Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorde Koning, Wimen
dc.contributor.authorDean, David L.en
dc.contributor.authorVriesekoop, F.en
dc.contributor.authorAguiar, L. K.en
dc.contributor.authorAnderson, Martinen
dc.contributor.authorMongondry, P.en
dc.contributor.authorOppong-Gyamfi, M.en
dc.contributor.authorUrbano, B.en
dc.contributor.authorLuciano, C. A. G.en
dc.contributor.authorJiang, B.en
dc.contributor.authorHao, W.en
dc.contributor.authorEastwick, E.en
dc.contributor.authorJiang, Z.en
dc.contributor.authorBoereboom, A.en
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-24T23:19:56Z
dc.date.available2020-09-14en
dc.date.issued2020-09en
dc.identifier.issn2304-8158en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10182/13255
dc.description.abstractInsects as an alternative protein source has gained traction for its advantageous environmental impact. Despite being part of many traditional food cultures, insects remain a novelty in Western cultures and a challenging concept for many. Even though plant-based protein alternatives are not facing the same barriers, product unfamiliarity and limited exposure hinder adoption, which could be detrimental to growth within the food sector. This study is aimed at evaluating plant- and insect-based proteins as alternative dietary proteins. A model indicating the drivers of consumer attitudes towards meat-alternative proteins and consumer willingness to try, buy, and pay a premium was tested. Further, 3091 responses were collected using surveys in nine countries: China, USA, France, UK, New Zealand, Netherlands, Brazil, Spain, and the Dominican Republic. Structural Equation Modelling was used to analyze the data. We found that consumer’s behavioral intentions towards both plant-based and insect-based alternatives are inhibited by food neophobia but to an extent, are amplified by the perceived suitability and benefits of the protein, which in turn are driven by nutritional importance, environmental impact, healthiness, and sensory attributes for both alternatives. The expectation of the nutritional value of meat is the strongest (negative) influence on perceived suitability/benefits of plant-based protein and willingness to try, buy, and pay more for plant-based proteins, but it only has a relatively small impact on the suitability/benefits of insect-based protein and no impact on willingness to try, buy, and pay more for insect-based proteins. Overall, we conclude that consumer adoption towards meat alternatives is complex and is strengthened by the perceived suitability/benefits of the protein and general importance of perceived food healthiness and sustainability. Conversely, adoption is hindered by dietary factors and the experiential importance of meat and food neophobia.en
dc.format.extent18en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherMDPIen
dc.relationThe original publication is available from - MDPI - https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091292en
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091292en
dc.rights© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectwillingness to tryen
dc.subjectneophobiaen
dc.subjectstructural equation modelen
dc.titleDrivers and inhibitors in the acceptance of meat alternatives: The case of plant and insect-based proteinsen
dc.typeJournal Article
lu.contributor.unitLincoln Universityen
lu.contributor.unitFaculty of Agribusiness and Commerceen
lu.contributor.unitDepartment of Agribusiness and Marketsen
lu.contributor.unitDepartment of Global Value Chains and Tradeen
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/foods9091292en
dc.subject.anzsrc150501 Consumer-Oriented Product or Service Developmenten
dc.subject.anzsrc1505 Marketingen
dc.subject.anzsrc150504 Marketing Measurementen
dc.subject.anzsrc0908 Food Sciencesen
dc.relation.isPartOfFoodsen
pubs.issue9en
pubs.notesDate of acceptance: 10 Sep 2020 This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensory and Consumer Research for a Sustainable Food Systemen
pubs.organisational-group/LU
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce/AGMK
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce/GVCT
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Research Management Office
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Research Management Office/PE20
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Research Management Office/QE18
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
pubs.volume9en
dc.identifier.eissn2304-8158en
dc.rights.licenceAttributionen
dc.rights.licenceAttributionen
lu.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2534-8065
lu.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1773-3510
pubs.article-number1292en


Files in this item

Default Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Creative Commons AttributionCreative Commons Attribution
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Creative Commons AttributionCreative Commons Attribution