Towards Sustainable Eating Habits of Generation Z: Perception of and Willingness to Pay for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. I think the authors might have described too many disadvantages of meat consumption in the introduction. It’s better to focus on your study.

2. What is the accessibility of the survey to different participants? Some students may not have access to online surveys. This should be clearly described in the method although the authors claimed that online recruitment and the application of mobile devices were not considered to be an issue.

3. Why were there more female applicants? Will this affect the results?

4. Will some of the Vegetarian choose this eat habit due to price factors?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and efforts you put into our manuscript. We tried to include all your valuable suggestions helping to further improve the significance of our scientific contribution.

1. I think the authors might have described too many disadvantages of meat consumption in the introduction. It’s better to focus on your study.

Thank you for this valuable issue. Although, in general meat consumption is connected to many disadvantages, we agree that the focus on PBMA could have been widened. Confirming another reviewer, we included also more environmentally friendly meat production systems to stay objective in our argumentation. PBMA studies are already a large part of our argumentation.

2. What is the accessibility of the survey to different participants? Some students may not have access to online surveys. This should be clearly described in the method although the authors claimed that online recruitment and the application of mobile devices were not considered to be an issue.

We discussed the issue of convenience sampling in the Discussion section. As the target group can be considered to be “digital natives”, access to the online survey is not an issue. We added that, also supported by a reference to literature (Evans and Robertson, 2020. The four phases of the digital natives debate).

3. Why were there more female applicants? Will this affect the results?

As we used a convenience sample (we discussed the limitations caused by that approach more in-depth now), the over-representation of female participants is not a big surprise, as usually females are more interested in the topic. In fact, the variable „gender is influencing the results slightly (females are more origin oriented, males are more price sensitive). The effect is however low.

4. Will some of the Vegetarian choose this eat habit due to price factors?

We cannot exclude this assumption as price is more important for Vegetarians. However, as we could not ask respondents why they answered as they did, it would be pure speculation to assume that vegetarians chose this diet because of a lack of budgets.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Overall, this is an interesting and well-executed methodological study and I liked its structure. I provide below specific comments on how you can improve the paper in terms of its theoretical contribution and discussion for future research. In its current form the contribution of the paper does not emerge and I will invite you to consider this point carefully.  

In the Introduction, I would like to ask you to be a bit more specific and culture-sensitive regarding insights from food consumption. Your study focuses on Austria but considering the international scope of the journal can you please acknowledge some limitations that stem from a global context? Meat consumption is shaped by religious, income and cultural factors and differs significantly across different parts of the world. I am not asking you to elaborate on a variety of countries but can you acknowledge with a paragraph please that cross-cultural and geographical factors come into the play? Also, can you please define Generation Z in the introduction? There are several definitions and again Generation Z in one context might significantly differ compared to others.

Your paper is dominated by the Data and there is not a clear Discussion and Future Research section which I will strongly advise you to consider. Can you please summarize and translate the Data into specific contributions in the research area and highlight to which disciplines are these data important (sociology of consumption, food studies, consumer behaviour, economics etc). In its current form the paper mainly provides a methodological contribution but the findings are not analyzed to provide suggestions on the impact, applicability and future research directions. In your brief Discussion section, you do not provide a through comparison with existing studies, apart from some superficial references in the final paragraph. I will ask you to include 2 small paragraphs about directions for future research. On which food markets should be focus and why? Why the sample of Generation Z is important? What is your key contribution? Yes, I agree that this is an important research area but you need to highlight the importance of the area for specific academic disciplines, audiences and practitioners, an underdeveloped theme in your current Discussion section.

I hope you find these comment useful.  

Author Response

Overall, this is an interesting and well-executed methodological study and I liked its structure. I provide below specific comments on how you can improve the paper in terms of its theoretical contribution and discussion for future research. In its current form the contribution of the paper does not emerge and I will invite you to consider this point carefully.

Thank you very much for your time and efforts you put into our manuscript. We tried to include all your valuable suggestions helping to further improve the significance of our scientific contribution.

1. In the Introduction, I would like to ask you to be a bit more specific and culture-sensitive regarding insights from food consumption. Your study focuses on Austria but considering the international scope of the journal can you please acknowledge some limitations that stem from a global context? Meat consumption is shaped by religious, income and cultural factors and differs significantly across different parts of the world. I am not asking you to elaborate on a variety of countries but can you acknowledge with a paragraph please that cross-cultural and geographical factors come into the play?

