Young Consumers’ Intention to Consume Innovative Food Products: The Case of Alternative Proteins

Abstract

The contemporary food environment is experiencing substantial transformations, and sustainability and the pursuit of novel ingredients have become pivotal factors in consumer decision-making and business strategy formulation. The emergence of alternative proteins has significant implications for sustainability, climate change mitigation and animal welfare, and can potentially promote the achievement of different United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The spread of these novel foods requires significant attention, particularly concerning younger demographics, which are often considered to be more environmentally and ethically aware when making dietary choices. This study investigates the psychological and attitudinal factors that shape young consumers’ intention to consume plant-based, insect-based, and cultured meat alternative proteins, and verifies the existence of heterogeneous segments of consumers. To this purpose principal component analysis and k-means cluster analysis are employed using data from an online survey conducted in Italy, with a sample of 350 young consumers. The findings reveal that the intention to consume alternative protein sources is not particularly pronounced among the young consumers and differs according to the type of alternative protein. Three different profiles of young consumers were found: traditionalist (39% of the sample); enthusiastic (17%) and open-minded (44%). These segments differ significantly with respect to consumption intention, socio-demographic, lifestyle and psychological variables. The results provide useful insights for policymakers to design targeted interventions to encourage young consumers’ sustainable food choices. The findings could also be useful for marketers interested in investing in such innovations as they can benefit from an in-depth knowledge of this market segment.

1. Introduction

The contemporary food environment is experiencing substantial transformations, and sustainability and the pursuit of novel ingredients have become pivotal factors in consumer decision-making and business strategy formulation [1,2]. Current food production and consumption models are unsustainable and have been attributed to almost one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and considerable natural resource use, resulting in the progressive loss of biodiversity, negative effects on public health and a lack of fair distribution of the economic value generated throughout the supply chain [3]. Global population growth forecasts also indicate that the demand for food will rise significantly over the next 20 years, in a context in which global food production and crops’ nutritional quality are strongly threatened by climate change [4].

In particular, the global demand for meat proteins is projected to increase by 14% over the next decade compared with the reference period (2018–2020), mainly driven by population growth and rising incomes [5]. Increased global animal protein consumption is a relevant public concern as meat production and consumption have been associated with multiple externalities for public health, animal welfare and the environment. Industrial and intensive livestock production imposes a substantial environmental footprint that is responsible for 15% of GHG emissions, uses one-third of the world’s land and accounts for over half of the global waterway and natural resource pollution [6]. Overconsumption of processed and red meats has also been associated with multiple health hazards and diseases, including cardiovascular diseases and type-2 diabetes [7]. Furthermore, intensive livestock and meat production raises several ethical concerns regarding animal welfare as animals are often subjected to crowded and stressful living conditions, limited space and wide use of antibiotics and growth hormones [8].

As a consequence of these circumstances, an increasing call to reduce animal production and meat consumption has emerged to boost the transition towards sustainable and healthy diet, particularly in industrialised countries [9]. In this context the development and adoption of innovative alternative protein sources (APs) has significant implications for sustainability, climate change mitigation and animal welfare, promoting the achievement of various United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Indeed, the Farm to Fork strategy launched as a part of the European Union’s (EU) Green Deal supports the protein transition and decreased traditional meat consumption. According to the European Food Safety Authority, APs are non-traditional, high-protein foods that encompass animal-derived alternative proteins such as those from insects, cell culture-derived food of animal origin and non-animal alternatives such as plants and algae [10]. The general consensus is that APs may offer a range of benefits for the environment, animal welfare and individuals health [11]. Previous studies have used life cycle assessments to demonstrate that meat alternatives can generate lower environmental impact, use fewer resources and cause lower carbon emissions than traditional meat [12]. However, the extent of these benefits varies considerably accordingly to the alternative protein source considered. Plant-based proteins (PB), including, for example, products derived from soy, lentils, peas and chickpeas used to mimic the sensory experience and nutrition of animal counterpart, have been shown to have a significantly lower environmental impact than beef meat. This is due to the fact that PB emits 6 to 20 times fewer GHG and uses a fraction of the water and land [12,13,14]. The consumption of PB proteins has also been linked to a number of health benefits. Firstly, they contain a lower amount of calories and saturated fat when compared with meat products; they contain higher levels of fibre and they may reduce the risk of chronic illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes [15,16]. It is noteworthy that these potential health benefits are counterbalanced by certain disadvantages. Some PB products are ultra-processed, so they may include substances that have a negative impact on health, including sugars, saturated fats and food additives. In addition, it has been demonstrated that PB products may be deficient in certain essential amino acids or other nutrients [14,15]. Similarly cultured meat (CM), produced through cell culture technology, requires approximately two-thirds less land compared to traditional beef and is produced with reduced environmental inputs, especially energy, leading to a substantial decrease in GHG emissions [12,14]. Nevertheless, the production of cultured meat on a large scale has yet to be realised; thus, the actual impact on environmental sustainability remains uncertain [15]. Likewise, CM still raises some uncertainties with regard to its nutritional and safety aspects, especially in Europe where a precautionary approach is adopted based on the assumption that these innovative technologies need careful risk assessment [17].

