COVID-19 & Animals: Chinese Citizens’ Beliefs About COVID-19’s Links With Animal Agriculture

[此报告已由英文翻译成中文，请点击此处阅读报告的中文译文。
感谢Tipping Point Private Foundation对此项翻译工作的慷慨资助。]

Project Background

This project was designed to support efforts to improve farmed animal welfare in China by establishing a knowledge base surrounding Chinese citizens’ understanding of COVID-19’s origins and their attitudes towards pro-animal policy and consumption changes. 

The project’s methodology replicates an earlier Faunalytics survey of U.S. respondents, in which questions were solicited from animal advocates in order to determine what information would best help animal advocacy organizations (Beggs and Anderson, 2020). Those question ideas were compiled and developed into a set of poll questions, which we have translated for this project for Chinese respondents.

Surveys of Chinese attitudes towards farmed animal welfare have been conducted before (You et al., 2014). However, there are signs that the pandemic has significantly changed Chinese attitudes towards animal agriculture (Xinhua, 2020). The U.S. poll found the U.S. population to be largely oblivious about COVID-19’s links to animals, with only moderate support for pro-animal policy changes. One of the aims of this project was to produce findings comparable with the U.S. poll findings, although limitations in terms of methodology and differences between the survey companies in the U.S. and China mean that the data is not directly comparable. Similarly, Question 5 of the U.S. poll (Reaction To An Argument Connecting Disease And Animal Farming) is not replicated here, given its particularity to the U.S. context. Nonetheless, some basic insights can be drawn from the two sets of data.  

Origins of COVID-19

This poll and report use the same sources as the U.S. poll as the basis for what the scientific community understands to be the origins of COVID-19:

• The virus likely originated in a wet market in Wuhan, China (Riou & Althaus, 2020)
• Wet markets, where both live and dead animals from wild and farmed sources are sold, bring humans and animals into close proximity, allowing viruses to jump from species to species, as has been observed in previous outbreaks (Woo, Lau, & Yuen, 2006). 

Key Findings

1. Most Chinese respondents (around 50-60%) demonstrated a basic understanding of the animal origins of COVID-19. This estimate is based on the majority of respondents having either mentioned animals, animal consumption, or nature as the key reasons for the outbreak, with very few respondents mentioning discredited theories. Moreover, almost two-thirds of respondents recognized that COVID-19 started because wild animals were being sold as food when asked specifically about that. 
2. However, only 2% of Chinese respondents mentioned the wet market conditions that allowed the virus to jump from species to species, suggesting an incomplete understanding of its origins. Even on simple true/false items, fewer than a third of respondents correctly indicated that the virus spread because animals were kept in very close quarters. This suggests that most Chinese respondents, similar to their U.S. counterparts, have a shallow understanding of the animal origins of COVID-19. 
3. There is strong support for legislation that would protect both animals and human health. Most respondents (around 60%) support restrictions on animal agriculture and trade to prevent future pandemics. The Chinese and U.S. polls showed similar patterns of support and opposition for legislation related to COVID-19 and animals. For instance, like the U.S. poll, opposition was the strongest (37%) to the proposal of banning any type of animal farming that has been linked to a serious human disease outbreak. Interestingly, the opposition was stronger in the Chinese sample, suggesting that the general Chinese population is more cautious about restricting animal farming than its U.S. counterpart.  
4. Many Chinese respondents reported intentions to reduce their meat consumption (49%) and donate to animal charities (40%), suggesting that animal product consumption may change significantly because of COVID-19, at least among the younger, urban Chinese population who made up this sample. In contrast, the U.S. poll found that most respondents (56-68%) did not intend to change their dietary or donation behavior at all. It is possible that this stems from a difference in Chinese and U.S. attitudes toward personal responsibility, origins of the virus, or the best solutions. Alternatively, it may reflect a difference in attitudes at the beginning of an outbreak versus many months into it, which might be found in any country. These possibilities may be worth exploring further. 
5. The vast majority of respondents (81%) believed that animal shelters and sanctuaries should be considered essential services. There was also strong backing for this policy in the U.S. poll.
6. Very few Chinese respondents were aware of the threats to life faced by animals used in research (10.6%) or those who depend on tourists for food (18.8%). Again, this mirrors the U.S. poll finding. 
7. The vast majority of Chinese respondents were aware that cats and dogs are not a major reason for the spread of COVID-19 (94.6%), and that disease outbreaks have been caused by farmed animals before (94.1%). However, the proportions of these in the Chinese poll was smaller than in the U.S. poll, suggesting that the Chinese population is less knowledgeable on these two issues than its U.S. counterpart. 