We added literature and a paragraph emphasizing cultural differences on a global scale and different consumption patterns and drivers in Europe. We also added relevant limitations in the discussion section as we agree that culture and social norms will have a huge impact on results and approximations.

2. Also, can you please define Generation Z in the introduction? There are several definitions and again Generation Z in one context might significantly differ compared to others.

Gen Z is usually defined as people born after 1995, we added that in the text. Therefore, we used a simplification meeting this usual definition (≤ 29 years old).

3. Your paper is dominated by the Data and there is not a clear Discussion and Future Research section which I will strongly advise you to consider. Can you please summarize and translate the Data into specific contributions in the research area and highlight to which disciplines are these data important (sociology of consumption, food studies, consumer behaviour, economics etc). In its current form the paper mainly provides a methodological contribution but the findings are not analyzed to provide suggestions on the impact, applicability and future research directions.

Initially, the structure of the paper was based on the suggested structure of the Journal. We now modified the structure confirming your suggestion: 4. Discussion and limitations; 5. Conclusions and future research.

1. In your brief Discussion section, you do not provide a through comparison with existing studies, apart from some superficial references in the final paragraph. I will ask you to include 2 small paragraphs about directions for future research.

We further compared our results with literature and included additional sources into that paragraph.

1. On which food markets should be focus and why?

Highly developed food markets in high-income countries. As we included more considerations about culture and social norms, it should be clear that our results are comparable to high-income countries with “Western” diets but not so much with other food markets in, e.g., Asia.

1. Why the sample of Generation Z is important?

Gen Z is the core consumer target group of the future and has the highest proportion of vegans and vegetarians in the population. We included an in-depth discussion about that and added a literature review on studies about eating habits and their attitudes towards alternative proteins of Gen Z to justify their importance.

1. What is your key contribution? Yes, I agree that this is an important research area but you need to highlight the importance of the area for specific academic disciplines, audiences and practitioners, an underdeveloped theme in your current Discussion section.

The key contribution of the manuscript has to be seen in connection to the implications for sustainable food systems: Plant-based meat alternatives are often promoted for their potential environmental and ethical benefits. Examining the perceptions and behaviors of Generation Z consumers towards these products can provide insights into their role in fostering more sustainable food systems and addressing concerns related to climate change (and, for instance, also animal welfare).

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations on the article entitled "Towards sustainable eating habits of Generation Z: perception of and willingness to pay for plant-based meat alternatives" and for the research work carried out.

The paper addresses a topic relevant to academia and the business sector, being related to the Sustainability subject areas.The study contributes to promoting sustainable eating habits among young consumers, which is crucial for addressing environmental concerns.

Despite the pertinence and relevance of the study, there are some weaknesses that deserve the authors' attention. The literature review does not explore important aspects in this area of knowledge, namely the eating habits of young people (generation Z), their attitudes towards food alternatives and the cultural issues that influence eating behaviors and habits. Likewise,the sample is not representative of the entire population (affecting the generalizability of the findings) and the study underscores the potential presence of social desirability bias in consumer responses (gap between stated preferences and actual behavior).

I have some recommendations:

- Improve the literature review, considering the eating habits of Generation Z and their attitudes towards alternative foods to meat;

- It would also be important to look for evidence about other countries in this same age group, as culture influences eating habits;

- Identify differences between genders and age groups;

- Include a "Conclusions" section

On the other hand, I believe that in future research it is recommended that authors consider:

- expand sampling techniques in order to ensure a more inclusive sample of the desired demographic group, thus improving the global applicability of results;

- Consider cultural differences between countries, regions, education and others

- implement strategies to mitigate social desirability bias in consumer responses, such as using indirect questioning techniques or anonymity to encourage more candid feedback

- Promote collaboration with the food industry to help transfer research findings into concrete strategies for developing sustainable and appealing plant-based meat alternatives for young consumers.

Good luck

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and efforts you put into our manuscript. We tried to include all your valuable suggestions helping to further improve the significance of our scientific contribution.

Congratulations on the article entitled "Towards sustainable eating habits of Generation Z: perception of and willingness to pay for plant-based meat alternatives" and for the research work carried out. The paper addresses a topic relevant to academia and the business sector, being related to the Sustainability subject areas. The study contributes to promoting sustainable eating habits among young consumers, which is crucial for addressing environmental concerns. Despite the pertinence and relevance of the study, there are some weaknesses that deserve the authors' attention.

1. The literature review does not explore important aspects in this area of knowledge, namely the eating habits of young people (generation Z), their attitudes towards food alternatives and the cultural issues that influence eating behaviors and habits.