Also, insect-based (IB) proteins present significant environmental benefits compared to traditional meat production; for example, cricket farming produces up to 80% less GHG emissions compared to farming cattle and insects are generally more efficient at converting feed into protein [15]. Edible insects are also reported to contain fewer saturated fatty acids and more monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats compared to traditional meat. However, challenges related to mass production, safety and hygienic concerns still need to be addressed [12,14]. Consequently, there are several challenges to be addressed in order to promote a shift towards APs, expand consumer choice and encourage the gradual reduction in traditional protein consumption.

Although the AP market in the EU has grown steadily in recent years, with sales increasing by 10% per year between 2010 and 2020, the market share for these innovative products remains low compared with traditional meat products [6,18]. Several studies have concluded that APs’ acceptance is still relatively low because they encounter consumers’ cultural resistance, prejudice and concerns about healthiness [19,20,21]. Furthermore, consumer preferences for APs are extremely heterogeneous and affected by multiple factors, including food choice motives, emotions and psychological factors [22,23,24].

A number of studies have advocated the targeting of younger generations as a market segment of choice in order to stimulate APs consumption. Young consumers are often regarded as more environmentally and ethically aware in their dietary choices and more willing to change their habits [20,25]. However, a clear and unambiguous picture has not yet emerged regarding young consumers’ acceptance and intention to consume different APs [26]. Comprehensive insights into this specific segment are crucial as younger generations are future market trendsetters, and their purchasing decisions will influence future market changes [27,28]. Compared to other generational cohorts, young consumers exhibited a higher sustainability awareness and a more pronounced environmental mindset with regard to food choices and nutrition [29]. Younger generations are also known to be open to new experiences and more willing than other generations to try different products and are more willing to change their behaviours [30]. Therefore, the largely mixed results concerning younger generations’ acceptance and intention to consume APs calls for further research.

Additionally, in Italy, per capita meat consumption has significantly increased in the last 50 years with significant deviations from traditional Mediterranean dietary patterns [31]. This trend primarily involves processed and red meats and is predominantly concentrated among the younger segment of the population [32]. Consequently, this group requires particular attention to promote the shift to sustainable diet.

In response to these concerns, this study offers a contribution to the previous research on APs, by investigating the core factors shaping young Italian consumers’ intention to consume plant-based, insect-based and cultured meat APs. While numerous studies have examined consumer responses to a single APs, a limited number has included multiple novel APs [22,24] and to the best of our knowledge none has focused on the youth population.

This study addresses two main research questions. (1) What are the psychological and attitudinal factors influencing young consumers’ intention to consume APs? (2) Is it feasible to identify and characterise young consumer segments with homogeneous preferences? Addressing these questions is crucial for policymakers to design targeted policies to promote more sustainable food choices among young consumers. The study findings could also be useful for businesses interested in investing in APs innovations, benefitting from an in-depth knowledge of this market segment.

2. Conceptual Background and Research Questions Development

The topic of consumers’ intention to consume innovative APs has stimulated a substantial body of literature in recent years [19,21,33]. The majority of existing studies have pointed out that consumer preferences for different and innovative APs are extremely heterogeneous and the factors driving the APs’ acceptance substantially diverse [34,35]. A distinction has generally been drawn between product [24,36,37] and individual factors such as psychological variables, but also socio-demographics and lifestyle factors [26,33,38]. Regarding product related attributes, perceptions of APs’ naturalness, safety and nutritional properties are considered among the most important factors influencing intention to consume [24,33]. In addition, sensory properties (particularly taste and appearance) have a key influence on APs’ acceptance, albeit in diverse ways according to the type of product considered [33,37,38,39]. Furthermore, APs demand is also considered price sensitive [40] as they are often priced higher than traditional counterparts and consumers are not always willing to pay more for them [28,33]; therefore, price can also be a barrier to consumption [24]. Other research showed that previous exposure and familiarity contribute to consumers’ increased APs acceptance [35,36,41]. Conversely, consumers who are unfamiliar with APs are unwilling to purchase them even when the price is affordable [35,42]. Lower familiarity is also associated with uncertainty and concerns about possible adverse long-term consequences, particularly in the case of CM [36].

Considering psychological variables, sustainability and ethical concerns are prominent drivers that influence individuals’ intention to consume APs [22,33,35]. Consumers who are more aware of the environmental impact of meat production and the potential benefits of APs are more willing to shift towards these innovative products [35,38,43]. Likewise, individuals’ perceived degree of significance attributed to the environmental impact of personal food choices positively influences APs acceptance [20,44]. Conversely, another study [45] found that sustainability concerns (SC) are insignificant regarding CM but are significant for PB meat consumption. Animal welfare considerations and the ethical implications of meat production are also considered drivers of APs’ acceptance, particularly for PB and CM [36,46].

Diet-related health consciousness (HC) and the perceived health benefits of AP consumption have also been found to have a strong influence on AP acceptance [21,33]. Many consumers are drawn to alternative meat due to concerns about health issues related to traditional meat consumption [43,46]. In contrast, some consumers misunderstand the nutritional value of APs [47] and tend to associate meat consumption with a healthy diet, displaying a lower willingness to substitute meat with APs [26,48]. Furthermore, some APs are perceived to be over-processed and full of additives, preservatives and flavour enhancers, which raises concerns about healthiness and nutritional properties [39,49].

