Abstract
Background
Revealing motivations in food choice and investigating the potential role of sustainable healthy eating behavior, ecological footprint awareness and food security in food choice are important points for a sustainable life. This study was conducted with 5285 adults aged 19–65 residing in Turkey to investigate their food choice motivations in terms of sustainable and healthy eating behavior, ecological footprint awareness, and the food insecurity perspective.
Methods
In this context, the Food Choice Questionnaire, the Sustainable and Healthy Eating Behaviors Scale, the Awareness Scale for Reducing Ecological Footprint and the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale were used. Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine relationships between scales. The effects of sustainable and healthy eating behaviors, ecological footprint awareness, and household food insecurity on food choice motivations were examined via path analysis.
Results
A moderate positive (r = 0.47, p < 0.05) relationship was found between the participants’ awareness levels of sustainable and healthy eating behaviors and reducing the ecological footprint. A weak negative (r=-0.22, p < 0.05) relationship was found between their awareness levels of ecological footprint reduction and household food insecurity, and a weak negative (r=-0.16, p < 0.05) relationship was found between sustainable and healthy eating behaviors and household food insecurity. The explanatory power of ecological footprint awareness, sustainable and healthy eating behaviors, and household food insecurity for food choices was 27.2%. It was observed that ecological footprint awareness (β = 0.21, p < 0.05) and sustainable and healthy eating behaviors (β = 0.38, p < 0.05) significantly and positively affected food choices.
Conclusions
The variables influencing food choices the most were sustainable and healthy eating behavior, ecological footprint awareness, and household food insecurity. Although there are various data in the literature on the multiple factors that determine food choices, a consensus on the effectiveness of these factors has yet to be reached. A comprehensive examination of this issue, including all the components, is needed.
Keywords: Sustainable and healthy eating behavior, Ecological footprint, Food insecurity, Food choice
Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) define sustainable healthy nutrition as “a form of nutrition that aims to ensure a healthy life, provides food and nutrition security, and can be passed on to future generations with a low environmental impact” [1]. Sustainable and healthy eating is a multifaceted concept. In addition to engaging in ecological behaviors such as avoiding food waste and consuming local and seasonal foods, it also encompasses animal welfare, healthy and balanced eating, consuming low-fat foods, and reducing meat consumption, all of which are related to healthy eating [2]. Sustainable diets refer to dietary patterns that are protective, respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically just and affordable, nutritionally adequate, safe, healthy, and optimized for natural and human resources [3].
The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of the United Nations defines the right to food as “the ability to access food in sufficient quantity and quality, free from harmful elements, produced in an acceptable and sustainable manner, and without hindering the enjoyment of other human rights” [4]. Food security concerns sustainable concepts that meet the needs of current and future generations, depending on environmental and socioeconomic dimensions [5]. The “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” adopted at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, includes goals related to promoting sustainable and healthy nutrition and ensuring global food security [6]. Sustainable nutrition and food security are closely related and should be considered together [4, 7].
Dietary choices affect both human health and the environment. Current dietary patterns are associated with various sustainability concerns, such as environmental and animal welfare concerns and ethical considerations. Food choices are an important factor in dietary sustainability. Therefore, gaining insight into consumer food choices is crucial to achieving sustainability goals [8]. The environmental consequences and scope of the sustainability of various dietary patterns vary. Compared with animal-based protein sources, the production of plant-based protein sources requires less land, water, and energy and results in lower greenhouse gas emissions. The current food system is responsible for 20–30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and cause various environmental issues, such as biodiversity loss, deforestation, and land-use changes [9]. A plant-based diet has a lower ecological footprint. The ecological benefits arise from the entire food chain system, including production, processing, distribution, cooking, and consumption. Preference for plant-based, regional, seasonal (and organic) foods helps protect biodiversity, conserve the environment, and sustain local economies [10]. Western and high-protein diets have been found to have high environmental footprints, whereas the Mediterranean diet has lower water usage and greenhouse gas emissions [11]. Since the world population is expected to reach 10 billion in the next 25 years and environmental pressure from the food system is projected to increase by 50–92%, modifying the current food system to be more environmentally friendly and healthier for both the planet and human health is necessary [12, 13].
To achieve sustainable and healthy nutrition, it is necessary to analyze consumer behaviors [14]. Food choice is associated with climate change, as it affects the supply-demand balance of food production and the type and quantity of food waste and serves as a symbolic expression of concern for human and planetary health [15]. Individual food choice can accelerate societal movements. Individuals adopting and supporting food choice behaviors aimed at reducing climate change can influence others’ behavior, creating a social impact [15]. Identifying factors that influence food choice in communities is a crucial step in developing food systems that benefit human and planetary health and designing and implementing effective and sustainable programs and policies [15]. Sustainable food consumption patterns not only have beneficial effects on human health but can also positively affect the impact of human factors on the environment. This has led to a healthier diet and the consumption of culturally appropriate and nutritious local, seasonal foods, helping to reverse the global health crisis. It has the potential for sustainability for present and future generations without endangering the natural environment or the security of food resources. Therefore, sustainable healthy eating behaviors, ecological footprint awareness and food security can be closely linked to food choices [16]. Understanding food choices is the key to achieving sustainable living. It is possible to manage this process by understanding food choices. Understanding food choice motivations enables the ability to manage and change positive or negative dietary patterns that affect sustainable living. Although studies on sustainable healthy eating behaviors, food security, food choices, and ecological footprint awareness exist in the literature, to the best of our knowledge, no study has examined the combined impact of these factors on food choices. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impacts of sustainable and healthy eating behavior, food security, and ecological footprint awareness on food choice motivations.
