4.8 Review

Upcycled by-product use in agri-food systems from a consumer perspective: A review of what we know, and what is missing

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120749

关键词

Waste-to-value; Upcycling; Circular economy; Bio-economy; Consumer behaviour; Acceptance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sustainable bio-economy requires reintegration of agricultural and food production by-products and side-streams into the value cycle for waste reduction and efficient resource use. Consumer acceptance of waste-to-value food products is influenced by various factors, and research on this phenomenon needs to be expanded to include a wider variety of methods, theories, and research contexts.
A sustainable bio-economy requires that by-products and side-streams in agricultural and food production are reinserted into the value cycle, a concept also called valorisation or upcycling. The concept constitutes an important sustainability-oriented innovation practice contributing to waste reduction and efficient resource use. However, while the literature focuses primarily on the technical side, there is little research on societal and economic implications, or the consumer perspective of such value creation. This paper addresses this lack through a systematic review of empirical consumer research on waste-to-value in food and drink from the past ten years, and provides suggestions for further research directions. It is concluded that acceptance of waste-tovalue food products among consumers is determined by individual, context and product-related factors. Environmental concern and awareness and communication about environmental benefits and food waste avoidance can improve acceptance and choice. There is a need for a wider variety of methods, theories and research contexts in studying the phenomenon. Stakeholders and researchers should take a broader perspective on the topic in order to accelerate the uptake of circularity in the interrelation of food and other industry domains.

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

4.8
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