Food neophobia (FN) [50] has been commonly recognised as a key psychological barrier to APs acceptance. Higher FN predicts negative intention to consume APs, particularly for those that consumers perceive to be more innovative [35,45,51,52]. While PB alternatives are generally perceived as more natural and familiar to consumers [21,45], CM is often perceived as artificial [43,45] and IB APs are considered unnatural [53,54].

Positive social norms (SN) and peer influence are also highly relevant for explaining APs acceptance from various sources [55,56,57] because AP consumption is often perceived as a social practice that reflects moral considerations for preserving the planet. Furthermore, the impact of SN seems to be more relevant for individuals that do not regularly consume APs [57,58].

In view of the heterogeneity of the extant results, the primary research objective of the current investigation is to understand the main psychological and attitudinal factors that influence young consumers’ intention to consume APs.

Earlier studies have found the existence of heterogeneous groups of consumers, characterised by different propensities towards APs and with specific features in terms of socio-demographic and lifestyle variables [23,25,37].

Regarding demographics, some studies have revealed that individuals with above-average income, high education and residents in urban areas show higher APs acceptance [35,42,51,58,59]. Gender influence seems to vary across APs and is associated with different motivations [59,60]. Women are generally considered more open to PB meat substitutes, mainly motivated by health and ethical concerns [24,61]. In contrast, men have been reported as more willing to consume IB and CM APs as they are considered higher risk takers [42,54]. Mixed results have been found concerning age. While some studies have demonstrated that young consumers have the most positive attitudes towards APs (particularly PB and CM alternatives) [25,36,51,62], others have found that this segment is still far from accepting IB APs [53] or revealed insignificant associations between age and APs acceptance [52,63].

Regarding lifestyle variables, several studies have confirmed that dietary patterns and meat consumption frequency significantly influence APs acceptance [35]. Omnivorous individuals and those who consume traditional meat more frequently are less inclined to switch to APs than vegan or vegetarian individuals who are naturally inclined towards these innovative products [36,64]. However, this correlation varies based on the APs considered, e.g., CM is less attractive to vegetarians or vegans than meat eaters [64]. Other studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between the desire to reduce meat consumption and higher APs acceptance [48,55,65].

It can thus be posited that it is not possible to consider potential APs consumers as a single target market; rather, it is necessary to identify and profile different segments with different propensities towards these alternative products. Therefore, the second research question aims to identify young consumer segments with homogeneous preferences towards the APs and characterise their profile with respect to psycho-attitudinal, socio-demographic and lifestyle variables.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Questionnaire and Scaling

To collect data, this study constructed a questionnaire including various distinct sets of questions and statements selected on the basis of existing research presented in the previous paragraph. The questionnaire was organised into four sections. The first section asked respondents about their current meat-eating habits and willingness to reduce meat consumption habits in the near future. This section also asked about respondents’ perceptions concerning meat consumption using a six-statement scale [24].

The second section presented a brief description of APs and some examples of the IB, PB and CM products investigated in the study, which represent different levels of naturalness, novelty and market visibility. Respondents then expressed their degree of familiarity and intention to consume each of the three products based on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1 = not at all to 7 = very likely). They also shared perceptions of different attributes of the APs considered compared with traditional meat concerning naturalness, safety, nutritional content, expected taste and price on a 5-point Likert scale that aligned with previous research [24,44]. The questionnaire also asked about respondents’ perceptions of APs’ positive externalities using four statements adapted from [36,66].

The third section introduced different psychographic measures of SC in everyday food choices using nine statements from the Sustainable Food Choice Questionnaire [67]. Two statements related to SN’s influence in affecting intention to consume APs were selected referencing previous research [56,57]. Respondents’ diet-related HC was assessed using a four-statement scale from previous studies [43,68], and FN was detected using 10 statements from the scale developed by Pliner and Hobden [50].

The final section included socio-demographic information (sex at birth, age, area of residence, education and income) and lifestyle variables, with a focus on dietary patterns, sport habits and health concerns that may influence food choices. The questionnaire is available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Multiple randomisation techniques were employed for each section of the questionnaire (except for the socio-demographic and lifestyle section) to avoid common biases related to surveys and ensure the responses’ reliability.

3.2. Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

A convenience sample of 350 Italian university students participated in the survey between November and December 2024 using the Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing technique. This approach was chosen as a more suitable methodology for the target population of young individuals and for greater flexibility in collecting responses. It has also been widely used in similar research [25,69].

University students were selected as the reference group as they are recognised as being more actively engaged in pro-environmental behaviour and representing a promising prospective target for sustainable and innovative food products [70]. Further, within the age group considered, they represent a category that has been experiencing significant growth in Italy in recent years, accounting for nearly 2 million individuals [71].

Prior to proceeding with survey administration, pre-testing was performed with a pilot sample of 30 students to verify the questionnaire’s comprehensibility and length and to identify any misinterpretation of the questions (results are not included in the final sample). Minor adjustments were made to the final questionnaire based on pre-test results.

Voluntary participants between 18 and 30 years of age were recruited by promoting the survey through social media, via e-mail and by word of mouth. Before starting the survey, respondents completed an informed consent form wherein they were appropriately advised that participation did not generate any economic benefits and assured of the option to withdraw from the process of answering the questionnaire at any stage. Data collection procedures were performed in full compliance with the Helsinki declaration and later amendments. After excluding incomplete questionnaires and inadequate responses, the final sample yielded 335 responses.

