Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

Measuring sustainable consumer food purchasing and behavior

Samuel S. Polzin a, *, Jayson L. Lusk a, b, Ahmad Zia Wahdat a, b
a
Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability, Purdue University, 403 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
b
Agricultural Economics Department, Purdue University, 403 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Consumer food purchasing and willingness to adopt a sustainable healthy diet (SHD) is a key factor affecting the
Sustainable healthy diet sustainability of the entire food system. Studies have developed scales to measure consumer preferences for
Food system particular consumption patterns, while others have sought to empirically define the multiple dimensions of a
Food choice
sustainable food system (environmental, social, economic, etc.). This paper builds on these literatures by tracking
Consumer behavior
Factor analysis
consumers’ SHD behaviors using a large-scale, longitudinal survey of adults in the United States and mapping
them onto multiple systems-level indicators. We wanted to know whether consumers interact with the sus­
tainability of their food along the same principles developed by experts. Our study defines 18 food purchasing
behaviors that support the sustainability goals of leading scientific institutions, uses factor analysis to identify the
unobserved drivers behind these behaviors, and creates SHD scores to investigate their correlations with other
consumer characteristics and behaviors. Factor analysis results show consumer food purchasing is motivated by
three underlying sustainability dimensions—Economic Security, Socio-Environment, and Nutrition—which are
fewer constructs than often defined by academic researchers. SHD scores reveal higher adoption of behaviors
that fall under Economic Security relative to the other two dimensions. All three sustainability constructs are
impacted by socio-economic and demographic characteristics.

1. Introduction sustainable healthy diets (SHDs) (Curi-Quinto et al., 2022; Harrison

et al., 2022; Martini et al., 2021; Teixeira et al., 2022).
The intensifying challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, An important piece of these evaluative goals is understanding the
economic inequality, diet-related disease, and COVID-19 have moti­ consumer relationship to food sustainability. However, much work re­
vated an acute public concern for the long-term sustainability of na­ mains to be done to identify and track consumers’ food behaviors across
tional food systems. Environmental assessment shows global food multiple sustainability dimensions and their intentions and attitudes
systems and food production are significant drivers of greenhouse gas related to sustainable food behaviors. To address this issue, we reported
emissions and land and water use (Campbell et al., 2017; Vermeulen the results of a large-scale, longitudinal tracking survey among adult
et al., 2012). Demand side studies suggest that modifying food con­ consumers in the United States to assess how well their stated pur­
sumption patterns could have positive results for both human health and chasing and consumption behaviors align with the prevailing sustain­
the climate—e.g., by reducing high intakes of meat and vegetable oils able indicators. We sought to answer several related questions: Can we
and replacing them with diets oriented around legumes, fruits, and describe consumers’ sustainable healthy diet behaviors with the estab­
vegetables (Perignon et al., 2017; Steenson & Buttriss, 2021). Moti­ lished food system dimensions presently used to determine national and
vating this dietary change is increasingly seen as one solution for global level progress toward sustainability? Are these dimensions stable
achieving upstream food sustainability goals, and developing dietary over time? What environmental determinants affect consumer adher­
guidelines with sustainable outcomes in mind has become a recent focal ence to each food sustainability dimension? Ultimately, we set out with
point of academic research and food policy (Blackstone et al., 2018; the goal of creating SHD scores that would allow us to compare across
Reynolds et al., 2014; Springmann et al., 2020). As the literature on this consumer segments and further investigate possible causal factors. With
topic has grown, it increasingly seeks to measure current alignment with a validated scale of consumer-level sustainability, we will be able to
and monitor long-term adherence to the guiding principles of assess the impact of future interventions and extrapolate behavioral

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.S. Polzin), [email protected] (J.L. Lusk), [email protected] (A.Z. Wahdat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106369
Received 11 August 2022; Received in revised form 26 October 2022; Accepted 6 November 2022
Available online 12 November 2022
0195-6663/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

change onto food system sustainability indicators. means helps build the basis for the behaviors encompassed in the rest of
Systems level indicators of food sustainability are commonly this paper, as other survey research has similarly used it to help define a
assessed along four broad dimensions, namely: environment, economic, sustainable diet (Tepper et al., 2021; Pucci, Casprini, Sogari, & Zanni,
social, and food & nutrition (Béné et al., 2019). The complexity and 2022).
compounding nature of these dimensions means numerous methodolo­ Given the continually evolving discussion around empirically
gies for describing and assessing sustainable diets exist in the literature quantifying sustainability, the main objective of this research is to
(Eme et al., 2019; Gustafson et al., 2016; Hebinck et al., 2021; Johnston develop and validate a tracking instrument that can assess current SHD
et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2016). Greenhouse gas emissions, land use, consumer behaviors as a supplemental tool for understanding the
meat consumption, diet quality, diet cost, local food procurement, social broader dimensions of food system sustainability.
equity, animal welfare, fair trade, and many more related components of
sustainable diets are used as metrics for new dietary guidelines. But, 2. Methods
using four general dimensions to ground food systems research allows
for integrated study of major drivers (e.g., consumer demand) under a 2.1. Scale development
composite index that can measure corollary strength with specific food
sustainability outcomes (Béné, Fanzo, Prager, et al., 2020; Chen et al., We originally theorized a SHD pattern using six dimensions: nutri­
2019). This improved understanding of the underlying drivers of sus­ tion, environment, social, economic, security, and taste. The first four
tainability in food systems will make it easier for policymakers at many indicators—nutrition, environment, social, and economic—are well-
levels to comprehend and holistically respond across issue areas like established areas for evaluating SHDs (Béné et al., 2019; Chen et al.,
food affordability and nutritiousness. Emerging studies operationalize 2019; Hebinck et al., 2021). The fifth indicator—security—comprises
these areas to monitor the trajectory of food system change (Béné, another significant facet of the sustainability research, which argues
Fanzo, Haddad, et al., 2020; Dinesh et al., 2021; Reisch, 2021). Despite food security is inseparable from the long-term viability of the food
large literatures on consumers’ environmental attitudes and system (Berry et al., 2015; Lang & Barling, 2012; Vågsholm et al., 2020).
willingness-to-pay for specific food attributes and labels, there are still The last indicator—taste—is less well-studied in relation to food sus­
key gaps in understanding integrative consumer behavior along the tainability but an important aspect of the consumer research, which
multiple sustainability dimensions. shows that a plurality of adults in high-income countries prioritize taste
Consumer preferences for purported pro-ecological consumption, in determining food choice (Kantar, 2020; Piester et al., 2020; Turnwald
such as local or organic foods, are widely studied (Feldmann & Hamm, & Crum, 2019). We thus understood these six dimensions to be the
2015; Lee & Yun, 2015; Tobler et al., 2011). Several measurement scales fewest possible constructs framing possible food sustainability
further evaluate and validate the characteristics of environmentally behaviors.
sustainable food behaviors (Verain et al., 2015; Weller et al., 2014). The food sustainability and consumer choice research helped us to
These studies reinforce the notion that a single dimension of food sus­ identify consumer behaviors which we hypothesized would track onto
tainability does not adequately capture the contextual factors and con­ these six pre-defined dimensions (factors) of food system sustainability.
sumer characteristics that influence perceptions and behaviors. Fewer For each grouping, we constructed three statements about food pur­
studies, however, have created an instrument that integrates the eco­ chasing decisions (Table 1). This list includes behaviors available to
nomic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability behaviors
with nutrition, and to our knowledge, none collect time series data on
Table 1
these choices (Żakowska-Biemans et al., 2019). Because eating a healthy
List of statements used in SHD scale development.
diet that is sustainable on multiple dimensions can produce trade-offs
and synergies for consumers—e.g., calls to reduce red meat intake to Survey Items