Research Team

This project was led by Vincent Chow and co-authored by Yassin Alaya and Faunalytics’ Research Director, Dr. Jo Anderson.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to The Food System Research Fund for providing a generous grant for the study. Thanks to Eric Zhao and Chloe Dempsey for assisting with translations of the survey questions. 

Method

Data were collected in September 2020. A sample of 1,047 Chinese adults was recruited through the Chinese survey provider WJX, using quotas to ensure it was representative of the online Chinese population, which is younger, more educated, and disproportionately located in urban areas compared to the general Chinese population. Although this sample was quota- rather than probability-based, the overall margin of error can be assumed to be roughly ±3.0% with 95% confidence. In other words, for any percentage of the full sample reported below, the percentage among all Chinese citizens with internet access is estimated to be within 3% of our estimate nineteen times out of twenty.

To translate the English poll questions to Chinese, we used a back-translation procedure to maximize equivalence between the two languages. In this procedure, a bilingual person translated the English questions into Chinese. A second bilingual person then translated this version back into English without knowledge of the source document. The initial and revised English versions were then compared, discrepancies were identified, and appropriate revisions were made (Johnson, 1998, p. 18).

There were four groups of questions in the survey. Each is described with results below. In addition, the full survey instrument and data are available on the Open Science Framework.

Overall Results

These top-line results describe the answers from all respondents. The results for demographic groups—gender and age—are provided in a separate section below.

Understanding and Beliefs about COVID-19

One of the primary goals of this poll was to understand, in a timely manner, whether members of the Chinese public are making the connection between the COVID-19 outbreak and abuse of animals by humans. The other main goal was to compare the findings for China with the findings for the U.S. The results for each poll question are laid out in this section.

Circumstances Leading to the Pandemic (Open-Ended Responses)

The first poll question asked participants to describe how the outbreak started. The survey was designed so that subsequent closed-ended questions would not alter the responses that participants gave.

The question read:

全世界正在奋力抵御新型冠状病毒（COVID-19）。请您解释对新型冠状病毒来源的理解。我们不是问关于疾病发源地，而是问什么情况导致了新型冠状病毒。

English: The world is currently fighting a pandemic due to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Please explain your understanding of where this disease came from. We are not asking about the city or country where it started, but rather what circumstances led to the disease.

For more details on how we analyzed the responses to this question, see the Supplementary Materials. The full set of responses is available on the Open Science Framework project page.

Table 1. Themes in Participants’ Understanding of COVID-19’s Origins

Most respondents demonstrated some awareness of the key factors at play. Just over half the respondents were aware that the virus had originated with animals in some way, despite many responses lacking details. Moreover, close to half the respondents mentioned food, typically animal consumption. Based on these percentages, it is likely that around half the respondents understood the zoonotic origins of COVID-19. 

However, only a small minority of Chinese respondents expressed a complete understanding of COVID-19’s origins, probably 5% at most, based on the percentage who mentioned animal/food markets (the current scientific information about COVID-19’s origins is laid out in the Key Findings). This is surprising especially when contrasted with the U.S. poll findings, where 16% of respondents mentioned wet market conditions. 