Table 1. Participants’ socio-demographic and lifestyle profiles (%).

Sex at birth	Female	51.5
	Male	45.5
	Prefer not to say	3
Age (mean and standard deviation)	21.2 (2.111)
Level of education	High school diploma	58.4
	Bachelor’s degree	31.1
	Master’s degree	10.5
Residence area	Urban	33.4
	Suburban	66.6
Family monthly income (compared with national average)	Below	21.6
	Average	33.1
	High	14.5
	Prefer not to say	30.5
Sports practice	Yes	55.5
	No	45.5
Dietary pattern	Vegan/vegetarian	5.8
	Protein-rich	21.2
	Gluten/lactose-free	4.3
	Omnivore	63
	Other	5
Health reasons for a specific diet	Yes	20
	No	80

presents the main socio-demographic characteristics of the sample wherein 51.5% of the respondents are female, the average age is 21.2, more than 58% hold a high school diploma, 66% live in suburban areas and 33% declare a family monthly income that aligns with the national average (EUR 2.106 according with Italian National Institute of Statistics ISTAT, 2023 [72]). Regarding lifestyle and diet variables, 55% of the sample regularly practice sport, 63% claim to follow an omnivorous dietary pattern, more than 21% follow a protein-rich diet and almost 6% are vegan/vegetarian. While most participants (80%) have no medical concerns affecting their food choices, among those who report suffering from specific diseases, food intolerance and obesity problems prevail.

3.3. Data Analysis

Before proceeding with multivariate analysis, a descriptive univariate and bivariate analysis was conducted using frequency distribution, means and standard deviations to explore meat consumption habits and intention to consume APs; cross-tabulation with Pearson’s chi-square was realised to explore the main socio-demographics and lifestyle variables associated with intention to consume APs.

Subsequently, to address our first research question, we employed principal component analysis (PCA) using the psychographic and attitudinal variables included in the survey. The PCA application reduced the number of variables and mitigated potential multicollinearity. We then conducted a k-means cluster analysis (CA) to address the second research question and profile consumers into homogeneous groups in terms of their familiarity and intention to consume three APs. The k-means procedure is a data mining algorithm that constructs clusters based on Euclidean distance that is particularly advantageous when using continuous variables [73]. This clustering algorithm is among the most popular clustering methods due to its flexibility and efficiency [74]. We also applied one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Tukey post hoc test to verify the existence of significant differences between identified clusters regarding identified factors and other relevant variables in the survey. We also applied cross-tabulation with Pearson’s chi-square test to further categorise the sample groups with regard to qualitative variables. We selected PCA and CA on the premise that they are the most suitable for addressing our research questions and that have been previously validated in studies on the same topic, albeit mostly regarding single APs [25,37,68,75]. The study used IBM SPSS version 27 (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.) to perform all statistical analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Results

The data reveal rather sustained meat-eating consumption among the young respondents, as 62.6% indicated that they consumed (fresh and processed) meat two to four times a week, 14.8% five to six times a week and 6% every day. The data indicate that approximately 63% of the respondents have not reduced meat consumption over time. In contrast, 18% have done so for health reasons, 11.5% for ethical reasons related to animal welfare and 8% for reasons related to environmental concerns.

Regarding future intentions, approximately 50% of respondents indicated that they did not plan to reduce their meat consumption. Among those who expressed an intention to reduce meat consumption, the predominant motivation was related to health (23%), environmental protection (16%) and animal welfare (11%).

Considering personal beliefs about meat consumption, respondents mostly agreed with the statements ‘eating meat is necessary to have a complete diet’ (mean value = 5.2 ± 1.587) and ‘eating meat is necessary to have the right amount of protein’ (mean value = 4.9 ± 1.532) and ‘to provide energy’ (mean value = 4.5 ± 1.656). Similarly, respondents largely considered animal meat consumption irreplaceable in their diet (mean value = 4.3 ± 1.859). However, they tended to disagree with the statement ‘replacing meat with alternative protein sources does not provide the same amount of energy’ (mean value = 3.8 ± 1.811).

Regarding familiarity with APs, as shown in Figure 1 (left side), PB APs the source with which respondents were most familiar (mean value = 3.56 ± 1.596), followed by CM (mean value = 2.59 ± 1.784), while IB APs are the least familiar (mean value = 2.39 ± 1.592). Considering the intention to consume APs, the average intention was not particularly high among the young respondents and varied considerably depending on the alternative source considered. Figure 1 (right side) results show that young consumers are more inclined to try PB APs (mean value = 3.67 ± 1.974), while lower values are recorded for CM APs (mean value = 2.86 ± 1.880) and the lowest intention is expressed towards IB APs (mean value = 2.37 ± 1.723). The differences between the values of familiarity and intention for each APs are statistically significant according to the t-test pairwise comparison (p < 0.001). The findings of the cross-tabulation with Pearson’s chi-square test indicate the presence of specific socio-demographic and lifestyle variables that influence the intention to consume APs. Although, this influence varies in relation to the specific APs under consideration. Regarding gender, the analysis reveals a positive correlation between being female and the intention to consume PB proteins (p = 0.004), while for CM, men show a greater intention to consume (p = 0.006). For IBs, however, the difference in gender is not significant. Also, the dietary pattern significantly influences the intention to consume APs is. In the case of IB and CM protein, there is a significant correlation (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively) with consumers who adopt a protein- rich diet, whereas in the case of PB, the positive correlation is with consumers with a gluten-free or vegan/vegetarian diet (p = 0.023). There is also a positive correlation between health status and intention to consume PB (p = 0.002), with a higher propensity expressed by those with allergies/intolerances.