improve both health and environmental outcomes—thorough consid­ 1. Nutrition

eration of each dimension is important if consumption patterns are to Buy mostly whole fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and beans
Avoid most highly processed foods that have empty calories
materially improve (Aschemann-Witzel, 2015; Brouwer et al., 2021;
Buy a diversity of foods with many different fats, proteins, vitamins, etc.
Hoek et al., 2017; Verain et al., 2016). This study thus derives and im­
plements a multi-dimensional, multi-indicator instrument that measures 2. Environment
Avoid buying too much food and creating food waste
and tracks self-reported willingness to adopt a so-called SHD con­ Buy foods with lower land, water, and greenhouse gas footprints
sumption pattern. Avoid highly packaged foods and single-use plastics
There is debate regarding how to usefully define the specific com­
3. Social
ponents of an SHD. Per the guiding principles published by the Food and Buy food that is produced humanely for both animals and workers
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Avoid food businesses that are unfair or exploitative in their practices
Organization (WHO) (2019, p. 9): “Sustainable Healthy Diets are dietary Buy food that fits my cultural or customary diet
patterns that promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and well­ 4. Economic
being; have low environmental pressure and impact, are accessible Buy food that is affordable and fits my budget
affordable, safe and equitable, and are culturally acceptable.” Impor­ Buy food from stores and restaurants where I have lots of options
Buy food whenever and wherever I want it
tantly, diets differ within and across regions, cultures, and customs,
meaning there is unlikely to be a single, universal sustainable diet. Given 5. Security
this consideration, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health Buy enough food to last so that I don’t go hungry
Avoid low quality foods that are not desirable or nourishing
has charted a shared framework for integrating scientific targets with Buy food that is safe and free of dangerous chemicals or bacteria
food choices that are adaptable and scalable (Willett et al., 2019). Cri­
6. Taste
tiques have called into question the affordability, feasibility, and sus­
Buy tasty food that is pleasing and satisfying to me
tainability of the recommendations for many places and people; Buy visually appealing food that looks good to me
however, the Commission explains an actionable reference diet, as well Buy food that makes me feel good, physically and mentally
as broad food system changes, which could reasonably bring U.S. con­
Notes: Statements are original to this research; the text of the question read:
sumers closer an SHD pattern (Hirvonen et al., 2020; van Selm et al., “Reflect on your own diet and your experience purchasing food in recent weeks.
2022; Vanham et al., 2020). The emphasis of the EAT-Lancet reference Think about the food you plan to buy over the next few weeks. Do you expect to
diet on diverse fruit and vegetable consumption, less waste, more op­ make any changes? Please tell us which of the following statements apply to you
tions, and preparation of food that tastes good and fits one’s economic and your food.”

2
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

every consumer in a food system that reliably offers healthy, low impact, com/). These panels consist of people from across all 50 states who have
responsibly sourced, safe, affordable, and tasty food. We underwent agreed to take online surveys for compensation, and all participants
several rounds of debate on which eating habits could be measured at provided electronic consent before taking part in the study (Dynata,
the individual level and would closely relate to a single sustainability 2020). The eligible population included U.S. adults ages 18+. Ethical
dimension. Statements like “buy foods that contains lots of vitamins and approval for data collection was granted by the Purdue University
minerals” and “buy foods that are seasonal” are an example rejected Human Research Protection Program and Institutional Review Board in
questionnaire items. We argued the former could not be reliably West Lafayette, Indiana (# IRB-2021-1587). We collected survey re­
answered by consumers and the latter should not necessarily be sponses five times over five months in 2022–January (n = 1213),
considered sustainable. Moreover, we avoided using the word “sus­ February (n = 1227), March (n = 1289), April (n = 1252), and May (n =
tainable” in this scale as well as referring to specific food labeling, such 1257)—which totaled 6328 observations. In each month following
as organic, local, or plant-based, due to the unreliable practical appli­ January, we re-invited the past month’s respondents to complete the
cation of these terms across the marketplace. Consumers often do not survey again before filling the rest of our sample with new respondents.
have complete or even partial knowledge of their food, and as such, we As a result, around 20–30% of the respondents in February–May took
sought to strike a balance between statements that could be sufficiently the survey the previous month. Ultimately, we rely on the aggregate
correlated to sustainable healthy outcomes and would be easily under­ sample (n = 6328) to create our model but we also study the temporal
stood by survey respondents. stability of the SHD measures over time.
Our questionnaire focuses on actual behaviors rather than attitudes Table 2 reports selected socio-economic and demographic charac­
or aspirations about food. Furthermore, the transtheoretical model teristics of the sample. Overall, these characteristics diverge moderately
(TTM) of health behavioral change argues that individuals experience compared to U.S. Census population data. On average, the sample is
stages of readiness as they attempt to act on a new healthier behavior older, more educated, and less Hispanic than official national counts,
(Hashemzadeh et al., 2019; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). These stages of but respondents were fairly well-balanced across gender, income, and
behavioral modification are: precontemplation, contemplation, prepa­ geographic variables. This demographic profile of our sample stayed
ration, action, and maintenance. Conventionally used in the field of broadly consistent for each month. Because the study is largely focused
health behavior, Tobler et al. (2011) showed TTM could be used to on developing an instrument that can reliably measure self-reported
measure consumers’ willingness to adopt different ecological con­ consumer sustainability behaviors rather than on characterizing spe­
sumption patterns. Weller et al. (2014) further developed TTM measures cific sustainability outcomes of the food system, we do not modify the
to tailor education interventions for promoting green eating. The sample data with weights in this paper.
strength of this model is its ability to track durable changes in behaviors
as people move through different stages of intention and action. Based
on TTM, we judged people’s purchasing and consumption on the 2.3. Statistical analysis
following five-point scale: “No, and I don’t expect to in the next 6
months” (precontemplation); “No, but I want to start in the next 6 Data were analyzed using R Statistical Software (v4.1.2; R Core
months” (contemplation); “I want to and I plan to start in the next Team, 2021) and three statistical packages: psych (v2.2.5; Revelle,
month” (preparation); “Yes, but I only started in the last 6 months” 2022), lavaan (v0.6-11; Rosseel, 2012), and stats (v4.1.3; R Core Team,
(action); or “Yes, and I have for more than 6 months” (maintenance). 2021). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first performed to test
Average scores were used to summarize and compare across the grouped
items. Table 2
Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of sample.
2.2. Data collection Category % n Census