As the Chinese sample generally demonstrated a greater understanding of the relevant issues than the U.S. sample on most other questions in this survey (bearing in mind again the differences in the two samples), this suggests that this comparatively weak understanding of the role of markets among Chinese respondents is not due to greater ignorance generally about the origins of COVID-19. For instance, it is possible that Chinese state media has emphasized the role of animals and food consumption when explaining the origins of COVID-19, but not markets. 

This difference may also arise from the fact that more time had passed since the virus emerged for Chinese respondents, who completed this question in September versus March for U.S. respondents. Early media reports may have been more focused on where the virus originated, while ongoing reporting switched to talking more about the human and financial implications. Thus, the virus’ origins may have been more top-of-mind for U.S. respondents at that time.

Based on how few responses fell under the Location theme, where most of the conspiracy theories were found, it is probably safe to say that the majority of respondents understood that the origins of COVID-19 had something to do with animal consumption, even if the level of understanding varied.

Beliefs about Animals and COVID-19 (True/False)

Second, respondents were presented with a question set assessing their beliefs about animals and COVID-19. This was a series of statements for which they were asked:

请从以下列表选择正确的说法，如果没有一个说法是正确的，请选择最后一个选项

English: Select all TRUE statements from the following list, or choose the last option if none of the statements are true

The graph below shows the percentage of respondents who believed each statement to be true. 

Figure 1. Beliefs and Understanding about COVID-19

Many of the statements focused on the animal origins of the disease, but several addressed other issues. Similar to the U.S. poll, very few Chinese respondents were aware of the threats to life faced by animals used in research (Nature, April 2020) or those who depend on tourists for food (Guokr, March 2020): only 11% and 19%, respectively. However, almost all respondents were aware that companion animals (pet cats and dogs) are not generally spreading the virus (Medical News Today, April 2020).

In addition to the data shown in the figure above, 14.8% of the sample said that none of the statements are true, when six of them are actually correct. This is not a high proportion of the sample, and it is only about half the number seen in the U.S. poll. However, it is worth noting again that the Chinese sample was disproportionately younger and more educated than the general Chinese population (see Method), and that the virus had been around longer by this point. 

Moreover, even though a higher proportion of the Chinese sample recognized the true statements compared with the U.S. sample generally, it is still the case that only a minority of Chinese respondents correctly answered most of the true statements. This mirrors the U.S. poll results and speaks to a powerful lack of awareness about the animal origins of the disease in both populations and at both points in time.

Implications and Actions (Agreement Questions)

The third question set was a Likert-style matrix assessing participants’ agreement or disagreement with five statements. These statements, shown in the figure below, related to their understanding of COVID-19 and support for various legislative actions. 

Figure 2. Beliefs and Support for Legislation

Like the U.S. poll results, substantial proportions of the Chinese respondents supported restrictions on agriculture and trade to prevent future outbreaks of disease, and only a minority were opposed.

In addition, the results show that a large majority of the Chinese sample believed that animal shelters and sanctuaries should be considered essential services. Whether they are currently defined as such or not depends on jurisdiction. This statement was also the most supported in the U.S. poll (59.3%), but the Chinese sample was much more supportive and had far fewer respondents who disagreed (4.5% vs. 14.6%). 

A third of Chinese respondents agreed that there was a direct connection between the outbreak and livestock farming. In the U.S. poll, a much smaller proportion agreed (14.7%), with a majority of respondents disagreeing (52.2%). This suggests that the Chinese sample is better informed about this connection than the U.S. population—or perhaps more willing to accept it. However, the fact that it is still a minority of Chinese respondents who are aware of it means that the wider Chinese population likely also needs to have the connection spelled out for them, similar to the U.S. population. In the U.S. poll, the argument presented in the final question was one way of explaining this connection to the U.S. population (see section Reaction To An Argument Connecting Disease And Animal Farming of that report). We omitted that question from the Chinese poll because of the particularity of the original argument used in the U.S. poll to the U.S. context, so there is no Chinese equivalent of that argument presented here.

Otherwise, the Chinese responses largely mirror those of the U.S. poll, with more respondents agreeing than disagreeing for the four other statements in both polls. The main difference between the two polls is that a higher proportion of Chinese respondents agreed with each statement, while the proportion of those who picked neutral was also smaller across the board in the Chinese poll than in the U.S. poll.

