IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03932-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in perspectives on sustainability attributes of dietary protein sources between reduced animal-based dieters and nondieters

Author

Listed:
  • Orsolya Tompa

    (Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

  • Anna Kiss

    (Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
    Pro-Sharp Research and Innovation Centre)

  • Zoltán Lakner

    (Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences)

  • Brigitta Unger-Plasek

    (Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences)

  • Ágoston Temesi

    (Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences)

Abstract

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals envision a sustainable future that includes a shift in food consumption, aiming to reduce anthropogenic environmental impacts. Protein sources are crucial in sustainable diets because of their high environmental influence. Although consumers play a pivotal role in driving the shift towards more sustainable food consumption patterns, research on the perceptions of specific dietary groups regarding protein sources is limited. In this study, the perceived sustainability attributes of eight common protein sources between reduced animal-based dieters (RABs) and nondieters (NDs) were evaluated. Using a cross-sectional survey, we measured demographic data, food consumption frequency, perceived healthiness, and environmental friendliness. We performed conjoint analysis on the importance of the protein sources’ sustainability attributes (nutritional score, ecological score, price, product category). In total, 294 RABs and 247 NDs participated. The majority of the sample consisted of highly educated, childless women aged 18–39 years with high incomes, residing in cities, and responsible for food in their households. The presence of a nutritional score had a positive effect on both consumer groups’ perceptions of product sustainability, whereas the presence of an ecological score negatively affected consumer preferences for more sustainable products. The perceptions of the sustainability of protein sources varied significantly between RABs and NDs. Overall, RABs underestimated the healthiness of animal-based products, whereas NDs underestimated the environmental impact of protein sources. Among the animal-based protein sources, eggs and fish were seen as the most sustainable, with significantly higher means for NDs (p

Suggested Citation

  • Orsolya Tompa & Anna Kiss & Zoltán Lakner & Brigitta Unger-Plasek & Ágoston Temesi, 2024. "Differences in perspectives on sustainability attributes of dietary protein sources between reduced animal-based dieters and nondieters," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03932-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03932-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03932-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03932-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baltar, Fabiola & Brunet Icart, Ignasi, 2012. "Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1875, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    2. Nijdam, Durk & Rood, Trudy & Westhoek, Henk, 2012. "The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 760-770.
    3. Rebecca C. A. Tobi & Francesca Harris & Ritu Rana & Kerry A. Brown & Matthew Quaife & Rosemary Green, 2019. "Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    4. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    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. Alba Rocio Gutierrez Garzon & Pete Bettinger & Jacek Siry & Bin Mei & Jesse Abrams, 2019. "The Terms Foresters and Planners in the United States Use to Infer Sustainability in Forest Management Plans: A Survey Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Westhoek, Henk & Ingram, John & van Berkum, Siemen & Hajer, Maarten, 2015. "The European food system and natural resources: Impacts and Options," 148th Seminar, November 30-December 1, 2015, The Hague, The Netherlands 229279, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Alberto Bertossi & Stefania Troiano & Francesco Marangon, 2022. "Where is sustainability? An assessment of vending products," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 155-180.
    4. Adam A. Prag & Christian B. Henriksen, 2020. "Transition from Animal-Based to Plant-Based Food Production to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture—The Case of Denmark," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    5. Bianca Polenzani & Chiara Riganelli & Andrea Marchini, 2020. "Sustainability Perception of Local Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Consumers’ Attitude: A New Italian Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Brandtjen, Roland, 2023. "In varietate concordia - United in diversity: An analyze of the EU environment according to its motto," IU Discussion Papers - Business & Management 6 (Oktober 2023), IU International University of Applied Sciences.
    7. Ronja Teschner & Jessica Ruppen & Basil Bornemann & Rony Emmenegger & Lucía Aguirre Sánchez, 2021. "Mapping Sustainable Diets: A Comparison of Sustainability References in Dietary Guidelines of Swiss Food Governance Actors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Morena Bruno & Marianne Thomsen & Federico Maria Pulselli & Nicoletta Patrizi & Michele Marini & Dario Caro, 2019. "The carbon footprint of Danish diets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 489-507, October.
    9. Huangling Gu & Yan Liu & Hao Xia & Zilong Li & Liyuan Huang & Yanjia Zeng, 2023. "Temporal and Spatial Differences in CO 2 Equivalent Emissions and Carbon Compensation Caused by Land Use Changes and Industrial Development in Hunan Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, May.
    10. Prentice, Catherine & Nguyen, Mai, 2021. "Robotic service quality – Scale development and validation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    11. Xiaoke Yang & Meiling Hong & Dejin Shi & Qian Chen, 2022. "The Negative Effects of Physical Activity Calorie Equivalent Labels on Consumers’ Food Brand Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-19, October.
    12. Helen Harwatt & Joan Sabaté & Gidon Eshel & Sam Soret & William Ripple, 2017. "Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 261-270, July.
    13. Dominic Lemken & Mandy Knigge & Stephan Meyerding & Achim Spiller, 2017. "The Value of Environmental and Health Claims on New Legume Products: A Non-Hypothetical Online Auction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Peter Scarborough & Paul Appleby & Anja Mizdrak & Adam Briggs & Ruth Travis & Kathryn Bradbury & Timothy Key, 2014. "Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 179-192, July.
    15. Jose Ribamar Siqueira Junior & Enrique Horst & German Molina & Laura H. Gunn & Felipe Reinoso-Carvalho & Burcu Sezen & Nathalie Peña-García, 2023. "Branding in the eye of the storm: the impact of brand ethical behavior on brand commitment during the COVID-19 crisis in a South American country," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 95-115, March.
    16. Thorn, Alexandra M. & Baker, Michael J. & Peters, Christian J., 2021. "Estimating biological capacity for grass-finished ruminant meat production in New England and New York," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    17. Chantal Le Mouël & Anna Birgit Milford & Benjamin L. Bodirsky & Susanne Rolinski, 2019. "Drivers of meat consumption," Post-Print hal-02175593, HAL.
    18. Wasib Latif, 2022. "Determinants of Hotel Brand Image: A Unified Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity," International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management (IJCRMM), IGI Global, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, January.
    19. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.
    20. Rachel Corry & Jessica Holt & Alexa J. Lamm & Abigail Borron, 2023. "Do You Really Want to Know? Exploring Desired Information Transparency for Local Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-16, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03932-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.