Concerning young Italian’s perceptions of the different APs’ main attributes compared with traditional meat, the results in Figure 2 show that PB received a higher average rating regarding safety and naturalness than the other two alternatives. In contrast, CM APs were perceived as less natural and more expensive but with a better expected taste evaluation. Finally, IB APs were perceived as having the worse expected taste and being less safe but with more nutrients. T-test pairwise comparison indicate significant differences in attributes’ mean values between different categories (p < 0.001), with the exception of PB naturality vs. IB naturality and PB nutrient vs. IB nutrient.

4.2. Multivariate Analysis

We used PCA with varimax rotation, which reduced the initial 25 variables to a four-factor set covering SC, SN, HC and FN, with eigenvalues > 1 in accordance with Kaiser’s criterion. Before to conduct the factorial reduction, the correlations between the original variable were verified using Bartlett’s test for sphericity. The KMO index was used to verify the sample adequacy for the analysis. The KMO index is 0.843, which exceeded the recommended threshold value of above 0.6 [76] and the Bartlett test of sphericity is significant (p < 0.001). This suggests that the original variables are sufficiently correlated with each other to conduct a factor analysis.

In

Table 2. Principal component analysis factor loading *.

	Sustainability Concerns (SC) α = 0.847	Social Norms (SN) α = 0.893	Health Consciousness (HC) α = 0.882	Food Neophobia (FN) α = 0.786
It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day.	SC
Is produced in an environmentally friendly way.	0.901
Is produced with minimal CO2 emissions.	0.889
Is produced without worker exploitation.	0.881
Is produced without child labour.	0.870
Is produced without environmental resources exploitation.	0.863
Is produced in an animal friendly way.	0.814
Is a seasonal product.	0.791
Is produced without animals being in pain.	0.769
Is a local/regional product.	0.685
				FN
I am afraid to eat things I have never had before.				0.817
If I don’t know what a food is I won’t try it.				0.759
I don’t trust new foods.				0.709
Ethnic food looks too weird to eat.				0.692
I am very particular about the foods I eat.				0.611
I like to try new ethnic restaurants (R).				$-$ 0.087
I like foods from different cultures (R).				−0.016
I am constantly sampling new and different foods (R).				−0.115
I will eat almost anything (R).				−0.013
At dinner parties, I will try new foods (R).				−0.022
		SN
I think my friends approve of my consuming meat alternatives.		0.582
I think my family approves of me consuming meat alternatives.		0.521
			HC
I think it is important to eat healthy.			0.852
My health depends on how and what I eat.			0.835
If you eat healthy, you get sick less often.			0.834
I am willing to give up the food I like in order to eat as healthily as possible.			0.648
% Variance explained	24.7	16.9	14.7	10.8
% Total variance				67.1

Notes: * Each column shows only the values considered for the construction of each factor. Rotation methods: Varimax with Kaiser normalisation. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) 0.843. (R) Reverse polarised items.

, these combined factors explained almost 67% of the original variance, and Cronbach’s alpha values for each factor exceeded the 0.7 threshold for internal reliability.

We verified the existence of homogeneous segments of young consumers using a k-means CA considering their familiarity with the three different APs and their intention to consume as discriminant variables (Figure 3). We divided our sample into three clusters because it can demonstrate higher heterogeneity between the identified groups compared with other solutions. Figure 3 reveals the lowest familiarity for CM and the lowest intention to consume for IB. PB APs exhibited the highest scores for familiarity and intention to consume. The differences between the clusters in terms of familiarity and intention to consume are all statistically significant with F-tests (p < 0.001).

In

Table 3. Factor scores among identified clusters.

	Cluster 1 n = 131 (39%)	Cluster 2 n = 56 (17%)	Cluster 3 n = 148 (44%)	F	p-Value
Sustainability concerns	−0.1427689	0.2426540	0.0644793	15.429	0.007
Social norms	−0.3105136	0.1286644	0.5641330	16.392	<0.001
Health consciousness	−0.1495430	0.2841913	0.0579856	9.437	0.003
Food neophobia	−0.0054282	−0.0025637	0.0062028	2.881	0.058

, we conducted ANOVA concerning the four identified factors. The three clusters differed significantly with respect to SC, SN and HC, whereas FN did not statistically differ among the identified profiles. We also applied a variance analysis concerning the respondents’ opinions about the positive externalities of APs and perceptions of different APs’ attributes in

Table 4. ANOVA regarding perceptions of APs’ positive externalities and different attributes.