Methods
Research sample and design
This study was conducted between June 2023 and September 2023 with 5,285 adults aged between 19 and 65 years who reside in Turkey and who voluntarily agreed to participate via a voluntary sampling method. The requirements for participation were being within the specified age range (19–65 years), not having any chronic health conditions or psychological disorders, agreeing to participate, and not following any special diet or nutrition regimen. Individuals who were pregnant, breastfeeding, outside the age limits, or followed a special diet were excluded from the study. Since food choice motivations were examined in a healthy population, individuals with health problems and special diets that could affect food choice were not included in the study. It was deemed appropriate to exclude these individuals from the study because they may have greater health motivations and be more conscious of sustainable healthy eating behaviors. This study is a voluntary sampling study. In this method, individuals who agreed to participate in the research were included in the study. The participants were included in the study on a voluntary basis through open calls made through online platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.). The participants who volunteered were informed about the study’s aim and scope via an online written statement, and their consent was obtained. Data collection tools were uploaded to the Google survey system, survey links were shared on social media platforms to provide wide access online, and the participants answered the online questionnaire through Google Forms. The study protocol was approved by the Istanbul Medipol University Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee with decision number 521 on June 8, 2023, and conducted according to the ethical principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
Data collection
Data were obtained on the basis of participants’ self-reports. The online survey form consisted of five sections and included questions on participants’ sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, marital and educational status, profession, region of residence, and anthropometric measurements such as height and weight). It also includes four main scales: the Sustainable and Healthy Eating Behaviors Scale, the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale, the Food Choice Questionnaire, and the Awareness Scale for Reducing the Ecological Footprint.
Assessment of food choice
The Food Choice Questionnaire developed by Steptoe et al. [17] and adapted to Turkish by Dikmen et al. [18] with verified reliability and validity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) was applied. The scale consists of nine subcomponents (health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural content, price, weight control, familiarity, and ethical concerns) and 36 items. The health and mood subcomponents include six items, five convenience items, four sensory appeal items, and three other subcomponents. The items are rated on a four-point Likert scale (1 = not important at all to 4 = very important). The score for each subcomponent is calculated by averaging the scores of the relevant questions, whereas the total scale score is calculated by averaging the scores of all subcomponents [18].
Assessment of sustainable and healthy eating behaviors
To assess sustainable and healthy eating behaviors, the Sustainable and Healthy Eating Behavior Scale developed by Żakowska-Biemans et al. [14] and the Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability study were conducted by Köksal et al. [19]. The scale consists of 32 items and 7 factors (healthy and balanced diet, local food and low fat, quality labels, seasonal food and avoiding food waste, meat reduction, and animal welfare), and each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 to 7 (never to always). The score for each factor is calculated by averaging the scores of the relevant questions (ranging from 1 to 7), whereas the total scale score is calculated by averaging the scores of all factors (ranging from 1 to 7) [19]. Higher scores on the total scale and subcomponents indicate more sustainable and healthy eating behaviors [19].
Assessment of awareness in reducing the ecological footprint
The Awareness Scale for Reducing the Ecological Footprint, developed by Tekindal et al. [20] and validated in Turkish (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96), was used. The scale consists of six dimensions, including energy, recycling, transportation, water consumption, food, and legislation, and 30 items. The energy subcomponent consists of eight items, while the legislation, water consumption, and food subcomponents each consist of four items, and the recycling and transportation subcomponents each consist of five items. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), and the score for each subcomponent is calculated by averaging the relevant items. The total score is obtained by averaging the subcomponents. Higher total and subcomponent scores indicate greater awareness of reducing the ecological footprint [20].
Assessment of household food insecurity
The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), developed by Coates et al. [21] and adapted to Turkish by Bor [22] with validated reliability and validity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87), was used. The scale measures the degree of food insecurity in the household over the past four weeks through 18 questions. Each occurrence question has two answers (0 = no, 1 = yes), whereas the frequency question (1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often) has three options. If the participant answers “no” to an occurrence question, they skip the corresponding frequency question and proceed to the next occurrence question. The HFIAS score is calculated by summing the scores of the frequency questions. The lowest possible score is 0, and the highest is 27. A higher HFIAS score indicates more severe food insecurity in the household [21, 22].
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed via the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages, whereas numerical variables are presented as the means and standard deviations for normally distributed data and as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for nonnormally distributed data. Chi-square tests and independent t tests were used for binary group comparisons. Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine relationships between scales. The correlation coefficient was interpreted as follows: 0.00–0.30 (low), 0.30–0.70 (moderate), and 0.70–1.00 (high). The effects of sustainable and healthy eating behaviors, ecological footprint awareness, and household food insecurity on food choice were examined via path analysis in AMOS 24. A statistical significance level of p < 0.05 was set.
Results
The general characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. The mean age of the participants in the study was 27.9 ± 10.99 years (n = 5285), with the majority (67.3%) being women and unmarried (69.5%). When examining income levels, 41.2% of the participants reported earning below the minimum wage, whereas 40.8% reported earning above it. A significant majority of the participants (72.7%) had education levels at the undergraduate or postgraduate level. 45% of the participants were students, 42% of whom lived in the city in Central Anatolia and 20% of whom lived in the city in the Mediterranean region.
Table 1.