N Obs. 6238
The data used in this research are part of a larger ongoing omnibus Age
consumer tracking survey asking over 100 questions on various food 18–34 years old 22 1373 30
demand topics. The SHD instrument is asked at the beginning of the 35–54 years old 33 2085 33
survey. 55 years or older 45 2780 37
Race
Supplemental survey modules are used in this research to externally
White 73 4559 58
validate the final SHD factors relative to other food behaviors by eval­ Black 10 642 12
uating their correlation (see Supplement A). We expect those who score Asian 5 292 6
high on parts of the SHD scale to rate highly on other sustainability Hispanic 8 523 19
behaviors. For example, one of these additional modules employs the Other 4 222 5
Sex
“U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form” to Male 49 3029 49
measure food insecurity, as well as a question on participation in the Female 51 3177 51
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (Economic Transgender or other <1 32 <1
Research Service, 2012). We predicted significant negative correlation Region
Northeast 20 1268 17
between these measures of food insecurity and items on the SHD scale
Midwest 22 1357 21
related to buying enough affordable, safe, and tasty food. Another set of South 38 2399 38
survey questions asks how often consumers participated in specific West 20 1214 24
shopping or eating behaviors related to sustainability—e.g., chose Income
plant-based proteins over animal proteins; checked the nutrition label <$35,000/year 30 1891 26
$35,000–$100,000/year 44 2737 41
before buying news foods; and took steps to reduce food waste at home. >$100,000/year 26 1610 33
Responses are on a five-point scale from never (1) to always (5). If Education
consumers report a high degree of willingness to adopt food behaviors >BA/BS college degree 46 2879 38
that are environmentally friendly, socially responsible, etc., then we Notes: This sample was aggregated from five surveys over five months
should be able to observe these actions on multiple measures. (January–May 2022). Concerning the race variable, White, Black, and Asian
We used Qualtrics to build the online survey form and obtained adults include those who report being only one race and are not Hispanic.
completed responses using panels of consumers maintained by the Hispanics adults are of any race. The region variable is defined according to the
commercial survey firm Dynata (see their website: https://www.dynata. U.S. Census Bureau.

3
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

our initial hypothesis of six latent constructs (factors) underlying the 18 Table 3
observed SHD variables (Brown & Moore, 2012). In other words, we Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and confirmatory factor analysis
understood a priori that food sustainability is made up of pre-defined fit.
dimensions—nutrition, environment, social, economic, security, and Statistics for 6-factor structure
taste—and used CFA to statistically measure and verify the unide­ Survey Items Mean SD
mensionality of this theoretical structure (see Borychowski et al., 2022
1. Nutrition 3.60 1.21
for a recent example of this approach). To evaluate the model fit, we
Buy mostly whole fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and beans
reported the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Avoid most highly processed foods that have empty calories
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each Buy a diversity of foods with many different fats, proteins, vitamins, Cronbach’s
factor. Due to a questionable model fit, an exploratory factor analysis etc. alpha = 0.71
(EFA) using the principal factor solution with varimax rotation was then 2. Environment 3.25 1.21
applied on the SHD items to better understand the factor structure Avoid buying too much food and creating food waste
without imposing any preconceived notions and to identify the ideal Buy foods with lower land, water, and greenhouse gas footprints
Avoid highly packaged foods and single-use plastics Cronbach’s
number of factors. The technique is commonly used to aid in scale
alpha = 0.71
development (Ferguson & Cox, 1993). To externally validate the scale,
3. Social 3.25 1.27
we next calculated Pearson correlation coefficients to determine
Buy food that is produced humanely for both animals and workers
whether the resulting factors, which were averaged on a one to five scale Avoid food businesses that are unfair or exploitative in their
from least sustainable to most sustainable, relate to other measures of practices
sustainable food behaviors. Finally, an ordinary least squares regression Buy food that fits my cultural or customary diet Cronbach’s
model explores the relationship between the SHD factors and a series of alpha = 0.73
selected socio-economic and demographic variables (i.e., age, race, sex, 4. Economic 4.05 1.07
region, income, and education). Buy food that is affordable and fits my budget
Buy food from stores and restaurants where I have lots of options
Buy food whenever and wherever I want it Cronbach’s
3. Results alpha = 0.72