	Total Sample	Cluster 1 n = 131 (39%)	Cluster 2 n = 56 (17%)	Cluster 3 n = 148 (44%)	F	p-Value
APs contribute to preserving natural resources.	4.58 (1.638)	3.92 a (1.620)	5.69 b (1.271)	4.89 c (1.473)	26.347	0.000
APs are animal welfare friendly.	4.87 (1.802)	4.10 a (1.828)	6.16 b (1.010)	5.21 c (1.631)	29.844	0.000
APs contribute to alleviating hunger in developing countries.	4.09 (1.656)	3.74 a (1.620)	4.71 b (1.825)	4.25 b (1.564)	16.760	0.001
APs contribute to alleviating climate change.	4.54 (1.716)	3.98 a (1.754)	5.33 b (1.632)	4.84 c (1.530)	14.684	0.001
PB Safety	3.13 (1.067)	2.67 a (1.131)	3.88 b (0.889)	3.35 c (0.830)	29.767	0.000
PB Naturalness	2.65 (1.193)	2.25 a (1.085)	3.21 b (1.297)	2.87 a (1.141)	15.288	0.000
PB Expected Taste	2.25 (1.089)	1.96 a (1.055)	2.80 b (1.273)	2.37 b (0.969)	11.829	0.000
PB Nutritious	2.89 (1.015)	2.52 a (1.054)	3.52 b (0.968)	3.05 b (0.840)	20.626	0.000
PB Price	3.60 (1.188)	3.52 (1.248)	3.56 (1.237)	3.92 (1.099)	1.914	0.149
CM Safety	2.55 (1.185)	2.10 a (1.083)	3.45 b (1.086)	2.71 c (1.115)	26.298	0.000
CM Naturalness	1.86 (1.075)	1.55 a (0.937)	2.38 b (0.167)	2.00 b (1.087)	12.198	0.000
CM Expected Taste	2.29 (1.149)	1.87 a (1.112)	3.00 b (1.104)	2.50 c (1.037)	21.485	0.000
CM Nutritious	2.70 (1.123)	2.25 a (1.104)	3.47 b (0.993)	2.90 c (0.987)	26.315	0.000
CM Price	3.59 (1.322)	3.16 a (1.484)	3.87 b (1.188)	4.04 b (1.051)	13.144	0.000
IB Safety	2.23 (1.154)	1.66 (0.899)	3.33 (1.202)	2.46 (1.036)	49.529	0.001
IB Naturalness	2.58 (1.328)	2.00 a (1.252)	3.42 b (1.107)	2.88 c (1.220)	29.120	0.000
IB Expected Taste	1.914 (1.057)	1.50 a (0.897)	2.90 b (1.205)	2.00 c (0.920)	35.328	0.000
IB Nutritious	2.89 (1.316)	2.29 a (1.350)	3.90 b (0.905)	3.17 c (1.087)	35.854	0.000
IB Price	2.86 (1.263)	2.54 a (1.302)	3.01 b (1.286)	3.38 b (1.139)	8.957	0.002

Notes: This table presents mean values and standard deviations are in parentheses. The different superscripts indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD test.

to compare the three clusters. Furthermore, profiling each cluster in terms of socio-demographic and lifestyle variables, meat consumption choices and future reduction intentions,

Table 5. Cluster profiles based on socio-demographic, lifestyle characteristics, dietary pattern and meat-eating habits (%).

		Cluster 1 n = 131 (39%)	Cluster 2 n = 56 (17%)	Cluster 3 n = 148 (44%)	Sig.
Gender	Male	44.3	52.4	45.5	0.084
	Female	50.4	45.2	54.5
	Prefer not to say	5.3	2.4	-
Mean age *		20.6	21.9	21.2	<0.001
Family monthly income compared with national average	Below	18.3	26.2	24.2	0.089
	Average	18.3	26.2	24.2
	High	14.5	16.7	13.6
	n.d.	42.7	23.8	26.5
Residence area	Urban	20.6	33.6	24.8	0.242
	Suburban	79.4	66.4	75.2
Dietary pattern	Omnivore	67.9	59.5	74.2	0.002
	Vegan/vegetarian	-	5.4	0.8
	High-protein diet	27.3	19	20.5
	Gluten/lactose-free	2.3	5.3	2.4
	Other	2.5	10.8	2.1
Sports practice	Yes	60.3	66.7	46.2	0.019
	No	39.7	33.3	53.8
Changes in meat consumption	Not reduced	76.3	40.5 +	56.1	<0.001
	Reduced for health reasons	10.7	33.3	19.7
	Reduced for environmental concerns	3.8	4.8	13.6
	Reduced for animal welfare	9.2	21.4	10.6
Future intention to change meat consumption	Not reduce	52.7	31 +	24.2	<0.001
	Reduced for health reasons	22.1	33.3	22.0
	Reduced for environmental concerns	5.3	11.9	22.0
	Reduced for animal welfare	19.8	23.8	31.8

Note: * age is expressed as an average and the difference between the clusters was verified with a one-way Anova. + this value (%) also includes consumers who indicated that they did not eat meat because they were vegetarian/vegan.

presents a cross-tabulation with Pearson’s chi-square test. In terms of socio-demographic characteristics, gender, income and residence area did not statistically differ among clusters, as well as sport practices for lifestyle variables.