General characteristics of the participants
| n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 3557 (67.3) |
| Male | 1728 (32.7) | |
| Marital status | Married | 1612 (30.5) |
| Single | 3673 (69.5) | |
| Education | Primary school | 397 (7.5) |
| High school | 1044 (19.8) | |
| University | 3577 (67.7) | |
| Postgraduate | 267 (5.0) | |
| Income status | Under minimum wage | 2179 (41.2) |
| Minimum wage | 949 (18.0) | |
| Above the minimum wage | 2157 (40.8) | |
| Profession | Student | 2383 (45.1) |
| Housewife | 531 (10) | |
| Retired | 120 (2.3) | |
| Officer | 745 (14.1) | |
| Laborer | 464 (8.8) | |
| Independent business | 327 (6.2) | |
| Unemployed | 207 (3.9) | |
| Other | 508 (9.6) | |
| Geographical region | Mediterranean | 1040 (19.7) |
| Eastern anatolia | 245 (4.6) | |
| Aegean | 516 (9.8) | |
| Southeastern anatolia | 364 (6.9) | |
| Central anatolia | 2200 (41.6) | |
| Black sea | 255 (4.8) | |
| Marmara | 665 (12.6) | |
| Age(years, Mean ± SD) | 27.9 ± 10.99 | |
The participants’ food choices, sustainable and healthy eating behavior, household food insecurity, and awareness of reducing the ecological footprint are shown in Table 2. The total score for food choice was 2.7 ± 0.62, the total score for sustainable and healthy eating behavior was 4.0 ± 1.29, the total score for the HFIAS was 6.1 ± 6.22, and the total score for the Ecological Footprint Awareness Scale was 3.6 ± 0.94. Sensory appeal was the leading motivation for food choice (score = 3.0), followed by price and mood (both scores of 2.8). All scale scores, except for the total HFIAS, animal welfare, local food, price and familiarity scores for women, were significantly higher for women than for men (p < 0.05).
Table 2.
Participants’ awareness of reducing their ecological footprint, sustainable and healthy eating behavior, household food insecurity and food choices
| Total (n = 5285) Mean ± SD |
Female (n = 3557) Mean ± SD |
Male (n = 1728) Mean ± SD |
p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food choice questionnaire | Total Score | 2.7 ± 0.62 | 2.8 ± 0.62 | 2.7 ± 0.63 | < 0.001** |
| Health | 2.7 ± 0.76 | 2.8 ± 0.75 | 2.7 ± 0.77 | < 0.001** | |
| Mood | 2.8 ± 0.77 | 2.8 ± 0.76 | 2.7 ± 0.76 | < 0.001** | |
| Convenience | 2.7 ± 0.75 | 2.8 ± 0.75 | 2.6 ± 0.75 | < 0.001** | |
| Sensory appeal | 3.0 ± 0.77 | 3.1 ± 0.77 | 2.9 ± 0.76 | < 0.001** | |
| Natural content | 2.7 ± 0.85 | 2.8 ± 0.85 | 2.7 ± 0.85 | 0.01* | |
| Price | 2.8 ± 0.78 | 2.8 ± 0.78 | 2.8 ± 0.79 | 0.31 | |
| Weight control | 2.5 ± 0.82 | 2.5 ± 0.82 | 2.4 ± 0.83 | < 0.001** | |
| Familiarity | 2.7 ± 0.76 | 2.7 ± 0.76 | 2.7 ± 0.76 | 0.14 | |
| Ethical concern | 2.5 ± 0.86 | 2.6 ± 0.85 | 2.5 ± 0.88 | 0.02* | |
| Sustainable and healthy eating behaviors scale | Total Score | 4.0 ± 1.29 | 4.1 ± 1.24 | 4.0 ± 1.37 | 0.008* |
| Quality labels | 3.8 ± 1.31 | 3.9 ± 1.27 | 3.8 ± 1.39 | 0.03* | |
| Seasonal food & avoiding food waste | 4.3 ± 1.39 | 4.3 ± 1.36 | 4.2 ± 1.45 | 0.002* | |
| Animal welfare | 3.9 ± 1.61 | 3.9 ± 1.58 | 3.9 ± 1.66 | 0.65 | |
| Meat reduction | 3.7 ± 1.57 | 3.7 ± 1.54 | 3.6 ± 1.62 | 0.01* | |
| Healthy & balanced nutrition | 4.5 ± 1.61 | 4.5 ± 1.58 | 4.4 ± 1.67 | 0.001* | |
| Local food | 3.8 ± 1.61 | 3.8 ± 1.59 | 3.7 ± 1.66 | 0.46 | |
| Low fat | 4.4 ± 1.60 | 4.5 ± 1.57 | 4.3 ± 1.65 | < 0.001** | |
| Awareness scale for reducing ecological footprint | Total Score | 3.6 ± 0.94 | 3.7 ± 0.90 | 3.5 ± 0.99 | < 0.001** |
| Energy | 3.9 ± 1.02 | 4.0 ± 0.98 | 3.8 ± 1.08 | < 0.001** | |
| Under the laws | 4.0 ± 1.10 | 4.1 ± 1.05 | 3.8 ± 1.16 | < 0.001** | |
| Transportation | 3.5 ± 1.12 | 3.6 ± 1.08 | 3.3 ± 1.17 | < 0.001** | |
| Recyling | 3.6 ± 1.08 | 3.7 ± 1.05 | 3.5 ± 1.13 | < 0.001** | |
| Food consumption | 3.7 ± 1.06 | 3.8 ± 1.02 | 3.5 ± 1.12 | < 0.001** | |
| Water consumption | 3.6 ± 1.10 | 3.7 ± 1.07 | 3.4 ± 1.15 | < 0.001** | |
| Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) Total Score | 6.1 ± 6.22 | 6.0 ± 6.01 | 6.3 ± 6.62 | 0.20 | |
*p<0.05
**p<0.001
The relationships among food choices, sustainable and healthy eating behavior, and awareness of reducing the ecological footprint are presented in Table 3. A positive and significant relationship was found between food choices and sustainable and healthy eating behavior (r = 0.483) and awareness of reducing the ecological footprint (r = 0.397) (p < 0.001). When evaluated in terms of subcomponents, a significant relationship was observed in all subdimensions. A negative and significant relationship was found between food choices and the HFIAS (r=−0.13, p < 0.001).
Table 3.