We added a literature review on studies about eating habits and their attitudes towards alternative proteins of Gen Z

2. Likewise, the sample is not representative of the entire population (affecting the generalizability of the findings) and the study underscores the potential presence of social desirability bias in consumer responses (gap between stated preferences and actual behavior).

We addressed this point in particular in the discussion about the results. It was already mentioned in the original manuscript, but we agree, that it is a significant issue in consumer research. We therefore also suggested actions based on literature in future research. 

I have some recommendations:

3. Improve the literature review, considering the eating habits of Generation Z and their attitudes towards alternative foods to meat;

We added a literature review on studies about eating habits and their attitudes towards alternative proteins of Gen Z.

4. It would also be important to look for evidence about other countries in this same age group, as culture influences eating habits;

We added literature and a paragraph emphasizing cultural differences on a global scale and different consumption patterns and drivers in Europe. We also added relevant limitations in the discussion section as we agree that culture and social norms will have a huge impact on results and approximations.

5. Identify differences between genders and age groups;

The sample consists of young consumers below 29 years of age. There is no detailed information available to further investigate the influence of age, but we doubt that within this narrow group age will really have an impact. Gender was already part of our results section, we further emphasized the influence of gender on our results.

6. Include a "Conclusions" section

Following the basic structure of Foods template, we initially integrated everything into the Discussion section. We now modified the structure confirming your suggestion: 4. Discussion and limitations; 5. Conclusions and future research. . We added further arguments in this final chapters of the manuscript.

7. On the other hand, I believe that in future research it is recommended that authors consider:

• expand sampling techniques in order to ensure a more inclusive sample of the desired demographic group, thus improving the global applicability of results;

We included some considerations in the future research section about cross-national studies.

• Consider cultural differences between countries, regions, education and others

We included culture and social norms already in the introduction and then discussed this issue in the final chapters.

•  implement strategies to mitigate social desirability bias in consumer responses, such as using indirect questioning techniques or anonymity to encourage more candid feedback

We addressed this point in particular in the discussion about the results. It was already mentioned in the original manuscript, but we agree, that it is a significant issue in consumer research. We therefore also suggested actions based on literature in future research.

• Promote collaboration with the food industry to help transfer research findings into concrete strategies for developing sustainable and appealing plant-based meat alternatives for young consumers.

We added this important point into the final part of the manuscript because we agree that this would of high importance.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article analyzes a relevant topic and the choice to focus on the Generation Z is correct. The title cites the term “sustainable”, but to what extent eating plant-based burger patties is more sustainable than eating locally grown grass-fed beef, for instance? Since the most interesting finding is the value given to the origin of the food products, this could be highlighted. Findings indicate that the Generation Z is more riven by the origin of the products and price than by health-related attributes, such as fat content. Authors could comment more on the possible “whys” for health attributes do not seem to be a relevant driver of food purchase in the sample studied.

The Introduction (First paragraph) cites that “the proportion of vegans and vegetarians has been significantly growing”. To what extent an increase from 8 to 10% can be considered a "significant growth"? IN the same paragraph, while stating that “a significant reduction of global livestock is an imperative action to move towards a more sustainable food supply chain”, authors could also mention the alternative of fostering carbon neutral livestock production. This can be achieved, for instance, via integrated crop-forestry-livestock systems. The current problem is that most of the livestock production is conducted in degraded pasture. There several serious studies to support that.

The planetary healthy diet could be mentioned at the Introduction. Although, it must be clear that the transition to a more plant-based diet does not mean to increase the consumption of processed foods with nutrition and sustainability claims that lack scientific evidences.

The Introduction also cites “industrializes countries” (Third paragraph). This term should not be used. China, for instance, is highly industrialized. Authors could cite that the high demand for meat in China, for instance, augments the soybean production in Brazil and the USA to serve as animal feed. This market trend diminishes agrobiodiversity.

 The Introduction mentions that “Consumers are more and more concerned about the effects of their nutrition on their own health, on the environment and the well-being of living beings”. However, the results of the study itself do not support this statement.

 There is a growing amount of research showing that ultra-processed foods, including plant-based ones, increase the risk for foodborne diseases. Consider reading the following paper:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00017-2/fulltext#bib23

 Given that most respondents were students with income lower than 2.000 per month, price sensitivity was expected. This information should be highlighted. Even more important, authors did not explain if income level was tested in order to investigate its influence on the importance of primary ingredients, origin, price and other variables.

 It would be interesting to investigate the health perception of these PBMA. Product attribute selection is alright and justified by recent studies, although it could have been useful to insert “perception of healthiness” as an attribute too.

