 95, 101–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024
Gregory-Smith, D., Smith, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2013). Emotions and dissonance in
“ethical” consumption choices, (November 2014), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.796320
Grob, A. (1991). Meinung, Verhalten, Umwelt: ein psychologisches Ursachennetz-Modell
umweltgerechten Verhaltens. Bern [etc.]: Peter Lang.

27

Hadley, Gregory. (2015). English for Academic Purposes in Neoliberal Universities: A
Critical Grounded Theory. 10.1007/978-3-319-10449-2.
Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., & Johansson, D. J. A. (2014). The importance of reduced meat
and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic Change,
124(1–2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (2010). Analysis and Synthesis of Research
on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis, (March 2013), 37–41.
Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows. An introduction to carnism. San
Francisco: Red Wheel/Weiser.
Kennedy, E. H., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., & Nadeau, S. (2009). Why We Don’t
“Walk the Talk”: Understanding the Environmental Values / Behaviour Gap in Canada.
Human Ecology Review, 16(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/24707539
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Mind the Gap: why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Mercier, H. (2011). What good is moral reasoning?, 2011(October 2010), 131–148.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0085-6
Newhouse, N. (2010). Implications of Attitude and Behavior Research for Environmental
Conservation, (November 2013), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9943043
Pfeiler, T. M., & Egloff, B. (2018). Personality and attitudinal correlates of meat
consumption: Results of two representative German samples. Appetite, 121, 294–301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.098
Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman,
M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns ☆. Appetite, 91, 114–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers
and consumers, 992(June), 987–992.
Preuss, S. (1991). Umweltkatastrophe Mensch. Über unsere Grenzen und Möglichkeiten,
ökologisch bewusst zu handeln. Heidelberg: Roland Asanger Verlag.
Rothgerber, H. (2014). Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat
eaters. Appetite, 79, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003
Seamon, D., & Gill, H. K. (2016). Qualitative Approaches to Environment-Behavior
Research: Understanding Environmental and Place Experiences, Meanings, and Actions.
In Gifford, R. (Ed.), Research Methods for Environmental Psychology (pp. 117–135).
Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.
28

Šedová, I., Slovák, Ľ., & Ježková, I. (2016). Coping with unpleasant knowledge: Meat eating
among students of environmental studies. Appetite, 107, 415–424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.102
Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and
valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change, 113(15), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113
Stephens, J. C., Hernandez, M. E., Román, M., Graham, A. C., Scholz, R. W., Stephens, J. C.,
Graham, A. C. (2008). Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different
cultures and contexts. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916
Svanström, M., Lozano-García, F. J., & Rowe, D. (2008). Learning outcomes for sustainable
development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 9(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885925
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. (2016). Gender and the
Environment. Gender Tool Box (Brief). Retrieved from
https://www.sida.se/English/partners/resources-for-all-partners/methodologicalmaterials/gender-tool-box/)
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness
to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3), 674–682.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010
Tsang, J. (2002). Moral Rationalization and the Integration of Situational Factors and
Psychological Processes in Immoral Behavior, 6(1), 25–50.
https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.6.1.25
Unterbruner, U., & Weiglhofer, H. (1994). Bedrohung durch Umweltzerstörung - Antrieb
zum Handeln? In Pfligersdorffer, G. & Unterbruner, U. (Eds.), Umwelterziehung auf
dem Prüfstand (pp. 141–155). Innsbruck: Österreichischer Studien Verlag.
WBGU. (2011). Welt im Wandel. Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation.

29

30

Eidesstattliche Erklärung
Ich versichere, dass ich diese Master-Arbeit – bei einer Gruppenarbeit den entsprechend gekennzeichneten Teil
der Master-Arbeit – selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel
benutzt habe. Ich versichere, alle Stellen der Arbeit, die wortwörtlich oder sinngemäß aus anderen Quellen
übernommen wurden, als solche kenntlich gemacht und die Arbeit in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch keiner
Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt zu haben.

Ort

Datum

Unterschrift

31