5. Security 3.99 1.09

3.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
Buy enough food to last so that I don’t go hungry
Avoid low quality foods that are not desirable or nourishing
Based on the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test for sampling adequacy, Buy food that is safe and free of dangerous chemicals or bacteria Cronbach’s
which considers values between 0.8 and 1.0 acceptable, the suitability of alpha = 0.74
the 18 survey items for factor analysis was high (0.94) (Kaiser & Rice, 6. Taste 4.24 1.05
1974). Subsequently, Table 3 reports the application of factor analysis to Buy tasty food that is pleasing and satisfying to me
confirm the appropriateness of the six theorized constructs. For internal Buy visually appealing food that looks good to me
Buy food that makes me feel good, physically and mentally Cronbach’s
consistency, every factor had Cronbach’s alpha coefficients above the alpha = 0.86
0.70 threshold, which is considered acceptable (O’Leary-Kelly & RMSEA = 0.08; TLI = 0.89
Vokurka, 1998). After performing CFA, however, the RMSEA value was Chi-square = 4616.14; df = 120
0.08 and the TLI was 0.89. For these types of models, values close to 0.06 Notes: n = 6328.
or below for the RMSEA and values close to 0.95 or greater for the TLI
establish an acceptable fit. The suitability of the six factor model was
statements loaded onto fewer factors than originally conceived when
thus somewhat questionable (Venkatraman, 1989). As such, an EFA was
theorizing this instrument, nearly every set of three items loaded onto
required to better assess the underlying constructs of our observed SHD
the same factor as each other (except for an environment-related item on
variables and identify the optimal number of factors. Of note, the
food waste), which is encouraging for factor construction (see Grebitus,
standardized factor loadings from the CFA can be found in Supplement
2021). The reported RMSEA value of 0.06 and TLI value of 0.94 are also
B.
much closer to the acceptable cutoffs, which indicates three factors is
likely the optimal number for this set of questions.
3.2. Exploratory factor analysis

The 18 items were next evaluated using factor analysis with principal 3.3. Correlations with other “sustainability” behaviors
factor method and varimax rotation. A three-factor solution was found
to best fit the data based on the eigenvalues, parallel analysis, and Table 5 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between the three
comparison of multiple models. This model explained 51% of the vari­ SHD factors found using EFA and other food sustainability-related sur­
ance in the data with eigenvalues of 4.73, 2.93, and 1.58. Though the vey items. Virtually all relationships showed p-values below the 0.05
variance for which is accounted is lower than ideal, we have the dual level. Socio-Environment (Factor 2), which includes items commonly
goal of identifying factors that will correlate with external variables, associated with environmental sustainability, generally had the stron­
which we demonstrate later in our analysis (see Fanelli, 2019). The gest positive relationship with the eight other surveyed sustainability
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients as well as the fit statistics can be found in behaviors. Nutrition (Factor 3) also showed strong positive relationships
Table 4. with these items, particularly “checked the nutrition label before buying
Factor 1 contains the ten statements—those originally attributed to new foods, and “chose organic foods over non-organic-foods,” which
the taste, economic, and security factors, as well as one environment would be coherent with its three nutrition-based components. Economic
item—thus it is labeled “Economic Security.” Factor 2 consists of the Security (Factor 1) had the weakest relationship with these either sus­
other two environment items, in addition to the social items, resulting in tainability behaviors, except for “took steps to reduce food waste at
the label “Socio-Environment.” Factor 3 includes the three nutrition- home,” which is consistent with this factor containing the only item
related statements and thus retains the “Nutrition” label. The Cron­ related to food waste. Notably, Economic Security had a demonstrable
bach’s alphas ranged from 0.7 to 0.9—above the threshold for satis­ negative relationship with the food insecurity measure and SNAP
factory scales—and were overall larger than the values found for the six participation, which is further validating of its food security component.
original factors. Furthermore, these loadings were generally consistent In comparison, Socio-Environment had a positive relationship with these
on a monthly basis (see Supplement C). While the sustainability two measures, while Nutrition had no relationship. These results

4
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

Table 4 therefore suggest we can be confident that the three-factor structure is

Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and exploratory factor analysis accurately measuring the sustainability dimensions we identified.
fit statistics for 3-factor structure.
Survey Items Mean SD 3.4. Determinants influencing SHD patterns
1. Economic Security 4.06 0.94
Buy tasty food that is pleasing and satisfying to me The distribution of values and their probability tails for the SHD
Buy visually appealing food that looks good to me factors are presented in Fig. 1. These kernel density plots show the
Buy food that makes me feel good, physically and mentally
Buy enough food to last so that I don’t go hungry
highest scores on Economic Security (Factor 1) and lowest scores on
Buy food that is affordable and fits my budget Socio-Environment (Factor 2). Their median values differ by over 1 point.
Buy food from stores and restaurants where I have lots of options On average, Nutrition (Factor 3) had scores between the other two fac­
Buy food that is safe and free of dangerous chemicals or bacteria tors. Notably, the distribution of values on Economic Security and
Buy food whenever and wherever I want it
Nutrition have a significant left skew, while the variance for Socio-Envi­
Avoid low quality foods that are not desirable or nourishing
Avoid buying too much food and creating food waste Cronbach’s ronment is more normally distributed but much higher than the other
alpha = 0.90 two factors.
2. Socio-Environment 3.15 1.20
Table 6 shows the socio-economic and demographic determinants
Avoid food businesses that are unfair or exploitative in their for the SHD factors based on an ordinary least squares regression model.
practices Broadly speaking, the age, sex, income, and education variables all had
Buy food that is produced humanely for both animals and workers significant effects on sustainability based on p-values below the 0.05
Buy foods with lower land, water, and greenhouse gas footprints
level. Across all three factors, having a household income below
Avoid highly packaged foods and single-use plastics
Buy food that fits my cultural or customary diet Cronbach’s $35,000 per year and having a bachelor’s degree or higher
alpha = 0.83

3. Nutrition 3.60 1.21

Avoid most highly processed foods that have empty calories
Buy mostly whole fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and beans
Buy a diversity of foods with many different fats, proteins, vitamins, Cronbach’s
etc. alpha = 0.71
RMSEA = 0.06; TLI = 0.94
Chi-square = 53247.61; df = 153

Notes: n = 6328.

Table 5
Pearson correlation coefficients between SHD scale and supplemental survey
items.
Supplemental Survey Items 1. Economic 2. Socio- 3.
Security Environment Nutrition

Chose organic foods over non- 0.11* 0.47* 0.37*

organic foods
Choose local foods over non-local 0.13* 0.43* 0.30*
foods
Chose plant-based proteins over 0.01 0.44* 0.27*
animal proteins
Checked the nutrition label before 0.26* 0.40* 0.42*
buying new foods
Checked where my food 0.11* 0.47* 0.33*
originated
Checked how my food was 0.06* 0.49* 0.31*
produced
Took steps to reduce food waste at 0.33* 0.31* 0.29*
home
Composted food scraps − 0.03* 0.33* 0.18*

6-item food insecurity module − 0.16* 0.17* 0.00

Supplemental Nutrition − 0.10* 0.11* − 0.01
Assistance Program (SNAP, i.e.,
food stamps) participation

Notes: The first eight items are measured on a 5-point scale from “never” to
“always” as respondents reported how often each statement applied to them in
the last 30 days; the 6-item food security module evaluates changes to household
dietary patterns in the last 30 days as a result of financial hardship and is
measured as a score from 0 to 6; SNAP participation is a binary variable based on
whether respondents or anyone in their household currently receive benefits
from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); n = 6328; *p <
0.05.

