Cited by 173Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactNutritional Studies and DietConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

Barriers and facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet in a sample of Danish consumers

Reipurth, Malou F.S., Hørby, Lasse, Gregersen, Charlotte G., Bonke, Astrid, Perez Cueto, Federico J.A.·2019·Food Quality and Preference

Abstract

Replacement of animal-based products with plant-based products promotes environmental sustainability and reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes. Consumers are aware of recommendations towards healthier and more sustainable food consumption, but often they do not follow them. The aim of this study was to examine barriers and facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet among Danish consumers. Data was collected through an online survey during October 2017. The topics in the questionnaire was based on recent findings from published literature on the subject. A total of 462 consumers were segmented based on their frequency intake of animal-based products. Segments were characterized by their attitudes towards plant-based diets using a logistic regression. Four segments were identified: Low All (n = 220), High All (n = 70), High Meat (n = 48), and High Dairy (n = 124). Negative attitudes about protein content, satiety effect, taste, environmental and health effects were identified as barriers towards adopting a more plant-based diet, for segments with a high intake of either meat or all animal products. The segment with a low intake of animal products held positive attitudes towards the ease of cooking, taste, protein content, satiety effect, and availability of plant-based food, indicating that these attitudes serve as facilitators towards adopting a more plant-based diet. The results can be used to inform industry and targeted health campaigns towards promoting plant-based diets in Denmark and similar countries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.012

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reipurth, M. F. S., Hørby, L., Gregersen, C. G., Bonke, A., & Perez Cueto, F. J. A.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
73
Pages
288-292
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898952376
Cited by
173
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
plant-based diet, consumer adoption, barriers and facilitators, customer segmentation, meat consumption, dairy consumption, protein content, taste perception, environmental impact, health perception, cooking skills, food availability, Danish consumers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review