 Overall, the article has several merits, but it still needs to be edited in order to be publishable.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and efforts you put into our manuscript. We tried to include all your valuable suggestions helping to further improve the significance of our scientific contribution.

1. The article analyzes a relevant topic and the choice to focus on the Generation Z is correct. The title cites the term “sustainable”, but to what extent eating plant-based burger patties is more sustainable than eating locally grown grassfed beef, for instance? Since the most interesting finding is the value given to the origin of the food products, this could be highlighted.

Thank you for this interesting question. We added in the introduction two studies evaluating the sustainability of grass-fed beef compared to plant-based meat

2. Findings indicate that the Generation Z is more driven by the origin of the products and price than by health-related attributes, such as fat content. Authors could comment more on the possible “whys” for health attributes do not seem to be a relevant driver of food purchase in the sample studied.

We included this consideration in the future research considerations as health consciousness is not part of the empirical design. But we agree, it is very useful to gain even deeper insights into this important topic.

3. The Introduction (First paragraph) cites that “the proportion of vegans and vegetarians has been significantly growing”. To what extent an increase from 8 to 10% can be considered a "significant growth"?

Thank you, you are completely right, we changed that to “steadily growing”.

4. IN the same paragraph, while stating that “a significant reduction of global livestock is an imperative action to move towards a more sustainable food supply chain”, authors could also mention the alternative of fostering carbon neutral livestock production. This can be achieved, for instance, via integrated cropforestry- livestock systems. The current problem is that most of the livestock production is conducted in degraded pasture. There several serious studies to support that.

We included the potential of integrated crop-livestock systems in the introduction, but also come back to it in the conclusions section. However, the impact on alternative livestock production systems seems to be limited. A more plant-based diet seems to be of much higher relevance here.

5. The planetary healthy diet could be mentioned at the Introduction. Although, it must be clear that the transition to a more plant-based diet does not mean to increase the consumption of processed foods with nutrition and sustainability claims that lack scientific evidences.

We included the planetary healthy in the introduction, but also come back to it in the conclusions section. We added in the introduction, a more plant based eating behavior, as the planetary healthy diet developed by the Lancet Commission recommends (Willet et al., 2019) could also lead to a higher consumption of ultra-processed foods, which are related to an increase in non-communicable diseases worldwide (Chang et al. 2023, Lane et al., 2024)

6. The Introduction also cites “industrializes countries” (Third paragraph). This term should not be used. China, for instance, is highly industrialized. Authors could cite that the high demand for meat in China, for instance, augments the soybean production in Brazil and the USA to serve as animal feed. This market trend diminishes agrobiodiversity.

Thank you for pointing out this issue. We changed it to high-income countries.

7. The Introduction mentions that “Consumers are more and more concerned about the effects of their nutrition on their own health, on the environment and the well-being of living beings”. However, the results of the study itself do not support this statement.

We agree that our results are not fully supporting this statement. Therefore, we added a paragraph on health-related attributes, the consideration of further dimensions to improve future study designs.

8. There is a growing amount of research showing that ultraprocessed foods, including plant-based ones, increase the risk for foodborne diseases. Consider reading the following paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00017-2/fulltext#bib23

This is an important issue with PBMA. Therefore, we added in the introduction the recommendations of the planetary healthy diet developed by the Lancet Commission (Willet et al., 2019), although it is noteworthy that some plant-based meat alternatives could be ultra-processed foods, which are related to an increase in non-communicable diseases worldwide (Chang et al. 2023, Lane et al., 2024).

9. Given that most respondents were students with income lower than 2.000 per month, price sensitivity was expected. This information should be highlighted. Even more important, authors did not explain if income level was tested in order to investigate its influence on the importance of primary ingredients, origin, price and other variables.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. We therefore integrated a further analysis of the price attribute. As you expected, net income influences the importance of the price attribute and partworth utilities of the price levels. Price is most important for very low income group below 1000 EUR (0.30); above that income the importance of the price attribute is amounting to almost the same level around 0.25.

10. It would be interesting to investigate the health perception of these PBMA. Product attribute selection is alright and justified by recent studies, although it could have been useful to insert “perception of healthiness” as an attribute too.

We mentioned that important point in the discussion section/future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Given the revisions carried out, which made it possible to improve the scientific quality of the article, as well as the arguments presented by the authors, I believe that the article can be accepted in the form in which it is currently presented.

I recommend that, in future revisions of the article, the authors indicate in a different color (for example, in red) the changes made.