The results’ analysis:

Participants in this study are mainly concentrated in Hanoi city, especially focus on
vegetarian groups, religious organizations, and students in university. The acquired
results reflect people' thoughts and feelings about the vegetarian lifstyle as well as its
benefit.

Figure 1: Percentage of people have consumed vegetarian food

The data presented in Figure 1 indicates that consuming vegetarian food is extremely
common among the survey respondents, with 93% reporting that they have eaten
vegetarian food before. This overwhelming majority suggests that vegetarian dishes
are very much already a part of most diets and culinary habits in the sampled
population in Hanoi. In contrast, only 4% state that they have never knowingly eaten
vegetarian cuisine. The additional who responded "maybe" could potentially still be
open to trying vegetarian options at some point. Overall, these findings show that
vegetarian food is widespread and widely accepted in Hanoi.

Figure 2: The frequency of having vegan diet

About how often people having a vegan diet. The vast majority (75% of respondents)
indicate they sometimes eat vegan meals. Additionally, 18% say they always stick to a
diet free of animal product. Together, these results mean over 9 in 10 people surveyed
at least occasionally eat vegan. Rarely does someone rule out ever trying vegan food.
And 1% remain unsure but open-minded about incorporating vegan options.
 Figure 3: Reasons for being a vegetarian
When examining motivations for following a vegetarian diet, the data reveals health
as the driving factor for over a third (35%) of respondents. The next most prevalent
reason stems from social influence - 20% are vegetarian because their references
group. Ethics like animal welfare and religious beliefs account for around 15%, while
environmental impact and financial savings constitued at 8% and 10% respectively.
Notably, 10% cite other individual reasons not specified in the figure. This mixture of
motivations spotlights an opportunity to promote vegetarian diets in Hanoi through
various health, moral, cost, community, and sustainability messaging approaches.

EAT VEGETARIAN FOR HEALTH

Figure 4: Positive change in health after going vegetarian

The figure showcases several health improvements experienced after adopting a

vegetarian diet. Over half report better digestion, indicating plant-based diets may
ease gastrointestinal issues. An equal percentage in better skin health. Weight loss
results for 39% of participants, while over a third cite gains in cardiovascular wellness
like blood pressure or cholesterol reductions. Altogether, a remarkable 95% of people
perceive positive physical changes from vegetarianism. Only 5% observe no
significant effects. The breadth of benefits exhibited strongly reinforces that
eliminating meat broadly boosts health for most, if not all, individuals reporting
improvements across diverse aspects like skin quality, weight management, digestion,
etc.

Figure 5: Health issue after going vegetarian

In contrast to the benefits, the chart uncovers adverse health effects experienced by
some survey participants after transitioning to vegetarian diets. Digestion problems
are most common, reported by 8%. Blood sugar increase, lack of protein, and weight
gain issues trail at less than 5-8% each. Over 15% notice declines in memory. Yet
despite these impacts across a spectrum from digestive to cognitive, the clear majority
(67%) of vegetarian respondents indicate no resultant health issues whatsoever. While
drawbacks from restricting meat exist for a subset, they affect a minority. Therefore,
an overwhelmingly high proportion experience no ill effects—greatly outweighing
those who do.

Figure 6: Specific type of vegatarian diet to improve health

Analyzing selected vegetarian diets spotlights some intriguing trends. The biggest
share, 26% of respondents, chooses lacto-ovo vegetarianism to directly benefit health
through dairy and eggs' nutrients. Flexitarian and strictly vegan diets also have sizable
segments at 15% and 18% respectively. However, an equal 26% of participants follow
strict veganism for non-health motivations like ethics or environment. Additionally,
other options like lacto-, ovo- or pescatarian diet hardly register at 5% each. In
summary, those pursuing health via diet gravitate most to convenient lacto-ovo,
flexitarian or simpler vegan plans allowing for foods like eggs, dairy or seafood rather
than difficult limitations. Yet when all subgroups are combined, plant-only vegan
emerges most popular overall. These insights suggest health-focused guidance on
integrating basic veggie, fruit and plant options may support successful adoption
better than demanding elimination of major food groups.

EAT VEGETARIAN FOR ENVIRONMENT

In this part, we arrange all the answers and opinons from respondents from 1 to 5. 1
being completely disagreed, 5 is completely agree.

Figure 7: Whether using vegetarian food will contribute to environmental

protection

As can be seen in the chart, the most common response is neutral with nearly 40%
selecting 3—indicating many remain unsure about meatless eating’s ecological
effects. Of those with clearer opinions, the “agree” and “completely agree” options see
17% each, fairly similar to the percentage who “completely disagree.” and “disagree.”
Therefore, attitudes seem split between moderate agreement and disagreement
vegetarian cuisine assists the environment. With strong neutral or middle-ground
responses outweighing low and high ends of the spectrum, firm data or education on
how plant-based food systems mitigate climate and sustainability issues could
potentially swing more towards full agreement. Given the unsure and skeptical
segments, convincing environmental arguments will be key to positioning vegetarian
diets as an eco-friendly solution.
 Figure 8: Whether reduce meat consumption can help reduce green house gas
emission

Figure 8 reveals respondent’s perspective on whether meat reduction decreasing

emissions, showing divided opinions. 22% of respondents “completely disagree” that
fewer livestock lowers greenhouse gases, while over 40% display some agreement.
The remaining 30% are neutral—suggesting no consensus on the links between
vegetarian diets and climate change. With negative or ambivalent attitudes prevalent
among 55% of participants, building acceptance may require clarifying the established
science between meat production and gases, deforestation, etc. However, downplaying
or disbelief of these mechanisms could persist for some segments. Given the majority
skepticism or uncertainty, claims about environmental impact alone seem insufficient
to shift most towards vegetarianism. Instead, pairing such reasons with supplementary
health, ethical or practical merits would effectively construct a broader case for
lowering meat consumption. Though for the deeply unconvinced, other less contested
arguments may prove more compelling catalysts.

Figure 9: Whether vegan diet can contribute to biodiversity conservation

As can be seen in the chart, the most frequent reaction is uncertainty, with over 40%
selecting “neutral,” more skeptical views emerge. Just 6% “completely disagree”
plant-based eating assists conservation, but combined with zero selecting “disagree,”
this indicates nearly no strong opposition. Meanwhile, half of respondents
demonstrate some support at either “agree” (22%) or “completely agree” (28%). With
positive opinions outweighing completely negative ones, the potential exists to sway
more towards fully recognizing animal agriculture’s ties to deforestation, species
declines, and habitat loss, countering uncertainty. However, the prevalence of
undecided viewpoints signals clearly communicating scientific linkages will remain
crucial for enabling wider acceptance of vegan diets' ecological merits. Alternate
ethical rationales may also resonate where biodiversity arguments fall short.