In Cluster 1, which represents 39% of our respondents, consumers are characterised by minimal familiarity with the different APs and low intention to consume, particularly regarding IB and CM APs. Concerning psychographic variables, this group exhibits negative values for SC and HC, indicating a lower level of concern towards sustainability and healthiness in their consumption choices compared with the other two clusters. The analysis of current meat consumption practices and future intentions in Table 5 reveals that Cluster 1 has a higher proportion of consumers who had not reduced their meat consumption in recent years (76%) and have no intention of changing their habits in the future (53%). Therefore, this segment can be defined as traditionalist consumers who do not intend to give up meat.

The younger consumers in this group perceived all APs to be less safe, natural and appetising than traditional proteins, as evidenced by their low scores on the corresponding PB, IB and CM APs dimensions. They also exhibited a degree of scepticism regarding the potentially positive externalities associated with PB APs consumption (Table 4). In terms of socio-demographic characteristics and lifestyle, this cluster predominantly included younger consumers (mean age 20.6) and exhibited a higher prevalence of individuals following a protein-rich diet (27%).

In contrast, Cluster 2, which represents 17% of respondents, includes a notable concentration of consumers who demonstrated the highest familiarity and intention to consume all three APs, compared with the other two clusters. Consequently, this segment can be defined as enthusiastic and positively oriented towards all three APs (as shown in Figure 3, average consumer intention values were all > 5). This cluster also exhibited a higher proportion of consumers who have reduced meat consumption over time, primarily for health or ethical reasons (33% and 21%, respectively). Looking at psychographic factor distribution (Table 3) reveals that this cluster is characterised by individuals with higher sensitivity to the implications of their food choices for sustainability and a pronounced focus on healthiness compared with the other two clusters. Furthermore, these consumers had the most favourable perceptions about APs’ social and environmental externalities (Table 4). The demographic of this group was a comparatively higher average age than the other two clusters. Notably, Cluster 2 had a significant proportion of subjects that adhered to specific dietary choices such as vegan or vegetarian diets (Table 5).

Cluster 3 is the largest, encompassing 44% of the respondents with a slightly higher degree of familiarity and intention to consume APs compared with the overall sample and Cluster 1, which is lower than that of Cluster 2. However, the values concerning the different APs are diverse with lower means for IB APs. This lower propensity towards IB products is also reflected in different attributes’ average ratings, particularly regarding safety and expected taste evaluations. Furthermore, Cluster 3 consumers reported a higher future intention to reduce meat consumption, primarily based on environmental and animal welfare concerns than the other two clusters. This indicates that Cluster 3 can be considered open-minded and exhibited a propensity to adopt APs, albeit PB APs to a greater extent. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3, this cluster exhibited a higher SI level than the other two clusters, indicating heightened sensitivity to peer influence, which significantly impacts consumer choices. Concerning demographics, the mean age is aligned with the overall sample.

5. Discussion

This study examined young Italian consumers’ intentions to consume PB, CM and IB APs, investigating the main factors that influence intention to consume and different segments with homogeneous preferences. In contrast to previous studies conducted in Italy that only focused on one AP [36,62,69], the contribution of our results is the comparison between three APs and the focus on young consumers.

Overall, our findings reveal that the intention to consume APs was not particularly pronounced among the young consumers in our sample, particularly considering that almost half of respondents expressed unwillingness to reduce meat consumption in the near future. Furthermore, intentions to consume APs are quite diverse according to the type of AP under consideration, wherein participants demonstrated a higher propensity to select PB in comparison to more novel protein sources such as CM. Previous research conducted in Italy revealed a greater willingness to try CM [36,77]; however, it should be noted that these studies did not compare different APs, which this may have resulted in participants’ higher reported willingness to try CM than our results from concurrently presenting three alternatives. According to our results, IB received a comparatively lower intention to consume. A substantial body of research has concurred with this result, noting that PB APs are more acceptable to consumers than other choices, with IB being the least preferred [24,42,44].

Our results also indicated that respondents are more familiar with PB APs, and perceive it to be safer, more natural and more nutritious than traditional meat. This may be related to the fact that PB products have been on the market longer than IB foods, which are only now starting to emerge, and CM products, which are not yet available, as suggested by previous studies [24,34,36,78]. Confirming that exposure is a key predictor of consumer behaviour [78,79]. Italy has experienced increased on the market availability of PB foods in recent years which has largely been driven by initiatives promoted by fast-food chains that offer affordable PB options for young people [78].

Our results also indicate that APs must be perceived as safe, affordable and nutritionally comparable to traditional meat products to be accepted. Marketers should highlight these attributes by providing more information and assurance concerning the safety and wholesomeness of these products to reassure young consumers and counteract scepticism. This suggestion is primarily valid for addressing IB products as they do not adhere to the traditional image of a Western diet, generating prejudice and health concerns that represent the most significant barriers to the successful introduction of these novel foods on Italian market [38,78,79,80].

The multivariate analysis revealed that APs consumption intention is influenced by different drivers and is heterogeneous, yielding three different profiles of young consumers. Considering the psychographic variables, our results confirmed previous studies’ findings that individuals’ perception of the degree of importance of the environmental impact of personal food choices positively influences APs acceptance [20,35,44,78] as well as health-orientation [23,34,62]. Indeed, the enthusiastic cluster (i.e., those who expressed the highest intention to consume APs) is characterised by higher average SC and HC values. Additionally, aligning with existing research [36,78], awareness of APs’ potential environmental and sustainability externalities is strongest for this cluster, showing the most positive consumption intention, indicating that this awareness is a significant driver of consumption. Consequently, raising awareness about the potential benefits in terms of the sustainability and healthiness of APs should be an effective strategy to foster young people’s consumption [1,78,81]. This could also be achieved by using strategic labelling to inform consumers, e.g., with nutritional and environmental claims [82].

