Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Framework Proposition and Hypothesis Design
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Design
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Predisposition Regarding Sustainable Dietary Behaviours
3.2. Barriers to the Adoption of Sustainable Diets
4. Discussion
Study Implications
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vermeir, I.; Weijters, B.; De Houwer, J.; Geuens, M.; Slabbinck, H.; Spruyt, A.; Van Kerckhove, A.; Van Lippevelde, W.; De Steur, H.; Verbeke, W. Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger, Rome, Italy, 3–5 November 2010; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Pocol, C.B.; Marinescu, V.; Amuza, A.; Cadar, R.L.; Rodideal, A.A. Sustainable vs. unsustainable food consumption behaviour: A study among students from Romania, Bulgaria, and Moldova. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; WHO—World Health Organization. Sustainable Healthy Diets—Guiding Principles; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
- Lacasse, K. Can’t hurt, might help: Examining the spillover effects from purposefully adopting a new pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2019, 51, 259–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giesen, R.; Leenheer, J. Towards more interactive and sustainable food retailing: An empirical case study of the supermarket of the future. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2018, 47, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dagevos, H.; Voordouw, J. Sustainability and meat consumption: Is reduction realistic? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2013, 9, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loy, L.S.; Spence, A. Reducing, and bridging, the psychological distance of climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 67, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N.; Wakslak, C. Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2007, 17, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leiser, D.; Azar, O.H.; Hadar, L. Psychological construal of economic behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 2008, 29, 762–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prochaska, J.O.; Redding, C.A.; Evers, K.E. The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice; Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K., Viswanath, K., Eds.; Jossey-Bass Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 97–121. [Google Scholar]
- Hashemzadeh, M.; Rahimi, A.; Zare-farashbandi, F.; Alavi-Naeini, A.M.; Daei, A. Transtheoretical model of health behavioral change: A systematic review. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2019, 24, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
- Cousins, P.D.; Lawson, B.; Petersen, K.J.; Fugate, B. Investigating green supply chain management practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019, 39, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tobler, C.; Visschers, V.; Siegrist, M. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 2011, 57, 674–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weibel, C.; Ohnmacht, T.; Schaffner, D.; Kossmann, K. Reducing individual meat consumption: An integrated phase model approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 73, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schandl, H.; Hatfield-Dodds, S.; Wiedmann, T.; Geschke, A.; Cai, Y.; West, J.; Newth, D.; Baynes, T.; Lenzen, M.; Owen, A. Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: Scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falchetta, G.; Golinucci, N.; Noussan, M.; Rocco, M.V. Environmental and Energy Implications of Meat Consumption Pathways in Sub-Saharan Africa; Working Paper No. 5.2021; FEEM: Milan, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Moberg, E.; Karlsson Potter, H.; Wood, A.; Hansson, P.A.; Röös, E. Benchmarking the Swedish diet relative to global and national environmental targets—Identification of indicator limitations and data gaps. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1407. [Google Scholar]
- Hamm, M.; Frison, E.; Pahlen, M.C. Human Health, Diets, and Nutrition: Missing Links in Eco-Agri-Food Systems; Scientific and Economic Foundations Report; TEEB for Agriculture and Food: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Cobiac, L.; Irz, X.; Leroy, P.; Réquillart, V.; Scarborough, P.; Soler, L.G. Accounting for consumers’ preferences in the analysis of dietary recommendations. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 73, 1033–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Graça, J.; Calheiros, M.M.; Oliveira, A. Attached to meat? (Un)willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 2015, 95, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macdiarmid, J.; Douglas, F.; Campbell, J. Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eating less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 2015, 96, 487–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez-Sabate, R.; Badilla-Briones, Y.; Sabaté, J. Understanding attitudes towards reducing meat consumption for environmental reasons. A qualitative synthesis review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clonan, A.; Wilson, P.; Swift, J.; Leibovici, D.; Holdsworth, M. Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: Impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2446–2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanchez-Sabate, R.; Sabaté, J. Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lacroix, K. Comparing the relative mitigation potential of individual pro-environmental behaviors. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1398–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 957–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malagón-Zaldua, E.; Begiristain, Z.M.; Oñederra, A. Measuring the economic impact of farmers’ markets on local economies in the Basque country. Agriculture 2018, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Westbrook, G.; Angus, A. Top 10 Global Consumer Trends 2020; Euromonitor International: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sihvonen, J.; Luomala, H. Hear what I appreciate: Activation of consumption motives for healthier food choices across different value segments. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2017, 27, 502–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sáez-Almendros, S.; Obrador, B.; Bach-Faig, A.; Serra-Majem, L. Environmental footprints of Mediterranean versus Western dietary patterns: Beyond the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet. Environ. Health 2013, 12, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wood, R.; Moran, D.; Stadler, K.; Ivanova, D.; Steen-Olsen, K.; Tisserant, A.; Hertwich, E.G. Prioritising consumption-based carbon policy based on the evaluation of mitigation potential using input-output methods. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 22, 540–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tukker, A.; Goldbohm, R.A.; de Koning, A.; Verheijden, M.; Kleijn, R.; Wolf, O.; Dominguez, I.P.; Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1776–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elhoushy, S. Consumers’ sustainable food choices: Antecedents and motivational imbalance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 89, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadhukhan, J.; Dugmore, T.I.; Matharu, A.; Martinez-Hernandez, E.; Aburto, J.; Rahman, P.K.; Lynch, J. Perspectives on “game changer” global challenges for sustainable 21st century: Plant-based diet, unavoidable food waste biorefining, and circular economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geipel, J.; Hadjichristidis, C.; Klesse, A.K. Barriers to sustainable consumption attenuated by foreign language use. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 31–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 395, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derbyshire, E.J. Flexitarian diets and health: A review of the evidence-based literature. Front. Nutr. 2017, 3, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mathieu, S.; Dorard, G. Vegetarianism and veganism lifestyle: Motivation and psychological dimensions associated with selective diet. Presse Med. 2016, 45, 726–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrus, G.; Pirchio, S.; Mastandrea, S. Social-cultural processes and urban affordances for healthy and sustainable food consumption. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Springmann, M.; Wiebe, K.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Sulser, T.; Rayner, M.; Scarborough, P. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: A global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2018, 2, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lea, E.J.; Crawford, D.; Worsley, A. Public views of the benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 60, 828–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, S.; Downs, S.; Fanzo, J. Advancing an integrative framework to evaluate sustainability in National Dietary Guidelines. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brink, E.; van Rossum, C.; Postma-Smeets, A.; Stafleu, A.; Wolvers, D.; van Dooren, C.; Toxopeus, I.; Buurma-Rethans, E.; Geurts, M.; Ocké, M. Development of healthy and sustainable food-based dietary guidelines for the Netherlands. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 2419–2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meltzer, H.M.; Brantsæter, A.L.; Trolle, E.; Eneroth, H.; Fogelholm, M.; Ydersbond, T.A.; Birgisdottir, B.E. Environmental sustainability perspectives of the Nordic diet. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Health of Brazil. Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population; Ministry of Health: Brasília, Brazil, 2014.
