At BuilderScrap.com we’re not all about Builders supply and surplus. We try and pass on information regarding all environmentally sound ideas that will have a positive effect on our planet.

This post presents findings from the omnibus survey related to “low impact diets”‚ where people choose to change their diet and/or eat less of certain foods to reduce the environmental impact of their diet. Table 28 summarises the findings from three questions related to low impact diets.

Respondents were asked to assess how much they knew about low impact diets, based on their own understanding of the term. Less than half (43%) of respondents said they had at least heard of the term “low impact diet” although respondents generally reported low levels of knowledge about such a diet. Just 5% of respondents said they knew a lot about low impact diets, 8% said they knew a fair amount and one in five (20%) said they knew just a little about low impact diets.

Respondents who claimed to know at least a little about low impact diets were asked more specifically if they knew how they could adopt this type of diet. Just over half (55%) of those asked said that they did, with the rest saying either they did not (42%) or that they did not know / were unsure (3%).

At this point, all respondents were presented with a description of low impact diets and asked how willing they were to change their diet to make it more low impact: “Some food products have a higher impact on the environment than others. One way to adopt a low impact diet would be to change or eat less of certain foods”. When prompted in this way, more than half (59%) of respondents said they would be either quite (50%) or very (9%) willing to change their diet in this way. One third (33%) of respondents said they would not be willing to change their diet to make it more low impact, with the remainder saying they didn’t know how willing they would be.

Willingness to change diet to make it more low impact was linked to prior knowledge about how to adopt a low impact diet‚ respondents who said they knew how to adopt a lot impact diet were a lot more likely to be willing to change their diet (82%) than those who did not know or had not heard of low impact diets prior to the survey (50%).

More feedback the BuilderScrap team has found on Sustainable construction.  We’ve been analysing data in the past 5 posts from both clients and the construction industry in relation to this draft strategy.

Q.What in your view are the major costs and benefits of this Strategy for industry, clients, Government and the public at large?

1. In general, responses to this question did not provide significant quantitative data on costs and benefits.

2. The benefits highlighted by respondents included reduced environmental impacts (noted by 20% of respondents); reduction in long-term running costs (almost 20%); the potential for exporting environmental knowledge (10%); improved image (10%); and improvements in health, safety, crime, flooding, fuel poverty and local employment (also about 10%).

3. Other suggested benefits included improving skills; benefits to business including greater clarity and streamlining of initiatives; better long term security of investment; and improved efficiency and cost management.

4. Most respondents believed there would also be costs in implementing this Strategy, though reduced running costs could mitigate some or all of these over time. Almost 40% of respondents highlighted increased capital costs; almost 20% increased training costs; 15% time and management costs; and 10% research costs.

5. Some respondents estimated the additional costs of attaining level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes at around £3k – £5k per house.

6. Some respondents suggested that more stringent environmental regulations could influence company decisions on whether to locate manufacturing facilities in the UK.