Are fur farms a potential source of persistent organic pollutants or mercury to nearby freshwater ecosystems?

Gregory, Braden R.B.; Kissinger, Jennifer A.; Clarkson, Chloe; Kimpe, Lynda E.; Eickmeyer, David C.; Kurek, Joshua; Smol, John P.; Blais, Jules M.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155100

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another famous example is the practice of farming minks for their fur. Mink farms can be the source of persistent organic pollutants and other metal pollution in nearby rivers and lakes (20). Additionally, this type of intense animal farming carries high risks of infectious diseases for both the animals and humans, such as the SARS-CoV-2 infection outbreaks in mink farms during the COVID-19 pandemic (21).…”

Section: The Harmful Impacts Of Unsustainable Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The crucial roles of biodiversity loss belief and perception in urban residents’ consumption attitude and behavior towards animal-based products

Nguyen¹,

Le²,

Jones³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Products made from animal fur and skin have been a major part of human civilization. However, in modern society, the unsustainable consumption of these products – often considered luxury goods – has many negative environmental impacts. This study explores how people’s perceptions of biodiversity affect their attitudes and behaviors toward consumption. To investigate the information process deeper, we add the moderation of beliefs about biodiversity loss. Following the Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) analytics, we use mindsponge-based reasoning for constructing conceptual models and employ Bayesian analysis aided by Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms on a dataset of 535 Vietnamese urban residents. The results show that people’s preference for using products made from animal skin/fur is negatively associated with perceived consequences of biodiversity loss when they believe biodiversity loss is real and a major problem. In contrast, if urban residents believe biodiversity loss is unreal or not a significant issue, the association between perceived consequences of biodiversity loss and personal preference happens in the opposite direction. The same effects of biodiversity loss perception on people’s possession of skin/fur products was not found, indicating a more complex information process on behaviors compared to attitudes. Nevertheless, in the scenario that people believe biodiversity loss is not a significant issue, the higher the perceived consequences of biodiversity loss are, the greater number of animal-based products they likely own. Our results suggest that policymakers should not neglect the factor of personal belief besides knowledge and awareness in environmental campaigns.

show abstract

Section: The Harmful Impacts Of Unsustainable Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%