IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i21p9559-d1512875.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

European Perspectives on Public Benefit in Relation to Food: Insights from a Serious Game Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Mohebati

    (Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Elisa Iori

    (Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Morten Haugaard

    (MAPP Centre, Department of Management, Aarhus University, 8210 Aarhus, Denmark)

  • Violeta Stancu

    (MAPP Centre, Department of Management, Aarhus University, 8210 Aarhus, Denmark)

  • Javier de la Cueva

    (Independent Researcher, 28043 Madrid, Spain)

  • Patrik Rovný

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak University of Agriculture, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Erik Jansto

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak University of Agriculture, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Clara Mehlhose

    (Faculty of Agricultural Science, Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany)

  • Alina Schäfer

    (Faculty of Agricultural Science, Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany)

  • Isabelle Weiß

    (Faculty of Agricultural Science, Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany)

  • Charo Hodgkins

    (Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Monique Raats

    (Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

  • Lada Timotijevic

    (Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK)

Abstract

There is limited understanding of what constitutes public benefit from the perspective of the public, and none that we are aware of related to food consumer science. The purpose of this study is to contribute towards a better understanding of public benefit as a whole and its connection to food choice, essential to driving progress towards responsible consumption and healthier diets. Public benefit, associated trade-offs and responsible actors were investigated via written questions, and food choice was explored during group discussions using the PlayDecide methodology. Adults (n = 105) were recruited in six European countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Spain and the UK) and stratified by attained education. Our findings indicate that assumptions should not be made that there is general consensus about what constitutes public benefit, especially with regard to consumer food choice. Group discussions around food-related freedom of choice, education, agency and responsibility suggested that private and public benefit are neither mutually exclusive nor automatically complementary. The serious game approach employed affected a change in participants’ public benefit perceptions, demonstrating its potential to better evaluate the connections between private interests and the common good through meaningful public deliberation.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Mohebati & Elisa Iori & Morten Haugaard & Violeta Stancu & Javier de la Cueva & Patrik Rovný & Erik Jansto & Clara Mehlhose & Alina Schäfer & Isabelle Weiß & Charo Hodgkins & Monique Raats & Lada, 2024. "European Perspectives on Public Benefit in Relation to Food: Insights from a Serious Game Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9559-:d:1512875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9559/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9559/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Murunga & Catriona Macleod & Gretta Pecl, 2024. "Assumptions and contradictions shape public engagement on climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 14(2), pages 126-133, February.
    2. Peter Weingart & Marina Joubert & Karien Connoway, 2021. "Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McKee, Martin & Altmann, Danny & Costello, Anthony & Friston, Karl & Haque, Zubaida & Khunti, Kamlesh & Michie, Susan & Oni, Tolullah & Pagel, Christina & Pillay, Deenan & Reicher, Steve & Salisbury, , 2022. "Open science communication: The first year of the UK's Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 234-244.
    2. Bruce V. Lewenstein, 2022. "Is Citizen Science a Remedy for Inequality?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 183-194, March.
    3. Flor Sánchez & Ricardo Olmos & Leyla Angélica Sandoval & Fernando Casani, 2024. "Psychosocial factors that favor citizen participation in the generation of scientific knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 5021-5036, August.
    4. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    5. Jean-Claude Baraka Munyaka & Jérôme Chenal & Pablo Txomin Harpo de Roulet & Anil Kumar Mandal & Uttam Pudasaini & Nixon Ouku Otieno, 2023. "Multi-Level Participatory GIS Framework to Assess Mobility Needs and Transport Barriers in Rural Areas: A Case Study of Rural Mumias East, a Sub-County of Kakamega, Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9559-:d:1512875. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.