The relationship between food choices and sustainable and healthy eating behavior awareness of reducing the ecological footprint and household
| Food choice questionnaire | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total score | Health | Mood | Convenience | Sensory appeal | Natural content | Price | Weight control | Familiarity | Ethical concern | ||||||||||||
| r | p | r | p | r | p | r | p | r | p | r | p | r | p | r | p | r | p | r | p | ||
| Sustainable and healthy eating behaviors scale | Total score | 0.483 | <0.001 | 0.533 | <0.001 | 0.341 | <0.001 | 0.261 | <0.001 | 0.281 | <0.001 | 0.534 | <0.001 | 0.236 | <0.001 | 0.447 | <0.001 | 0.374 | <0.001 | 0.443 | <0.001 |
| Quality labels | 0.438 | <0.001 | 0.505 | <0.001 | 0.292 | <0.001 | 0.200 | <0.001 | 0.229 | <0.001 | 0.541 | <0.001 | 0.176 | <0.001 | 0.423 | <0.001 | 0.337 | <0.001 | 0.436 | <0.001 | |
| Seasonal food & avoiding food waste | 0.432 | <0.001 | 0.456 | <0.001 | 0.305 | <0.001 | 0.248 | <0.001 | 0.283 | <0.001 | 0.469 | <0.001 | 0.251 | <0.001 | 0.370 | <0.001 | 0.344 | <0.001 | 0.364 | <0.001 | |
| Animal welfare | 0.391 | <0.001 | 0.436 | <0.001 | 0.282 | <0.001 | 0.210 | <0.001 | 0.210 | <0.001 | 0.421 | <0.001 | 0.173 | <0.001 | 0.377 | <0.001 | 0.294 | <0.001 | 0.378 | <0.001 | |
| Meat reduction | 0.373 | <0.001 | 0.382 | <0.001 | 0.266 | <0.001 | 0.221 | <0.001 | 0.191 | <0.001 | 0.374 | <0.001 | 0.194 | <0.001 | 0.358 | <0.001 | 0.318 | <0.001 | 0.380 | <0.001 | |
| Healthy & balanced nutrition | 0.460 | <0.001 | 0.541 | <0.001 | 0.328 | <0.001 | 0.251 | <0.001 | 0.290 | <0.001 | 0.510 | <0.001 | 0.222 | <0.001 | 0.405 | <0.001 | 0.330 | <0.001 | 0.368 | <0.001 | |
| Local food | 0.395 | <0.001 | 0.416 | <0.001 | 0.294 | <0.001 | 0.212 | <0.001 | 0.210 | <0.001 | 0.405 | <0.001 | 0.177 | <0.001 | 0.363 | <0.001 | 0.333 | <0.001 | 0.419 | <0.001 | |
| Low fat | 0.408 | <0.001 | 0.437 | <0.001 | 0.291 | <0.001 | 0.252 | <0.001 | 0.262 | <0.001 | 0.421 | <0.001 | 0.233 | <0.001 | 0.394 | <0.001 | 0.292 | <0.001 | 0.318 | <0.001 | |
| Awareness scale for reducing ecological footprint | Total score | 0.397 | <0.001 | 0.380 | <0.001 | 0.320 | <0.001 | 0.267 | <0.001 | 0.330 | <0.001 | 0.363 | <0.001 | 0.246 | <0.001 | 0.280 | <0.001 | 0.307 | <0.001 | 0,308 | <0.001 |
| Energy | 0.362 | <0.001 | 0.342 | <0.001 | 0.286 | <0.001 | 0.262 | <0.001 | 0.330 | <0.001 | 0.333 | <0.001 | 0.240 | <0.001 | 0.240 | <0.001 | 0.271 | <0.001 | 0,244 | <0.001 | |
| Under the laws | 0.328 | <0.001 | 0.309 | <0.001 | 0.269 | <0.001 | 0.235 | <0.001 | 0.325 | <0.001 | 0.297 | <0.001 | 0.230 | <0.001 | 0.190 | <0.001 | 0.241 | <0.001 | 0,198 | <0.001 | |
| Transportation | 0.358 | <0.001 | 0.343 | <0.001 | 0.291 | <0.001 | 0.227 | <0.001 | 0.282 | <0.001 | 0.329 | <0.001 | 0.202 | <0.001 | 0.271 | <0.001 | 0.280 | <0.001 | 0,305 | <0.001 | |
| Recyling | 0.334 | <0.001 | 0.314 | <0.001 | 0.278 | <0.001 | 0.224 | <0.001 | 0.235 | <0.001 | 0.286 | <0.001 | 0.211 | <0.001 | 0.255 | <0.001 | 0.266 | <0.001 | 0,293 | <0.001 | |
| Food consumption | 0.384 | <0.001 | 0.377 | <0.001 | 0.298 | <0.001 | 0.247 | <0.001 | 0.309 | <0.001 | 0.372 | <0.001 | 0.225 | <0.001 | 0.284 | <0.001 | 0.303 | <0.001 | 0,302 | <0.001 | |
| Water consumption | 0.372 | <0.001 | 0.365 | <0.001 | 0.302 | <0.001 | 0.229 | <0.001 | 0.285 | <0.001 | 0.343 | <0.001 | 0.209 | <0.001 | 0.273 | <0.001 | 0.296 | <0.001 | 0,333 | <0.001 | |
| Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) Total score | −0.13 | <0.001 | −0.11 | <0.001 | −0.09 | <0.001 | −0.12 | <0.001 | −0.16 | <0.001 | −0.11 | <0.001 | −0.12 | <0.001 | −0.07 | <0.001 | −0.07 | <0.001 | −0.02 | <0.001 | |
Food insecurity
A diagram showing the path analysis results, the effects of sustainable and healthy eating behavior, awareness of reducing the ecological footprint, and household food insecurity on food choices is shown in Fig. 1. Figure 1 presents the correlation results between sustainable and healthy eating behavior, awareness of reducing the ecological footprint, and household food insecurity. According to these data, a weak negative relationship (r = 0.22) was found between participants’ awareness of reducing the ecological footprint and household food insecurity, and a weak negative relationship (r = 0.16) was found between participants’ sustainable and healthy eating behaviors and household food insecurity. Additionally, a moderate positive relationship (r = 0.47) was found between participants’ sustainable and healthy eating behaviors and their awareness of reducing the ecological footprint.