Behavioral Intentions

The fourth survey question assessed how dietary and donation behaviors are likely to change as a result of the pandemic. Specifically, the question asked:

自从新型冠状病毒爆发以来，您进行以下行动的可能性有何种变化？

English: “Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, how has your likelihood of doing each of the following changed?” 

The range of responses is shown in the table below.

Figure 3. Dietary and Donation Intentions

The responses indicated that COVID-19 has affected the majority of Chinese respondents’ diet and donation intentions, unlike the U.S. poll, where clear majorities of people indicated that COVID-19 has not affected their diet and donation intentions for each statement. Again, this difference between the two polls may be due to when the two polls were conducted. As the Chinese respondents completed this question months after their U.S. counterparts, it is possible that COVID-19 had impacted their lives more at that point as they had more experience with the pandemic. Perhaps U.S. respondents would report a bigger impact on their diet and donation intentions now than in March, when the pandemic was just beginning to hit the U.S. and when they answered the question.  

The proportions of Chinese respondents who said they were more likely to try plant-based eating or reduce their meat consumption since the pandemic began were larger than the proportion who said it would have the opposite effect. In the U.S. poll, the proportions were about the same. From these results, it seems that we can expect overall animal product consumption in China to change favorably for animals because of COVID-19. The finding that almost half of Chinese respondents were more likely than before to reduce the amount of meat they eat is especially noteworthy in this regard. 

Over half the Chinese respondents also reported being more likely than before to donate to charity since the pandemic began, which seems consistent with the substantial amount of donations reached in China at the height of the pandemic in the country: as of April 23, 2020, monetary donations amounted to RMB 42 billion (Ministry of Civil Affairs of China, 2020). Donations also climbed substantially in China following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, although there was a significant fall in subsequent years (Li, Tao, & Su, 2020). However, it is not possible to draw strong conclusions about the pandemic’s impact on charitable giving in China as there have not been any comprehensive studies on this yet, as far as we are aware. In the U.S., early signs suggest that charitable giving has fallen during the pandemic (Johnson, Rauhaus, & Webb-Farley, 2020), consistent with data from the 2008 recession (Reich & Wimer, 2012).

Results by Question and Demographic

This section shows the breakdown of all quantitative questions by two key demographics: gender and age. Unlike the U.S. poll, the Chinese polling company did not disclose respondents’ income and location information. 

Because the sample size for these demographics is much smaller than for the full survey sample, the margin of error for these estimates is correspondingly wider. However, the Chinese survey company was not able to provide exact margins of error for each demographic.

Understanding and Beliefs about COVID-19

Beliefs about Animals and COVID-19 (True/False)

Table 2. Beliefs and Understanding about COVID-19: Demographic Breakdowns

The following lists indicate which differences in the tables above are statistically significant. The full data tables are available on the Open Science Framework. 

Gender: 

• Men were more likely than women to correctly indicate that thousands of lab animals are being killed because they cannot be cared for during the outbreak. 
• There were no other significant gender differences on this question. 

Age: 

• People under 31 were more likely than people aged 31-50 to correctly indicate that the pandemic started because wild animals were being sold as food. 
• People aged 26-40 were more likely than people aged 41-50 to correctly indicate that thousands of lab animals are being killed because they cannot be cared for during the outbreak.
• People under 41 were more likely than people aged 41-50 to incorrectly indicate that a large number of farmed animals will need to be killed to control the pandemic. 
• People under 31 were more likely than people aged 41-50 to correctly indicate that animals that depend on tourists for food are going hungry due to the pandemic.
• People aged 31-40 were more likely than people aged 26-30 to correctly indicate that the most likely reason COVID-19 spread to humans is because of markets where live animals were kept in close quarters with one another.
• People aged 41-50 were more likely than people aged under 41 to correctly indicate that new diseases that affect humans can come from either wild or farmed animals.
• There were no other significant age differences on this question.