Fig. 1. Kernel density plots of SHD factors.

5
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

Table 6 change that could help meet these goals (Vermeir et al., 2020).
Regression analysis of SHD factors, B (SE). For example, Morren et al. (2021) argue that a health-based framing
Category 1. Economic 2. Socio- 3. Nutrition for informational nudges could help shift diets in a more environmen­
Security Environment tally sustainable direction, but we observe that two different underlying
(Constant) 4.26 (0.07)*** 3.03 (0.10)*** 3.67 (0.10) constructs motivate health and environmental behavior change.
*** Socio-cultural conditions more closely coincide with environmental
Age preferences, which aligns with authors like Eker et al. (2019) who show
18–34 years old vs. 55 − 0.46 (0.03) 0.24 (0.04)*** − 0.06 social norms to be a driver of widespread changes like reductions in red
years or older *** (0.04)
35–54 years old vs. 55 − 0.28 (0.03) 0.25 (0.04)*** − 0.00
meat consumption. Similarly, avoiding excess food waste is more closely
years or older *** (0.04) associated with having the economic ability to buy the food one wants
Race than a desire to purchase food with a lower environmental footprint.
White vs. Other 0.07 (0.06) 0.04 (0.08) 0.01 (0.08) These results reinforce behavioral change strategies that emphasize the
Black vs. Other 0.02 (0.07) 0.17 (0.09) 0.07 (0.09)
economic and financial conditions of food waste over the environmental
Asian vs. Other − 0.20 (0.08)* − 0.13 (0.11) − 0.07
(0.11) impact (Conrad, 2020). Thus, where some studies might call for the
Hispanic vs. Other − 0.09 (0.07) 0.21 (0.09)* 0.08 (0.09) development of numerous well-defined indicators for modeling food
Sex systems (see Aldaya et al., 2021), studies modeling consumer food be­
Male vs. Female − 0.10 (0.02) − 0.11 (0.03)*** − 0.11 haviors can focus on fewer sustainability components and their in­
*** (0.03)***
Region
terrelations. Understanding and tracking these behavioral synergies will
Northeast vs. West 0.07 (0.04) 0.10 (0.05)* 0.10 (0.03)* help better involve consumers in the transition toward a sustainable
Midwest vs. West 0.07 (0.04)* − 0.06 (0.05) − 0.01 food system.
(0.05) Economic Security is the largest factor (including 10 items), which
South vs. West 0.04 (0.03) − 0.03 (0.04) 0.00 (0.04)
explains the greatest portion of variation. The concepts included in this
Income
<$35,000/year vs. − 0.28 (0.04) − 0.27 (0.05)*** − 0.40 factor relate to the affordability, availability, quantity, quality, safety,
>$100,000/year *** (0.05)*** and taste of purchased of food. Though a broad category, all of these
$35,000–$100,000/year − 0.06 (0.03)* − 0.13 (0.04)*** − 0.12 behaviors are ostensibly driven by the financial and economic resources
vs. >$100,000/year (0.04)** made available by a food system to provide and secure desirable food.
Education
This issue of security—in both the physical and economic sense—has
>BA/BS college degree 0.18 (0.03)*** 0.25 (0.03)*** 0.30 (0.03)
*** long featured in food system discussions and is now seen as intimately
intertwined with sustainable food research and policy (Berry et al.,
Notes: n = 6238; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
2015; Lang & Barling, 2012; Vågsholm et al., 2020). Interestingly,
behavior related to social and environmental sustainability loaded onto
demonstrated some of the greatest effects, although the former was a single factor (Socio-Environment), while these two components are
positive and the latter was negative. Being younger than 55 years old commonly considered discrete (though adjacent) in other research
also showed a considerable negative effect on Economic Security, which contexts (Tobi et al., 2019). Consumers with preferences for environ­
was even larger for the under 35 years old category, but had a positive mentally friendly attributes would thus appear to also prioritize human
effect on Socio-Environment. However, this age variable did not signifi­ welfare and social equity in their food purchasing. Nutrition was the
cantly impact Nutrition. While the effect was not as large, being male had smallest factor with the least explanatory power, but its correlation to a
a negative effect on every factor as well. The race and region variables sustainable food system is still essential, particularly considering that
exhibited a few marginally significant effects on a few factors (e.g., healthy eating behaviors have not been as effectively integrated as a
living in the Northeast) but generally had no meaningful relationship factor of sustainability (Żakowska-Biemans et al., 2019).
with the sustainability measures. The decision-making process towards sustainable products is com­
plex, and consumer studies show barriers like price and confusion about
4. Discussion which foods are sustainably produced can make it difficult for people to
adopt more sustainable behaviors (EIT Food, 2020; Vermeir & Verbeke,
4.1. Realizing sustainable healthy diets 2006). Our results demonstrate that education, age, and income are
among the strongest socio-economic and demographic variables
This study considers existing food system sustainability indicators affecting SHD patterns. If a person must overcome information and cost
and attempts to apply them to consumer behaviors in the form of an SHD barriers to eat sustainably, then we would reasonably expect low income
measure. Of note, we set out to define six dimensions of a sustainable households without a college education to score lower and compara­
healthy diet pattern but found a three-factor structure to be optimal for tively struggle to move from contemplation to action. The causal re­
describing the surveyed behaviors. We show that Economic Security, lationships with the sex and age variables are less easily explained, but
Socio-Environmental, and Nutritional considerations are important in research does show that values and attitudes matter in making more
measuring a complex concept like sustainability. These results suggest sustainable food decisions, which could be mediating variables not
that, while food systems researchers conceptualize sustainability in­ included in our model (Kim et al., 2019; Shin et al., 2017). We know that
dicators using at least four dimensions (commonly more), the average greater focus on and awareness of food-related options and their effec­
consumer does not conceive of their food behaviors in the same strict tiveness at addressing sustainability goals will likely be necessary to
manner (Béné et al., 2019; Hebinck et al., 2021). Rather, three under­ increase consumer motivation for diet changes (de Boer et al., 2016;
lying constructs, possibly fewer based on a strict application of the Sánchez-Bravo et al., 2021). Subsequently, we see an opportunity to use
Kaiser Criterion, better explain the relationship between U.S. consumer this SHD scale to further assess the impact of policy interventions and to
food purchasing behavior and food system sustainability. This phe­ track the overall sustainability of consumer food behaviors as conditions
nomenon suggests that experts may need to reconsider how to map the in the U.S. food environment change over time.
attitudes and preferences of the general public onto their multitude of
sustainability indicators, particularly when developing and messaging 4.2. Limitations
behavioral changes. As the scientific community has increasingly
converged on clear goals for sustainable food system outcomes, more With regards to the data quality, self-reported variables are prone to
and more research wants to know what strategies will motivate dietary uncertainty, as well as social desirability bias, and hence can deviate

