No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused dramatic and unprecedented impacts to both global health and economies. Many governments are now proposing recovery packages to get back to normal, but the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Global Assessment indicated that business as usual has created widespread ecosystem degradation. Therefore, a post-COVID world needs to tackle the economic drivers that create ecological disruptions. In this Perspective, we discuss a number of tools across a range of actors for both short-term stimulus measures and longer-term revamping of global, national, and local economies that take biodiversity into account. These include measures to shift away from activities that damage biodiversity and towards those supporting ecosystem resilience, including through incentives, regulations, fiscal policy and employment programs. By treating the crisis as an opportunity to reset the global economy, we have a chance to reverse decades of biodiversity and ecosystem losses.

No abstract

Are individuals able to self-assess the environmental impact of their behavior? To answer this question, we first analyze the different behavioral determinants of the ecological footprint (EF), an often used measure of an individual’s environmental impact. Second, we compare the individuals’ EF with self-assessments of their own environmental impact (self-assessed environmental sustainability [SAES]). We use survey data from Belgium and find that people are largely unaware of the environmental impact they have, as the correlation between the EF and the SAES is small. Finally, we find that SAES reflects, to a large extent, individuals’ attitudes toward the environment, whereas the EF is mainly explained by sociodemographic characteristics.

Abstract:In this study, we conducted a survey among Business Administration students at Ghent University to assess their support for six less meat initiatives (LMIs) to be implemented in student restaurants. We examined associations between the support and variables related to meat curtailment and additionally examined the effect of providing information about the climate impact of meat on the support for the LMIs. We find that the support is rather limited among the students we surveyed. Students have different appraisals of the different LMIs, which may be due to differences in intervention strength and types of meat curtailment. We found that higher environmental concern is associated with a higher support for all LMIs. Female students and students with lower meat consumption levels indicate a higher support for four of six LMIs. Simply providing information about the climate impact of meat had no remarkable effect on the support. More integrated approaches are recommended to inform students.