4.5 Article

Consumption orientations may support (or hinder) transitions to more plant based diets

期刊

APPETITE
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 19-26

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.027

关键词

Plant-based diets; Meat consumption; Consumption orientations; Sustainability; Health

资金

  1. Sonae MC
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/115110/2016]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/115110/2016] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There have been increasing calls for triggering and sustaining a large-scale transition toward healthier and more sustainable food systems. To help materialize this transition, the present work aims to inform efforts for developing, marketing and promoting plant-based meals and plant-forward lifestyles, following a consumption-focused approach. The findings (N-participants = 1600, Portugal; 52.6% female, M-age = 48.30) allowed to identify trends and differences on three sets of variables - (a) current eating habits (i.e., meat, fish, and plant-based meals), (b) consumer willingness to change (i.e., reduce meat consumption, follow a plant-based diet, maintain the status quo), and (c) enablers for eating plant-based meals more often (i.e., capability, opportunity, motivation) -, considering consumer orientations toward consumption in general, and food consumption in particular. Taken together, the results suggested that some consumption orientations were aligned with the transition to more plant-based diets (e.g., food orientation toward naturalness), others were open to - but not yet materialized in - the transition (e.g., general orientation toward consumption as exploration), and still others were in tension with the transition (e.g., food orientation toward pleasure). The discussion calls for developing and testing pathways to reduce meat consumption and increase plant-based eating which capture and build upon a range of consumption orientations, rather than against them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据