Fig. 1.
Diagram showing the path analysis results of the variables. Two-way arrows represent the correlation (r) between the scales, and the one-way arrows represent the standardized beta coefficients (β). The term “e” represents the margin of error, whereas the number in the dependent variable represents the explanatory variance of the independent variables in the dependent variable
The path analysis results examining the effects of participants’ sustainable and healthy eating behavior, ecological footprint awareness, and household food insecurity on food choice motivations are presented in Table 4. In line with these results, the rate of explaining food choice motivations by awareness of reducing the ecological footprint, sustainable and healthy eating behavior, and household food insecurity was 27.2%. The participants’ awareness of reducing the ecological footprint (β = 0.21, p < 0.05) and sustainable and healthy eating behaviors (β = 0.38; p < 0.05) significantly and positively affected their food choice motivations. The participants’ household food insecurity levels were found to significantly and negatively affect their food choice motivations (β=−0.02, p < 0.05). When standardized beta coefficients were examined, the variables that influenced the participants’ food choices at the maximum level were sustainable and healthy eating behavior, awareness of ecological footprint reduction, and household food insecurity.
Table 4.
Pathway analysis results examining the effects of sustainable and healthy eating behavior, ecological footprint awareness and household food insecurity on participants’ food choices
| Path | Factor | B | S.E. | β (Beta) | p | R2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food choice | <--- | Awareness for Reducing Ecological Footprint | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.000** | 0.272 |
| Food choice | <--- | Sustainable and healthy eating behavior | 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.000** | |
| Food choice | <--- | Household Food Insecurity | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.02 | 0.048* |
B: unstandardized path coefficient, β (Beta): standardized path coefficient, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001
R2: ratio of variance explained in dependent factors
Discussion
Evaluating the ecological footprint provides information on the resources consumed and the waste produced, as well as the requirements for producing necessities and eliminating existing waste. The ecological footprint explains the impact and demands created by individuals’ consumption habits in nature and their usage beyond these needs [23]. Several studies have reported that the concept of the ecological footprint is an interesting tool that influences consumption preferences [23–25]. Awareness of the environmental impacts of food production and consumption is insufficient [26]. Recently, the environmental footprint of food has gained increasing attention in EAT-Lancet reports [27]. However, information does not always translate into behavior, and even with a basic understanding of the environmental impact of food, various factors, such as high prices, taste expectations, and limited food accessibility, can prevent consumers from purchasing environmentally friendly options [25]. In a study on adult food preferences (n = 40), participants who scored higher on the ecological knowledge scale created more environmentally friendly menus during a meal experiment than those who scored lower [25]. Similarly, another study (n = 585) reported that environmental factors and health were the strongest factors determining the food choices of Italian consumers [28]. A recent study investigating food choice and the carbon footprint among young adults (n = 47) revealed that all participants were climate conscious in their food consumption practices and were conscious of the environmental impact of different food choices. Their knowledge that foods contribute to a high or low carbon footprint also highlights their awareness of the environmental consequences of their dietary decisions [29]. Another study in young adults (n = 1333) revealed that following a Mediterranean diet was associated with more sustainable and healthy dietary behaviors and greater awareness of reducing the ecological footprint [30]. In our study, a moderate positive relationship (r = 0.47) was found between participants’ sustainable and healthy eating behaviors and their awareness of reducing the ecological footprint, and awareness of reducing the ecological footprint had a significant and positive effect on food choice motivations (β = 0.21, p < 0.05). This confirms that as environmental awareness increases, food choice motivations are also affected. The young age and high education level of the population might have influenced these results. Since participation in our study was provided on a voluntary basis, the sample aimed to represent the adult population in Turkey, but it was accepted that there may be limitations in representation due to the sampling method. Owing to the limitations inherent in the study, this topic needs to be investigated in depth, covering all age groups called adults and taking into account the level of education. Because the evaluation was performed on the basis of self-reports and food choices were not assessed experimentally, these results need to be investigated in more detail. When various intervention-based randomized controlled studies are evaluated, experimental studies yield clearer results in influencing food choices [31–34]. Despite these limitations, the strength of our study is its large sample size. It can be concluded that ecological footprint awareness and sustainability concepts may affect food choice. However, food choice should be considered together with more than one factor. There are several recommendations to guide future ecologically based food choice practices. It has been suggested that sustainability-themed food labels may encourage young adults to prepare more sustainable meals with lower carbon and water footprints. Ecological labels are thought to trigger environmentally friendly decision-making options in food choices and may also be important in guiding individuals to consider the sustainability of their food choices [35]. In addition, designing and implementing programs that support the development of food literacy, starting in early childhood and covering the whole society, can contribute to the development of healthier and sustainable eating habits [36].