- Burger, J.M.; Bell, H.; Harvey, K.; Johnson, J.; Stewart, C.; Dorian, K.; Swedroe, M. Nutritious or delicious? The effects of descriptive norm information on food choice. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2010, 29, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corallo, A.; Latino, M.E.; Menegoli, M.; Spennato, A. A survey to discover current food choice behaviors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sobal, J.; Bisogni, C.A. Constructing food choice decisions. Ann. Behav. Med. 2009, 28, S37–S46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheah, I.; Sadat Shimul, A.; Liang, J. Drivers and barriers toward reducing meat consumption. Appetite 2020, 149, 104636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pohjolainen, P.; Vinnari, M.; Jokinen, P. Consumers’ perceived barriers to following a plant-based diet. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1150–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steptoe, A.; Pollard, T.M.; Wardle, J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The food choice questionnaire. Appetite 1995, 25, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Khandpur, N.; Quinta, F.P.; Jaime, P.C. A quantitative test of the face validity of behavior-change messages based on the Brazilian Dietary Guidelines. Nutr. J. 2021, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Armstrong, B.; Reynolds, C.; Bridge, G.; Oakden, L.; Wang, C.; Panzone, L.; Rivera, X.S.; Kause, A.; Ffoulkes, C.; Krawczyk, C.; et al. How does citizen science compare to online survey panels? A comparison of food knowledge and perceptions between the zooniverse, prolific and qualtrics UK panels. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cantilino, A.; Carvalho, J.A.; Maia, A.; Albuquerque, C.; Cantilino, G.; Botelho Sougey, E. Translation, validation, and cultural aspects of postpartum depression screening scale in Brazilian Portuguese. Transcult. Psychiatry 2007, 44, 672–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, J.; Rosenzweig, C.; Moss, A.J.; Robinson, J.; Litman, L. Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 2019, 51, 2022–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verain, M.C.D.; Dagevos, H.; Antonides, G. Sustainable food consumption; Product choice or curtailment? Appetite 2015, 91, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco-Murcia, L.; Ramos-Mejía, M. Sustainable diets and meat consumption reduction in emerging economies: Evidence from Colombia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fardet, A.; Thivel, D.; Gerbaud, L.; Rock, E. A sustainable and global health perspective of the dietary pattern of French population during the 1998–2015 period from INCA surveys. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basha, M.B.; Lal, D. Indian consumers’ attitudes towards purchasing organically produced foods: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers: Evidence from a developing nation. Appetite 2016, 96, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HDI—Human Development Reports. Human Development Index 2019. Available online: http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Austgulen, M.H. Environmentally sustainable meat consumption: An analysis of the Norwegian public debate. J. Consum. Policy 2014, 37, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirvonen, K.; de Brauw, A.; Abate, G.T. Food consumption and food security during the COVID-19 pandemic in Addis Ababa. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2021, 103, 772–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celik, B.; Dane, S. The effects of COVID-19 pandemic outbreak on food consumption preferences and their causes. J. Res. Med. Dent. Sci. 2020, 8, 169–173. [Google Scholar]
- Dumitras, D.E.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.H.; Chiciudean, D.I.; Kovacs, E.; Oroian, C.F.; Porutiu, A.; Muresan, I.C. Food consumption patterns in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic. Foods 2021, 10, 2712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, V.G.H.; Cequea, M.M.; Neyra, J.M.V.; Ferasso, M. Consumption behaviour and residential food waste during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in Brazil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cequea, M.M.; Vásquez Neyra, J.M.; Schmitt, V.G.H.; Ferasso, M. Household food consumption and wastage during the covid-19 pandemic outbreak: A comparison between Peru and Brazil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zidouemba, P.R.; Kinda, S.R.; Ouedraogo, I.M. Could COVID-19 worsen food insecurity in Burkina Faso? Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2020, 32, 1379–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
1–7 Points Likert Scale | Question: “Regarding Your Usual Intake of Animal-Based Food, Have you Made Any of the Following Changes?” |
---|---|
1 | No, I have not |
2 | No, but I would like to do so immediately |
3 | No, but I’m getting ready to do it soon |
4 | No, but I’m about to start soon |
5 | Yes, I’ve been doing it up to six months, at least |
6 | Yes, I have been doing it for a year at least |
7 | Yes, I’ve been doing it for more than a year |
Participants (n) | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Female | 278 | 56.0 |
Male | 219 | 44.0 |
Age | ||
18 to 30 | 149 | 30.0 |
31 to 40 | 140 | 28.2 |
41 to 50 | 102 | 20.5 |
51+ | 106 | 21.3 |
Socioeconomic stratification * | ||
A | 75 | 15.0 |
B1 | 53 | 11.0 |
B2 | 92 | 18.5 |
C1 | 169 | 34.0 |
C2 | 63 | 12.5 |
D–E | 45 | 9.0 |
