IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i2p566-d1315833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Perceptions of Alternative Protein Sources: Implications for Responsible Agrifood Transition Pathways

Author

Listed:
  • Madita Amoneit

    (School of Business and Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
    Food4Future (F4F), C/O Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), 14979 Grossbeeren, Germany)

  • Dagmara Weckowska

    (School of Business and Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
    Food4Future (F4F), C/O Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), 14979 Grossbeeren, Germany)

  • Myriam Preiss

    (School of Business and Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
    Food4Future (F4F), C/O Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), 14979 Grossbeeren, Germany)

  • Annette Biedermann

    (School of Business and Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany)

  • Leon Gellrich

    (School of Business and Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
    Food4Future (F4F), C/O Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), 14979 Grossbeeren, Germany)

  • Carsten Dreher

    (School of Business and Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
    Food4Future (F4F), C/O Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), 14979 Grossbeeren, Germany)

  • Monika Schreiner

    (Food4Future (F4F), C/O Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), 14979 Grossbeeren, Germany
    Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 14979 Grossbeeren, Germany)

Abstract

Our agrifood systems require transformation to meet today’s challenges, especially the growing demand for protein. Promising alternative protein sources include algae, crickets and jellyfish, but little is known how the public perceives these future options. We argue that to identify responsible pathways for the protein transitions, the public’s views need to be explored. Consequently, the aim of this study was to understand public perceptions of three alternative future pathways for protein transition. Our survey of 474 respondents in Germany showed that the consumption of algae in the future is perceived as possible and more probable than the consumption of animal-based sources of proteins such as cricket and jellyfish. Gender, age, geographical location and food habits were found to influence these perceptions. Reflecting on the differences in the public perceptions of three alternative protein sources, we discuss how inclusive these future visions are and how to manage the innovation and transition responsibly.

Suggested Citation

  • Madita Amoneit & Dagmara Weckowska & Myriam Preiss & Annette Biedermann & Leon Gellrich & Carsten Dreher & Monika Schreiner, 2024. "Public Perceptions of Alternative Protein Sources: Implications for Responsible Agrifood Transition Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:566-:d:1315833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/566/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/566/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathrin Specht & Felix Zoll & Henrike Schümann & Julia Bela & Julia Kachel & Marcel Robischon, 2019. "How Will We Eat and Produce in the Cities of the Future? From Edible Insects to Vertical Farming—A Study on the Perception and Acceptability of New Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.
    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. Donald Coon & Lauren Lindow & Ziynet Boz & Ana Martin-Ryals & Ying Zhang & Melanie Correll, 2024. "Reporting and practices of sustainability in controlled environment agriculture: a scoping review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 301-326, June.
    2. Garrett M. Broad & Wythe Marschall & Maya Ezzeddine, 2022. "Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 417-433, March.
    3. Qureshi, Salman & Tarashkar, Mahsa & Matloobi, Mansour & Wang, Zhifang & Rahimi, Akbar, 2022. "Understanding the dynamics of urban horticulture by socially-oriented practices and populace perception: Seeking future outlook through a comprehensive review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    4. Theodora Karanisa & Yasmine Achour & Ahmed Ouammi & Sami Sayadi, 2022. "Smart greenhouses as the path towards precision agriculture in the food-energy and water nexus: case study of Qatar," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 521-546, December.
    5. Larisa Ivascu & David Frank Ahimaz & Benedict Valentine Arulanandam & Gelu-Ovidiu Tirian, 2021. "The Perception and Degree of Adoption by Urbanites towards Urban Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Irina Zamfirache, 2023. "Entomophagy—Acceptance or Hesitancy in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Adrián Csordás & István Füzesi, 2023. "The Impact of Technophobia on Vertical Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Caixia Ivy Gan & Ruth Soukoutou & Denise Maria Conroy, 2022. "Sustainability Framing of Controlled Environment Agriculture and Consumer Perceptions: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Mina, Giorgio & Peira, Giovanni & Bonadonna, Alessandro, 2023. "Public perception and social sustainability of indoor farming technologies: A systematic review," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Jost Buscher & Julija Bakunowitsch & Kathrin Specht, 2023. "Transformative Potential of Vertical Farming—An Urban Planning Investigation Using Multi-Level Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Yilong Hao & Kai Ding & Yaoyang Xu & Yuting Tang & Dong Liu & Gang Li, 2020. "States, Trends, and Future of Aquaponics Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-14, September.
    12. Marilyne Chicoine & Francine Rodier & Fabien Durif, 2023. "The bright and the dark side of commercial urban agriculture labeling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1153-1170, September.
    13. Aysan Safavi & Runa Thrastardottir & Ragnheidur I. Thorarinsdottir & Runar Unnthorsson, 2024. "Insect Production: A Circular Economy Strategy in Iceland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-25, October.

    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:2:p:566-:d:1315833. 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.