In our study, the explanatory power of ecological footprint awareness, sustainable and healthy eating behaviors, and household food insecurity for food choices was 27.2%. Food choices are manipulated by numerous stimuli, and the existing choices are shaped by the characteristics of nutrition (taste, calorie content, naturalness, healthiness, etc.), the individual’s current psychological state (hunger-satiety level), and the memories related to consuming such food in the past (pleasure, disgust, or nausea) [37]. Food choices are affected by a combination of various factors, including biological determinants (e.g., appetite and taste), physiological determinants, social determinants (e.g., culture), psychological determinants (e.g., stress and mood), and economic determinants (e.g., cost and income). Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge toward food also have an effect on food choices [28]. It is suggested that food choices are made on the basis of abstract and basic food-related characteristics. Two particularly prominent traits are reflective and impulsive. It has been suggested that food choices are shaped on the basis of whether the decision is made according to information and values (healthiness, environmental friendliness, or other abstract qualities) or motivational orientations (rewarding factors such as taste, flavor, or other fundamental qualities) [38]. Both food choices and the characteristics of sustainable diets depend on various factors, such as sociodemographic and economic status, attitudes, norms, culture, and beliefs [39]. Understanding the sustainability motivations underlying food choices is still difficult [8]. However, it has been suggested that adopting a sustainable diet is directly linked to individuals’ motivations for sustainable food choices, as these motivations lie at the root of dietary behavior [8]. In a study conducted with a young population (mean age 23.21 years, n = 467), a standardized regression analysis revealed a positive and significant relationship between the food choice scale score and the level of knowledge of sustainable nutrition (B = 0.45, p < 0.01) and between the food choice scale score and sustainable and healthy eating behaviors (B = 0.54, p < 0.01) [8]. Conversely, another study with a small sample size (n = 33) reported that only a small portion of the components defined in the field of sustainable nutrition were effective in terms of participants’ food choices [40]. In another study (n = 450), the mediating effect of environmental concerns on food choices was investigated, and it was found that environmental knowledge and environmental concerns positively and significantly improved environmentally responsible food choices [41]. In a study in Turkey, a high level of sustainable nutrition knowledge and environmentally friendly food choices were found to be associated with compliance with the Mediterranean diet (1 unit increase, 0.125 and 0.148 points increase, respectively, p < 0.005) [42]. This research also revealed that sustainable and healthy eating behaviors (β = 0.38; p < 0.05) significantly and positively affected food choices. It has been reported that individuals who are more concerned about the environmental impact of their behavior choose sustainable foods [43]. A sustainable or healthy diet has gained an important place in society through sociocultural changes, food movements, and traditional cuisines. The various food movements adopted by society include a range of movements in the production, purchase, and use of food and are based on multiple social values. Some values encompass ethical and moral reasons that create a strong emotional bond with consumers. Food movements come to the forefront by supporting collective identities and creating shared emotional experiences. In Western countries, progressive food movements aim to promote sustainable healthy diets. This movement may use multiple values, such as sensory pleasure, naturalness, origin, justice, and environmental impact [44].
A study investigating the determinants of sustainable food consumption in ecological, social, economic, and health terms revealed that in terms of sustainable food consumption, ecological aspects were the most important, followed by economic and social aspects [45]. It is suggested that price is the main determinant of food choice for a population with low income or education [46, 47]. Another study reported that the most important dimensions of food choice are sensory appeal, price, and mood [48]. It is suggested that individuals’ preferences when purchasing food depend on access to reliable information about the cost and benefits of the food [49]. There is a relationship between food accessibility and nutrition practices [50]. Economic factors such as prices and income affect food choices and food security, as well as access to and availability of food [51]. It has been reported that economic motivations significantly influence food choices and behaviors related to food consumption [52]. The increase in the price of food products particularly complicates access to food products for low-income households [53]. In our study, the level of household food insecurity significantly and negatively affected food choices (β=−0.02, p < 0.05), and the variables that most influenced food choices were sustainable and healthy eating behavior, awareness of reducing the ecological footprint, and household food insecurity. Although food security is an important determinant of food choices, important steps need to be taken to ensure that food choices are environmentally friendly and health-supporting. Sustainable development, which targets a sustainable environment, sustainable economy and sustainable sociality, also includes policies aimed at ensuring food security and sufficient food. It is important to create and implement policies on a national basis to ensure sustainable development. Within the scope of sustainable development, training should be provided on sustainable food production, food safety and food choices, and all food producers, from local to global, should be encouraged to produce in an environmentally friendly manner [54]. Consumers should be informed and made aware that food consumption and food security should be ensured. Policies should be developed, and public education activities should be carried out to ensure healthy, sustainable and environmentally friendly food choices.
Conclusion
These findings suggest that in addition to food insecurity, both sustainable eating behaviors and ecological footprint awareness significantly influence food choices. In addition to providing new insights into the relationship between ecological footprint awareness and food choices, this research can also guide future policies by drawing attention to sustainable development concepts (ecological footprint awareness, sustainable healthy dietary behaviors, food security) in food choices. There is a need for a more detailed examination of the role of multiple factors in food choice. Experimental food preference studies reveal the cause‒effect relationship and reveal whether the mentioned factors are effective. In this context, conducting high-sample experimental food choice studies will be important in shedding light on this issue.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the participants of the study and the students of Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics.
Abbreviations
- FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
- HFIAS
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
- WHO
World Health Organization
Authors’ contributions
Hande Bakırhan and Serap İncedal Irgat contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study. Serap İncedal Irgat, Hande Bakırhan, Yunus Emre Bakırhan, and Zehra İncedal Sonkaya contributed to the methodology of the study and collected the article data. Hande Bakırhan curated the data and Serap İncedal Irgat analyzed all survey data. Hande Bakırhan and Serap İncedal Irgat interpreted the data. Hande Bakırhan and Serap İncedal Irgat wrote the manuscript. Serap İncedal Irgat, Hande Bakırhan, Yunus Emre Bakırhan, and Zehra İncedal Sonkaya contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript, and all authors approved the submitted version.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available owing to restrictions (e.g., they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants) but are available from the corresponding author (Hande Bakırhan, email: handecekici@hotmail.com) upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval was granted from the Istanbul Medipol University Noninterventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee with decision number 521 on June 8, 2023. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from each study participant.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Sezgin AC, Eroğlu FE, Şanlıer N. Evaluation of sustainable nutrition models. Turkish JAF Sci Tech. 2023;11(3):603–16. 10.24925/turjaf.v11i3.603-616.5726. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yolcuoğlu İZ, Kızıltan G. Effect of nutrition education on diet quality, sustainable nutrition and eating behaviors. Başkent Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;6(1):77–90. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Guillaumie L, Boiral O, Baghdadli A, Mercille G. Integrating sustainable nutrition into health-related institutions: a systematic review of the literature. Can J Public Health. 2020;111(6):845–61. 10.17269/s41997-020-00394-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization. Sustainable healthy diets- guiding principles. 2019. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516648. Accessed 10 Apr 2023.