Implications and Actions (Agreement Questions)

Table 3. Beliefs and Support for Legislation: Demographic Breakdowns

The following lists indicate which differences in the tables above are statistically significant. The full data tables are available on the  Open Science Framework. 

Gender: 

• Women were more likely than men to support permanent trade bans on all animal products coming from countries that allow the operation of markets where live animals are sold for food. 
• There were no other significant gender differences on this question. 

Age: 

• People aged 31-40 were more likely than people aged under 31 to support restrictions on animal agriculture to help prevent future pandemics.
• People aged 31-60 were more likely than people aged 26-30 to support banning any type of animal farming that has been linked to a serious human disease outbreak; people aged 51-60 were more likely than people aged 31-50 to support this; and people aged 18-25 were less likely than people aged 26-30 and 41-50 to support this
• People aged 31-40 were more likely than people aged 18-25 to agree that there is a direct connection between disease outbreaks like COVID-19 and livestock farming.
• People aged 31-40 were more likely than people aged 18-25 and 41-50 to agree that animal shelters and sanctuaries should be considered essential services during a pandemic.
• There were no other significant age differences on this question.

Behavioral Intentions

Table 4. Dietary and Donation Intentions: Demographic Breakdowns

The following lists indicate which differences in the tables above are statistically significant. The full data tables are available on the Open Science Framework. 

Gender: 

• More women than men said they were more likely than before the pandemic to donate to a non-profit/charity. 
• More women than men said they were more likely than before the pandemic to donate to a new charity.
• More women than men said they were more likely than before the pandemic to donate to animal charities.
• There were no other significant gender differences on this question. 

Age: 

• The proportion of people aged 26-30 who said they were more likely to try veganism/eating plant-based foods than before the pandemic was significantly larger than the proportion aged 18-25.
• The proportion of people aged 18-25 who said they were more likely to donate money to a non-profit/charity than before the pandemic was significantly larger than the proportion aged 31-40.
• There were no other significant age differences on this question.

Conclusions

This survey found that the online Chinese population showed at least a shallow awareness of the animal origins or implications of COVID-19. More than half the respondents were aware that the virus had originated in animals, with many of them also aware of the links with food and animal consumption. However, this awareness does not seem deep or complete. Similar to the U.S. poll, very few respondents demonstrated a complete understanding of the animal origins of COVID-19, in terms of the links between the virus and markets selling wild animals. Moreover, most respondents were not aware of the impact of the pandemic on animals used in research or those who depend on tourists for food, though it’s also possible that these impacts are lower in China than in the U.S.

More positively, the survey found that only a small proportion of China’s online population subscribed to conspiracy theories surrounding the origins of COVID-19: less than 5%. The most popular conspiracy theory was that the virus was imported from overseas.   

Most respondents believed animal shelters and sanctuaries should be considered essential services, and there was also greater awareness in the Chinese sample about the connection between COVID-19 and livestock farming than in the U.S. sample. 

Unlike the U.S. poll, Chinese respondents largely indicated that COVID-19 is impacting their dietary and donation choices. Most notably, almost half the Chinese respondents reported being more likely than before to reduce the amount of meat they eat, while over half the respondents reported being more likely than before to donate to charity. Whether these self-reported intentions will manifest in reality remains to be seen, but it does suggest that animal advocates should look at the current situation as an opportunity to effect behavioral changes.  

Caveats & Limitations

The main limitations of this study stem from the limitations of the Chinese survey company used to provide the polling data. The sample is not representative of the entire Chinese population, just the population who have internet access. As noted above, this subgroup tends to be younger, more educated and more urban than the general population, which reduces comparability to the U.S. poll. 

It is also worth considering that the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved over the past nine months and is still ongoing, despite China largely getting the disease under control within its borders. Therefore, people’s beliefs and attitudes have been and will be subject to change over time, especially as more is known about the disease in the coming months and years. In particular, caution is warranted when comparing the respective results of the Chinese and U.S. polls. Differences in the results may not necessarily be due to differences in culture or nation, but instead stem from the six-month difference in when the respective data were collected, as the world health situation and media reporting changed considerably over that period.