SNs are also a significant driver, particularly in the open-minded cluster, confirming the importance of peer influence [56,57].

Results reveal no statistically significant differences between the identified groups in terms of FN, contradicting previous studies [22,41,51]. However, various authors [35,44,83] have argued that the impact of FN on the acceptance and willingness to consume APs depends on the type of alternative protein and the context in which it is presented. Furthermore, Siddiqui et al. [21] suggested that strong personal motivations such as SC, HC or SNs can reduce the impact of FN on APs’ acceptance.

Finally, the results regarding socio-demographic differences between clusters revealed that the very young consumers are the least likely to consume APs; therefore, they should be considered a priority segment on which to focus related awareness-raising initiatives.

In the light of the overall results, several suggestions and measures are provided in order to develop personalised promotion strategies for different clusters as well as to overcome consumers’ doubts and prejudices towards APs.

To increase demand for APs that are perceived as more innovative and less familiar to younger consumers, marketers may consider investing in strategies to enhance consumer familiarity with novel foods through positive, everyday experiences. These could include opportunities to sample such products in a familiar food environment, for example by replicating the fast-food chains experience with different APs, or gradually exposing consumers to them, for example by offering small bites at a restaurant [34,78]. Furthermore, to encourage young consumers to try the less familiar APs, it could be useful to gradually introduce them into university canteen menus as a component of traditional recipes, particularly using APs that are already available on the market, such as IB flours. This strategy could be particularly suitable for the traditionalist cluster, given their scepticism towards APs. At the same time, whereas this segment shows a lower level of concern towards sustainability and healthiness of personal food choices, it would be useful to engage these consumers with education and awareness-raising campaigns about the negative impacts of intensive livestock farming and the potential benefits of adopting more sustainable diet. Considering that this segment is the youngest, these initiatives should be conveyed mainly through social networks (i.e., TikTok and Instagram) by proposing some storytelling, showcases or challenges. A further promotion strategy for the traditionalist group could involve gyms or sports centres at which alternative protein products, IB and PB, could be promoted as supplements, trying to overcome prejudice about their nutritional value [84].

Concerning the open-minded cluster, a potential strategy in encouraging the APs consumption could be to activate communication strategies using influencers or testimonials who are particularly popular among young people to promote the APs consumption as a socially desirable practice [35]. Given the open minded are less familiar with IB proteins, it would be advisable to promote this protein, by sharing the experiences and insights of early adopters, such as athletes, chefs, and other students who have incorporated insect proteins into their diets.

While with reference to the enthusiastic cluster, although these consumers already exhibit a favourable propensity towards APs, it would be beneficial to enhance their perception of the APs’ expected taste, for example by proposing recipes or suitable food pairings, to consolidate their propensity to consume these products. Moreover, as suggested by Puteri et al. [81] companies could increase these consumers’ involvement in the APs development, by introducing platforms to share their opinions and ideas.

Some limitations must be considered in interpreting our results. The use of a convenience sample of university students precludes us from generalising the results to the broader Italian population. Furthermore, we used a self-administered questionnaire, which is often affected by social desirability bias. Other limitations include the limited set of APs considered and the lack of real product tasting; therefore, the perception was only hypothetically detected. Therefore, future research should include more APs, also considering unconventional products (e.g., algae or protein derived from microbial fermentation) and including the emotional reactions that the actual consumption of these products can arouse in consumers. Furthermore, the perception and intention to consume APs as ingredients incorporated in dishes or processed foods could be investigated.

6. Conclusions

The transition to more sustainable diets, characterised by a reduction in animal products’ consumption, is an imperative that can no longer be postponed [9]. The introduction of APs in the everyday food choices is a complex behavioural change related to product attributes and individuals’ motivations and concerns [16,26]. Although the environmental and health benefits of these alternative sources are still debated, their inclusion in the diet, albeit in partially substitution of meat, could be an efficient solution to satisfy the protein needs in the high and upper middle-income countries and could result in a decline in global agricultural land use and greenhouse gases emissions from the agriculture [6].

The findings demonstrate that young consumers exhibit only a slight degree of familiarity with the three APs investigated, and are not particularly prone to their consumption, with the exception of PBs, which are undoubtedly the most visible on the market. Among the three segments identified, the most enthusiastic is the smallest group; in contrast, the largest group is characterised by unwillingness to reduce animal protein consumption.

These results suggested to policymakers and marketers to design targeted interventions based on the different profiles identified to encourage young consumers’ sustainable food choices and increase APs’ consumption, particularly for those that are currently less accepted by consumers, such as CM and IB APs.

Further research and development investments are essential to develop innovative products using APs for which consumers already have positive expectations and those that are less familiar [63]. In this regard, Milião et al. [85] suggested the opportunity to invest in new and unconventional alternative proteins sources that currently have no market value but can make a significant contribution to food systems’ sustainability.