- 5.Guiné RPF, Pato MLJ, Costa CAD, Costa DVTAD, Silva PBCD, Martinho VJPD. Food security and sustainability: discussing the four pillars to encompass other dimensions. Foods. 2021;10(11): 2732. 10.3390/foods10112732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Food and Agriculture Organization. (2016). FAO and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i4997e/i4997e.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2024.
- 7.U.S.Government’s Global Hunger & Food Security Initiative. Feed the future. 2022–2026. Retrieved from https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/increasing-foodsecuritythrough-feed-future. Accessed 10 Apr 2023.
- 8.Aksoy Canyolu B, Martini D, Şen N. Determining sustainable food choice motives: validity and reliability of the Sustainable Food Choice Questionnaire (SUS-FCQ) in Turkish adults. Sustainability. 2024;16(9): 3519. 10.3390/su16093519. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Arslan N, Alataş H. The relationship between sustainable nutrition and healthy food choice: a cross-sectional study. Eur Res J. 2023;9(2):192–9. 10.18621/eurj.1226567. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mazzocchi A, De Cosmi V, Scaglioni S, Agostoni C. Towards a more sustainable nutrition: complementary feeding and early taste experiences as a basis for future food choices. Nutrients. 2021;13(8): 2695. 10.3390/nu13082695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Naja F, Jomaa L, Itani L, et al. Environmental footprints of food consumption and dietary patterns among Lebanese adults: a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2018;17(1):85. 10.1186/s12937-018-0393-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 2018;562(7728):519–25. 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wiseman SA, Dötsch-Klerk M, Neufingerl N, de Oliveira Martins F. Future food: sustainable diets for healthy people and a healthy planet. Int J Nutrology. 2019;12(1):23–8. 10.1055/s-0039-1695714. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Żakowska-Biemans S, Pieniak Z, Kostyra E, Gutkowska K. Searching for a measure ıntegrating sustainable and healthy eating behaviors. Nutrients. 2019;11(1):95. 10.3390/nu11010095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rampalli KK, Blake CE, Frongillo EA, Montoya J. Why understanding food choice is crucial to transform food systems for human and planetary health. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(5): e010876. 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Balan IM, Gherman ED, Gherman R, Brad I, Pascalau R, Popescu G, Trasca TI. Sustainable nutrition for increased food security related to Romanian consumers’ behavior. Nutrients. 2022;14(22): 4892. 10.3390/nu14224892. Published 2022 Nov 19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 1995;25(3):267–84. 10.1006/appe.1995.0061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dikmen D, İnan-Eroğlu E, Göktaş Z, Barut Uyar B, Karabulut E. Validation of a Turkish version of the Food Choice Questionnaire. Food Qual Prefer. 2016;52:81–6. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.016. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Köksal E, Bilici S, Çitar Daziroğlu ME, Erdoğan Gövez N. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Sustainable and Healthy Eating Behaviors Scale. Br J Nutr. 2022 Aug 8:1–20. 10.1017/S0007114522002525. Epub ahead of print. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 20.Tekindal MA, Zabzun G, Özel Z, Demirsöz M, Tekindal M. Awareness scale for reducing ecological footprint: A validity and reliability study. Eur J Sci Technol. 2021;27:439–45. 10.31590/ejosat.944221. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide: version 3. Retrieved from https://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/household-food-insecurity-access-scale-hfias. Accessed 10 Apr 2024.
- 22.Bor H. Üniversite öğrencilerinde obezite ve gıda güvensizliği arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Master Thesis, Hacettepe University. 2018.