Most notably, this poll relies on self-reported attitudes and intentions, which are subject to bias. This means taking certain findings with a grain of salt, such as over half the respondents being more likely than before to donate to charity because of the pandemic. Similar to the U.S. poll, where respondents also reported a willingness to donate as a result of the pandemic, we should treat the stated intentions of the Chinese respondents as the most optimistic of possible outcomes, reflective of their desire to see themselves in a positive light.

Despite these caveats and limitations, we believe that these data provide an important window into Chinese people’s beliefs and attitudes surrounding COVID-19 and animals. This is crucial especially because of the virus’ origins in China and the increasing presence of animal farming and consumption in the country. 

Additional Details by Question

Full details of the responses and subgroup differences are available on the Open Science Framework.

Circumstances Leading to the Pandemic (Open-Ended Responses)

Detailed Method

We performed a quick thematic analysis of the first survey question, largely following the same steps as the U.S. poll. This method prioritizes obtaining results quickly, so perfect accuracy in how the responses were categorized should not be expected.

1. We skimmed the full set of verbatim responses, noting common themes and keywords. 
2. We used Excel’s filter function to count the number of comments containing words from each theme, defined by a set of keywords. The keyword sets by theme were:
             a. Animals (动物): bat (蝙蝠), living creature (生物), indiscriminate killing (滥杀)
             b. Food (食): eat (吃), game (野味), seafood (海鲜)
             c. Nature (自然): environment (环境), ecology (生态)
             d. Location (地方): country (国), Wuhan (武汉)
             e. Market (市场)
3. In the Results section, we reported the percentage of responses that contained keywords from each theme. 
4. We then skimmed the identified responses for each theme looking for common subthemes and examples, which are reported in the Results section. 

Beliefs about Animals and COVID-19 (True/False Questions)

Sources

“New diseases that affect humans can come from either wild or farmed animals.” 
(影响人类新的疾病可能来自野生动物或农场动物)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020); World Health Organization (2018); and many more.

“The COVID-19 pandemic started because wild animals were being sold as food.”
(新型冠状病毒大规模扩散源于食用野生动物)
Riou & Althaus (2020)

“The most likely reason COVID-19 spread to humans is because of markets where live animals were kept in close quarters with one another.”
(新型冠状病毒传播给人类的最可能原因，是因为市场有活体动物一起被近距离的饲养)
Li et al. (2020)

“The COVID virus was able to jump from species to species because different types of live animals were kept in close quarters.” 
(新型冠状病毒能够跨物种传播，是因为不同类型的活体动物被一起近距离的饲养)
Li et al. (2020)

“A large number of farmed animals will need to be killed to control COVID-19.”
(为控制新型冠状病毒，将需要杀死大量农场饲养的动物) 
This statement was intended to be false, but there have been a few instances of farmed animals being slaughtered en masse in China (Financial Times, February 2020), so it is possible that respondents would think it is necessary.

“Animals that depend on tourists for food are going hungry due to the pandemic”
(由于疫情肆虐的缘故，依靠游客提供食物的动物面临饥荒的危机) 
Guokr (2020)

“Thousands of lab animals are being killed because they cannot be cared for during the outbreak”
(成千上万的实验用动物被杀死，因为疫情爆发期间无法照料它们)
Nature (2020)

“There has never been a major human disease outbreak caused by farmed animals” [FALSE](历史上从来没有发生过由农场动物引起的重大人类疾病暴发)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020); World Health Organization (2018); and many more.

“Pet cats and dogs are a major reason that COVID-19 is spreading” [FALSE](宠物猫和狗是新型冠状病毒传播的主要原因之一) 
World Health Organization (2020)

Implications and Actions (Agreement Questions)

Full Set of Responses

Behavioral Intentions

Full Set of Responses