6
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

from actual behaviors. For example, consumers could report purchasing detailed comments and revisions for important intellectual content. All
foods with lower land, water, and greenhouse gas footprints under the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
belief that this response is the “correct” answer or without having
enough information to make an accurate assessment of their food. As Funding sources
discussed at the top, defining food sustainability is also not a simple task.
We used a broad-based approach to measure consumer willingness to This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
align their own food choices with qualitative sustainability targets. agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Therefore, we do not have direct evidence that a high score on our
measure translates to improved practical environmental, social, eco­
Declaration of competing interest
nomic, or nutritional outcomes. We can, however, look to a growing
literature that seeks to detail the explicit positive links between food
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
product choices and sustainability outcomes like greenhouse gas emis­
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
sions or land use (Clark et al., 2022).
the work reported in this paper.

4.3. Further research

Data availability

This survey project is ongoing. Results from this SHD measure are
Data will be made available on request.
published monthly, meaning current data on the sustainability of
American food behaviors will continue to evolve. This research reports
Appendix A. Supplementary data
preliminary results, and we intend to use TTM to track durable changes
in behaviors as people move through different stages of intention and
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
action. We also emphasize the need for continued efforts to further
org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106369.
validate the proposed measure in different contexts. Both the values and
ideologies of consumers are likely determinants of the SHD scores, and it
will be important to understand how changes in beliefs, such as the References
significance of agriculture as a driver of climate change, are reflected in
Aldaya, M. M., Ibañez, F. C., Domínguez-Lacueva, P., Murillo-Arbizu, M. T., Rubio-
the willingness to adopt sustainability behaviors. Moreover, we have yet Varas, M., Soret, B., & Beriain, M. J. (2021). Indicators and recommendations for
to understand if there are trade-offs between these factors—e.g., assessing sustainable healthy diets. Foods, 10(5), 999. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods10050999
choosing more tasty, budget-friendly foods results in less desire to
Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2015). Consumer perception and trends about health and
choose whole fruits, vegetables, and grains. Better recognizing the nu­ sustainability: Trade-offs and synergies of two pivotal issues. Current Opinion in Food
ances of this SHD scale will improve its applications and ultimately help Science, 3, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2014.08.002
show how consumer purchasing and consumption align with a sustain­ Béné, C., Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Hawkes, C., Caron, P., Vermeulen, S., Herrero, M., &
Oosterveer, P. (2020b). Five priorities to operationalize the EAT–Lancet Commission
able food system. report. Nature Food, 1, 457–459. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0136-4
Béné, C., Fanzo, J., Prager, S. D., Achicanoy, H. A., Mapes, B. R., Alvarez Toro, P., &
5. Conclusions Bonilla Cedrez, C. (2020a). Global drivers of food system (un)sustainability: A multi-
country correlation analysis. PLoS One, 15(4), Article e0231071. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0231071
This paper takes another step toward reliably assessing consumer Béné, C., Prager, S. D., Achicanoy, H. A. E., Toto, P. A., Lamotte, L., Bonilla, C., &
behaviors against a set of well-defined food system sustainability di­ Mapes, B. R. (2019). Global map and indicators of food system sustainability.
Scientific Data, 6, 279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0301-5
mensions and creating a scale that enables surveys to track changes in Berry, E., Dernini, S., Burlingame, B., Meybeck, A., & Conforti, P. (2015). Food security
SHDs at the individual level. The study shows that applying more and sustainability: Can one exist without the other? Public Health Nutrition, 18(13),
numerous indicators of food sustainability is imprecise and not likely 2293–2302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001500021X
Blackstone, N. T., El-Abbadi, N. H., McCabe, M. S., Griffin, T. S., & Nelson, M. E. (2018).
useful for consumer research because consumer sustainability behaviors
Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the dietary guidelines for
are influenced by a smaller set of constructs than typically used at the Americans: A modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(8), e344–e352. https://
system level. This phenomenon can help shape our understanding of doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(18)30167-0
de Boer, J., de Witt, A., & Aiking, H. (2016). Help the climate, change your diet: A cross-
how individuals may alter their consumption to better adhere to the
sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society.
recommendations of expert scientific bodies and assess whether specific Appetite, 98(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.001
interventions affect specific movement in this multi-factor SHD mea­ Borychowski, M., Sapa, A., Czyżewski, B., Stępień, S., & Poczta-Wajda, A. (2022).
sure. Presently, U.S. consumers are well-positioned along the Economic Interactions between food and nutrition security and the socio-economic and
environmental dimensions of sustainability in small-scale farms: Evidence from a
Security indicator of food sustainability, but score much lower on the simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis in Poland. International Journal of
Nutrition and Socio-Environmental indicators, which continues to incur Agricultural Sustainability, 20(5), 998–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/
costs on the planet, society, and well-being of people. We propose 14735903.2022.2041230
Brouwer, I. D., van Liere, M. J., de Brauw, A., Dominguez-Salas, P., Herforth, A.,
further exploring the factors that correlate with the SHD scores and Kennedy, G., Lachat, C., Omosa, E. B., Talsma, E. F., Vandevijvere, S., Fanzo, J., &
trying to establish causality. Ruel, M. (2021). Reverse thinking: Taking a healthy diet perspective towards food
systems transformations. Food Security, 13, 1497–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12571-021-01204-5
Ethical statement Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysisR. H. Hoyle (Ed.).
Handbook of structural equation modeling, 361–379. The Guilford Press. 361, 379.
Ethical approval was granted by the Purdue University Human Campbell, B. M., Beare, D. J., Bennett, E. M., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Ingram, J. S. I.,
Jaramillo, F., Ortiz, R., Ramankutty, N., Sayer, J. A., & Shindell, D. (2017).
Research Protection Program and Institutional Review Board in West
Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary
Lafayette, Indiana (# IRB-2021-1587). boundaries. Ecology and Society, 22(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26798991.
Chen, C., Chaudhary, A., & Mathys, A. (2019). Dietary change scenarios and implications
for environmental, nutrition, human health and economic dimensions of food
Author contributions
sustainability. Nutrients, 11(4), 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11040856. MDPI
AG.
SSP and JLL were responsible for the conception and design of the Clark, M., Springmann, M., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., Hill, J., Tilman, D.,
research; SSP led the data collection; SSP and AZW were involved in the Macdiarmid, J. I., Fanzo, J., Bandy, L., & Harrington, R. A. (2022). Estimating the
environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proceedings of the National Academy
analysis and interpretation of the data; SSP wrote the paper and had of Sciences, 119(33), Article e2120584119. https://doi.org/10.1073/
primary responsibility for the final content; JLL and AZW provided pnas.2120584119