- 23.Üçüncü G, Yılmaz M. The effect of using the concept of ecological footprint on the environmental attitudes and consumption preferences of grade 7 students. Gazi J Educ Sci. 2019;5(2):81–94. 10.30855/gjes.2019.05.02.005. [Google Scholar]
- 24.van Vuuren DP, Smeets EMW. Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands. Ecol Econ. 2000;34(1):115–30. 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00155-5. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hartmann C, Lazzarini G, Funk A, Siegrist M. Measuring consumers’ knowledge of the environmental impact of foods. Appetite. 2021;167: 105622. 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hartmann C, Siegrist M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2017;61:11–25. 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems [published correction appears in Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):530. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30212-0] [published correction appears in Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393(10191):2590. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31428-X] [published correction appears in Lancet. 2020 Feb 1;395(10221):338. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30144-6] [published correction appears in Lancet. 2020 Oct 3;396(10256):e56. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31828-6]. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447–492. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 [DOI] [PubMed]
- 28.Wongprawmas R, Mora C, Pellegrini N, Guiné RPF, Carini E, Sogari G, Vittadini E. Food choice determinants and perceptions of a healthy diet among Italian consumers. Foods. 2021;10(2): 318. 10.3390/foods10020318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wollmar M, Post A, Sjöberg A. Food choice, activity level, and carbon footprint: exploring potential for sustainable food consumption practices in young adults. Front Nutr. 2024;11: 1449054. 10.3389/fnut.2024.1449054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kocaadam-Bozkurt B, Bozkurt O. Relationship between adherence to the Mediterranean diet, sustainable and healthy eating behaviors, and awareness of reducing the ecological footprint. Int J Environ Health Res. 2023;33(4):430–40. 10.1080/09603123.2023.2172384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Schruff-Lim EM, Van Loo EJ, van der Lans IA, van Trijp HCM. Impact of food swap recommendations on dietary choices in an online supermarket: A randomized controlled trial. Appetite. 2024;194: 107158. 10.1016/j.appet.2023.107158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Jansen L, van Kleef E, Van Loo EJ. The use of food swaps to encourage healthier online food choices: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):156. 10.1186/s12966-021-01222-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lohmann PM, Gsottbauer E, Farrington J, Human S, Reisch LA. Choice architecture promotes sustainable choices in online food-delivery apps. PNAS Nexus. 2024;3(10):pgae422. 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Allan JL, Powell DJ. Prompting consumers to make healthier food choices in hospitals: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):86. 10.1186/s12966-020-00990-z. Published 2020 Jul 6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hallez L, Qutteina Y, Boen F, Smits T. The ABC’s of ecological and nutrition labels. the impact of label theme and complexity on the environmental footprint of online grocery choices. Sustainability. 2021;13(5): 2474. 10.3390/su13052474. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ares G, De Rosso S, Mueller C, et al. Development of food literacy in children and adolescents: implications for the design of strategies to promote healthier and more sustainable diets. Nutr Rev. 2024;82(4):536–52. 10.1093/nutrit/nuad072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Rangel A. Regulation of dietary choice by the decision-making circuitry. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16(12):1717–24. 10.1038/nn.3561. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(3):220–47. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Stok FM, Hoffmann S, Volkert D, et al. The DONE framework: creation, evaluation, and updating of an interdisciplinary, dynamic framework 2.0 of determinants of nutrition and eating. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2): e0171077. 10.1371/journal.pone.0171077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Haghighian Roudsari A, Vedadhir A, Pourmoradian S, Rahimi-Ardabili H, Shokouhi M, Milani-Bonab A. Correction: exploring adults’ motives for food choice of sustainable diet components: a qualitative study in Tehran Metropolis. BMC Nutr. 2023;9(1):137. 10.1186/s40795-023-00790-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Başar Ş, Başar EE. How does the environmental knowledge of Turkish households affect their environmentally responsible food choices? The mediating effects of environmental concerns. Int J Agric Environ Food Sci. 2020;4(3):348–55. 10.31015/jaefs.2020.3.14. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Yassıbaş E, Bölükbaşı H. Evaluation of adherence to the Mediterranean diet with sustainable nutrition knowledge and environmentally responsible food choices. Front Nutr. 2023;10: 1158155. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1158155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Allès B, Péneau S, Kesse-Guyot E, Baudry J, Hercberg S, Méjean C. Food choice motives including sustainability during purchasing are associated with a healthy dietary pattern in French adults. Nutr J. 2017;16(1):58. 10.1186/s12937-017-0279-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Monterrosa EC, Frongillo EA, Drewnowski A, de Pee S, Vandevijvere S. Sociocultural influences on food choices and implications for sustainable healthy diets. Food Nutr Bull. 2020;41(2suppl):S59-73. 10.1177/0379572120975874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Tekinbaş Özkaya F, Durak MG, Doğan O, Bulut ZA, Haas R. Sustainable consumption of food: framing the concept through Turkish expert opinions. Sustainability. 2021;13(7): 3946. 10.3390/su13073946. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Bowman SA. A comparison of the socioeconomic characteristics, dietary practices, and health status of women food shoppers with different food price attitudes. Nutr Res. 2006;26(7):318–24. 10.1016/j.nutres.2006.06.012. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Pocol CB, Marinescu V, Amuza A, Cadar R-L, Rodideal AA. Sustainable vs. unsustainable food consumption behaviour: a study among students from Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova. Sustainability. 2020;12(11): 4699. 10.3390/su12114699. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Dumancı F, Yaşar İ, Duvan SN, Erbecer S, İlyasoğlu H. Investigation of motives underlying food choice of health science students: cross sectional study. Turkiye Klinikleri J Health Sci. 2023;8(4):561–7. 10.5336/healthsci.2023-97853. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Lombe M, Nebbitt VE, Sinha A, Reynolds A. Examining effects of food insecurity and food choices on health outcomes in households in poverty. Soc Work Health Care. 2016;55(6):440–60. 10.1080/00981389.2015.1133469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Kholidah LN, Pangestuti DR, Lisnawati N, Asna AF. The Effect of food accessibility on family food preference practices in Semarang during a pandemic: Pengaruh aksesibilitas bahan pangan terhadap praktik pemilihan makanan keluarga di kota Semarang selama masa pandemi. Amerta Nutr. 2023;7(2SP):238–46. 10.20473/amnt.v7i2SP.2023.238-246. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Dimitri C, Rogus S. Food choices, food security, and food policy. J Int Affairs. 2014;67(2):19–31. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Martinho VJPD, Bartkiene E, Djekic I, et al. Determinants of economic motivations for food choice: insights for the understanding of consumer behaviour. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2022;73(1):127–39. 10.1080/09637486.2021.1939659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Munialo CD, Mellor DD. A review of the impact of social disruptions on food security and food choice. Food Sci Nutr. 2023;12(1):13–23. 10.1002/fsn3.3752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Soylu AC. Sustainable development and food safety relationship. J Econ Manage Res. 2022;11(2):100–11. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available owing to restrictions (e.g., they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants) but are available from the corresponding author (Hande Bakırhan, email: handecekici@hotmail.com) upon reasonable request.