Construct Reliability (CR) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | Maximum Shared VarianceMSV | Maximum reliability MaxR (H) | Predisposition | Behaviour | Barriers | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predisposition | 0.931 | 0.663 | 0.307 | 0.946 | 0.814 | ||
Behaviour | 0.924 | 0.640 | 0.307 | 0.945 | 0.554 *** | 0.800 | |
Barriers | 0.848 | 0.530 | 0.104 | 0.871 | 0.169 * | 0.322 *** | 0.728 |
Items | Predisposition (1–7 Likert Scale) | Behaviour (1–7 Likert Scale) |
---|---|---|
Prioritise foods naturally rich in nutrients | 5.77 | 4.89 |
Seeking to have a diversified diet | 5.81 | 5.13 |
Maintain a caloric intake according to my needs (not in excess) | 5.59 | 4.41 |
Reduce the size of food portions | 5.45 | 4.64 |
Avoid ultra-processed foods | 5.76 | 4.03 |
Preference to food consumption ‘in natura’ | 5.60 | 4.64 |
Maintain low sugars consumption | 5.70 | 4.01 |
Prioritise unsaturated fats over saturated fats | 5.39 | 3.86 |
Prioritise whole cereals grains and their derivatives over the refined version | 5.48 | 4.09 |
Consumption of plant-based food in large quantity and variety | 5.53 | 4.60 |
Increase consumption of fruits, vegetables and greens (leaves) | 5.90 | 5.19 |
Increase consumption of beans, peas, lentils, chickpeas and soybeans | 5.46 | 4.54 |
Reduce the intake of tubers (potatoes and cassava) | 4.69 | 3.48 |
Maintain a food standard that meets personal, cultural and traditional aspects, not only nutrient needs | 5.07 | 4.09 |
Items | Predisposition (1–7 Likert Scale) | Behaviour (1–7 Likert Scale) |
---|---|---|
Reduction in animal-based food intake in general | 4.19 | 2.74 |
Reduction in meat consumption (especially beef) | 4.38 | 3.42 |
Reduction in processed meat consumption | 4.93 | 3.15 |
Exclusion of red meat (beef) | 4.03 | 2.65 |
Exclusion of processed animal-based protein | 4.84 | 3.46 |
Replacement of meat by fish and seafood | 3.99 | 2.72 |
Exclusion of all meat, fish, and seafood, keeping eggs, milk and dairy | 3.64 | 2.41 |
Exclusion of all animal-based protein food | 3.87 | 2.50 |
Hypothesis | Relationship | γ|b | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
H1a | Predisposition → Behaviours towards meat intake reduction | γ = 0.564 | <0.001 |
H2a | Predisposition → Behaviours towards Sustainable Diets | γ = 0.329 | <0.001 |
H1b | Mediation effect of practical barriers on Predisposition to meat intake | b = −0.017 | 0.114 |
H1c | Mediation effect of essential barriers on Predisposition to meat intake | b = 0.004 | 0.473 |
H2b | Mediation effect of practical barriers on Sustainable Diets | b = 0.012 | 0.062 |
H2c | Mediation effect of essential barriers Sustainable Diets | b = 0.045 | 0.451 |
Items | Mean (1–7 Likert Scale) | SD * (Standard Deviation) |
---|---|---|
I need more information about plant-based diets | 5.11 | 1.48 |
I need more information about sustainable diets | 5.37 | 1.37 |
My family/partner won’t eat a plant-based diet | 4.58 | 1.66 |
My family/partner won’t eat a sustainable diet | 4.55 | 1.60 |
I don’t have enough willpower | 4.15 | 1.80 |
I would have to go food shopping too often | 5.12 | 1.50 |
I would get indigestion, bloating, gas or flatulence | 3.82 | 1.75 |
I don’t know how to prepare plant-based meals | 4.16 | 1.83 |
I don’t know how to prepare more sustainable meals | 4.26 | 1.77 |
The plant foods I would need aren’t available where I shop | 4.19 | 1.61 |
The plant foods I would need aren’t available in the canteen | 4.50 | 1.61 |
The plant foods I would need aren’t available in my home | 4.45 | 1.59 |
I don’t know what to eat instead of meat | 4.40 | 1.81 |
There is not enough choice when I eat out | 4.83 | 1.54 |
It takes too long to prepare plant-based meals | 4.13 | 1.68 |
It takes too long to prepare sustainable meals | 4.30 | 1.66 |
Eating meat is very enjoyable | 5.58 | 1.47 |
Meat is a nutritionally necessary component for humans | 4.86 | 1.61 |
I prefer foods that I am familiar with | 4.80 | 1.53 |
It is harder to prepare good vegetarian meals than meat ones | 4.32 | 1.67 |
It is harder to prepare good sustainable meals | 4.50 | 1.66 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lourenco, C.E.; Nunes-Galbes, N.M.; Borgheresi, R.; Cezarino, L.O.; Martins, F.P.; Liboni, L.B. Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042199
Lourenco CE, Nunes-Galbes NM, Borgheresi R, Cezarino LO, Martins FP, Liboni LB. Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour. Sustainability. 2022; 14(4):2199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042199
Chicago/Turabian StyleLourenco, Carlos Eduardo, Nadine Marques Nunes-Galbes, Riccardo Borgheresi, Luciana Oranges Cezarino, Flavio Pinheiro Martins, and Lara Bartocci Liboni. 2022. "Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour" Sustainability 14, no. 4: 2199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042199
APA StyleLourenco, C. E., Nunes-Galbes, N. M., Borgheresi, R., Cezarino, L. O., Martins, F. P., & Liboni, L. B. (2022). Psychological Barriers to Sustainable Dietary Patterns: Findings from Meat Intake Behaviour. Sustainability, 14(4), 2199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042199