7
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

Conrad, Z. (2020). Daily cost of consumer food wasted, inedible, and consumed in the O’Leary-Kelly, S. W., & Vokurka, R. J. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct
United States, 2001-2016. Nutrition Journal, 19(35). https://doi.org/10.1186/ validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/
s12937-020-00552-w 10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00020-5
Curi-Quinto, K., Unar-Munguía, M., Rodríguez-Ramírez, S., Rivera, J. A., Fanzo, J., Perignon, M., Vieux, F., Soler, L.-G., Masset, G., & Darmon, N. (2017). Improving diet
Willett, W., & Röös, E. (2022). Sustainability of diets in Mexico: Diet quality, sustainability through evolution of food choices: Review of epidemiological studies
environmental footprint, diet cost, and sociodemographic factors. Frontiers in on the environmental impact of diets. Nutrition Reviews, 75(1), 2–17. https://doi.
Nutrition, 9, Article 855793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.855793 org/10.1093/nutrit/nuw043
Dinesh, D., Hegger, D. L. T., Klerkx, L., Vervoot, J., Campbell, B. M., & Driessen, P. P. J. Piester, H. E., DeRieux, C. M., Tucker, J., Buttrick, N. R., Galloway, J. N., & Wilson, T. D.
(2021). Enacting theories of change for food systems transformation under climate (2020). I’ll try the veggie burger”: Increasing purchases of sustainable foods with
change. Global Food Security, 31, Article 100583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. information about sustainability and taste. Appetite, 155, Article 104842. https://doi.
gfs.2021.100583 org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104842
Dynata. (2020). Panel book. https://www.dynata.com/content/Panel-Book.pdf. Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior
Economic Research Service. (2012). U.S. Household food security survey module: Six-item change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/
Short form. USDA. https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/8282/short2012.pdf. 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38
EIT Food. (2020). The EIT food trust report. Leuven: EIT. https://www.eitfood.eu/media/ Pucci, T., Casprini, E., Sogari, G., & Zanni, L. (2022). Exploring the attitude towards the
news-pdf/EIT_Food_Trust_Report_2020.pdf. adoption of a sustainable diet: A cross-country comparison. British Food Journal, 124
Eker, S., Reese, G., & Obersteiner, M. (2019). Modelling the drivers of a widespread shift (13), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2021-0426
to sustainable diets. Nature Sustainability, 2, 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/ R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://
s41893-019-0331-1 www.R-project.org/.
Eme, P. E., Douwes, J., Kim, N., Foliaki, S., & Burlingame, B. (2019). Review of Reisch, L. A. (2021). Shaping healthy and sustainable food systems with behavioural
methodologies for assessing sustainable diets and potential for development of food policy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 48(4), 665–693. https://doi.
harmonised indicators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public org/10.1093/erae/jbab024
Health, 16(7), 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071184 Revelle, W. (2022). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. https://
FAO & WHO. (2019). Sustainable healthy diets – guiding principles. Rome: FAO. http CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.
s://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf. Reynolds, C. J., Buckley, J. D., Weinstein, P., & Boland, J. (2014). Are the dietary
Feldmann, C., & Hamm, U. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local guidelines for meat, fat, fruit and vegetable consumption appropriate for
food: A review. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/ environmental sustainability? A review of the literature. Nutrients, 6(6), 2251–2265.
J.Foodqual.2014.09.014 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu6062251
Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1993). Exploratory factor analysis: A users’ guide. International Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
2389.1993.tb00092.x Sánchez-Bravo, P., Chambers, V. E., Noguera-Artiaga, L., Sendra, E., Chambers, I. V. E., &
Grebitus, C. (2021). Small-scale urban agriculture: Drivers of growing produce at home Carbonell-Barrachina, Á. A. (2021). Consumer understanding of sustainability
and in community gardens in Detroit. PLoS One, 16(9), Article e0256913. https:// concept in agricultural products Author links open overlay panel. Food Quality and
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256913 Preference, 89, Article 104136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104136
Gustafson, D., Gutman, A., Leet, W., Drewnowski, A., Fanzo, J., & Ingram, J. (2016). van Selm, B., Frehner, A., de Boer, I. J. M., van Hal, O., Hijbeek, R., van Ittersum, M. K.,
Seven food system metrics of sustainable nutrition security. Sustainability, 8(3), 196. Talsma, E. F., Lesschen, J. P., Hendriks, C. M. J., Herrero, M., & van Zanten, H. H. E.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030196 (2022). Circularity in animal production requires a change in the EAT-Lancet diet in
Harrison, M. R., Palma, G., Buendia, T., Bueno-Tarodo, M., Quell, D., & Hachem, F. Europe. Nature Food, 3, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00425-3
(2022). A scoping review of indicators for sustainable healthy diets. Frontiers in Shin, Y. H., Moon, H., Jung, S. E., & Severt, K. (2017). The effect of environmental values
Sustainable Food Systems, 5, Article 822263. https://doi.org/10.3389/ and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: A value-
fsufs.2021.822263 attitude-behavior approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 33,
Hashemzadeh, M., Rahimi, A., Zare-Farashbandi, F., Alavi-Naeini, A. M., & Daei, A. 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.10.010
(2019). Transtheoretical model of health behavioral change: A systematic review. Springmann, M., Spajic, L., Clark, M. A., Poore, J., Herforth, A., Webb, P., Rayner, M., &
Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 24(2), 83–90. https://doi.org/ Scarborough, P. (2020). The healthiness and sustainability of national and global
10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_94_17 food based dietary guidelines: Modelling study. BMJ, 370, m2322. https://doi.org/
Hebinck, A., Zureka, M., Achterboschc, T., Forkmand, B., Kuijstene, A., Kuiperc, M., 10.1136/bmj.m2322
Nørrungd, B., van ’t Veere, P., & Leipf, A. (2021). A Sustainability Compass for policy Steenson, S., & Buttriss, J. L. (2021). Healthier and more sustainable diets: What changes
navigation to sustainable food systems. Global Food Security, 29, Article 100546. are needed in high-income countries? Nutrition Bulletin, 46(3), 279–309. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100546 org/10.1111/nbu.12518
Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D., & Masters, W. A. (2020). Affordability of the Teixeira, B., Afonso, C., Rodrigues, S., & Oliveira, A. (2022). Healthy and sustainable
EAT–lancet reference diet: A global analysis. Lancet Global Health, 8(1), e59–e66. dietary patterns in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Advances in
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4 Nutrition, 13(4), 1144–1185. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmab148
Hoek, A. C., Person, D., James, S. W., Lawrence, M. A., & Friel, S. (2017). Shrinking the Tepper, S., Geva, D., Shahar, D. R., Shepon, A., Mendelsohn, O., Golan, M., Adler, D., &
food-print: A qualitative study into consumer perceptions, experiences and attitudes Golan, R. (2021). The SHED index: A tool for assessing a sustainable HEalthy diet.
towards healthy and environmentally friendly food behaviours. Appetite, 108, European Journal of Nutrition, 60, 3897–3909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-
117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.030 02554-8
Johnston, J. L., Fanzo, J. C., & Cogill, B. (2014). Understanding sustainable diets: A Tobi, R. C. A., Harris, F., Rana, R., Brown, K. A., Quaife, M., & Green, R. (2019).
descriptive analysis of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their Sustainable diet dimensions. Comparing consumer preference for nutrition,
impact on health, food security, and environmental sustainability. Advances in environmental and social responsibility food labelling: A systematic review.
Nutrition, 5(4), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.113.005553 Sustainability, 11(23), 6575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236575
Jones, A. D., Hoey, L., Blesh, J., Miller, L., Green, A., & Shapiro, L. F. (2016). Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’
A systematic review of the measurement of sustainable diets. Advances in Nutrition, 7 willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3),
(4), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.011015 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark iv. Educational and Psychological Turnwald, B. P., & Crum, A. J. (2019). Smart food policy for healthy food labeling:
Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115 Leading with taste, not healthiness, to shift consumption and enjoyment of healthy
Kantar. (2020). Making our food fit for the future – citizens’ expectations. European foods. Preventive Medicine, 119, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Commission https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2241. ypmed.2018.11.021
Kim, M. J., Hall, C. M., & Kim, D.-K. (2019). Predicting environmentally friendly eating Vågsholm, I., Arzoomand, N. S., & Boqvist, S. (2020). Food security, safety, and
out behavior by value-attitude-behavior theory: Does being vegetarian reduce food sustainability—getting the trade-offs right. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4,
waste? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(6), 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00016
09669582.2019.1705461 Vanham, D., Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. J. (2020). Treenuts and groundnuts in the
Lang, T., & Barling, D. (2012). Food security and food sustainability: Reformulating the EAT-Lancet reference diet: Concerns regarding sustainable water use. Global Food
debate. The Geographical Journal, 178(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- Security, 24, Article 100357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100357
4959.2012.00480.x Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and
Lee, H. J., & Yun, Z. S. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423–444. https://
cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279078
organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Verain, M. C. D., Dagevos, H., & Antonides, G. (2015). Sustainable food consumption.
foodqual.2014.06.002 Product choice or curtailment. Appetite, 91(1), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Martini, D., Tucci, M., Bradfield, J., Di Giorgio, A., Marino, M., Del Bo, C., Porrini, M., & appet.2015.04.055
Riso, P. (2021). Principles of sustainable healthy diets in worldwide dietary Verain, M. C. D., Sijtsema, S. J., & Antonides, G. (2016). Consumer segmentation based
guidelines: Efforts so far and future perspectives. Nutrients, 13(6), 1827. https://doi. on food-category attribute importance: The relation with healthiness and
org/10.3390/nu13061827 sustainability perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 48A, 99–106. https://doi.
Morren, M., Mol, J. M., Blasch, J. E., & Malek, Z. (2021). Changing diets - testing the org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.012
impact of knowledge and information nudges on sustainable dietary choices. Journal Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the
of Environmental Psychology, 75, Article 1010610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. consumer “attitude – behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and
jenvp.2021.101610 Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3

8
S.S. Polzin et al. Appetite 180 (2023) 106369

Vermeir, I., Weijters, B., De Houwer, J., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H., Spruyt, A., Van Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(5), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kerckhove, A., Van Lippevelde, W., De Steur, H., & Verbeke, W. (2020). jneb.2014.01.002
Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research agenda from Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S.,
a goal-directed perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1603. https://doi.org/ Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L. J.,
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01603 Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J. A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., …
Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. I. (2012). Climate change and food Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in the anthropocene: The EAT-lancet commission on
systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 195–222. https://doi. healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492. https://
org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608 doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4
Weller, K. E., Greene, G. W., Redding, C. A., Paiva, A. L., Lofgren, I., Nash, J. T., & Żakowska-Biemans, S., Pieniak, Z., Kostyra, E., & Gutkowska, K. (2019). Searching for a
Kobayashi, H. (2014). Development and validation of green eating behaviors, stage measure integrating sustainable and healthy eating behaviors. Nutrients, 11(1), 95.
of change, decisional balance, and self–efficacy scales in college students. Journal of https://doi.org/10.3390/2Fnu11010095