001007626 001__ 1007626
001007626 005__ 20230929112531.0
001007626 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104884
001007626 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0950-3293
001007626 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1873-6343
001007626 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/34455
001007626 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:001002043300001
001007626 037__ $$aFZJ-2023-02125
001007626 041__ $$aEnglish
001007626 082__ $$a660
001007626 1001_ $$00000-0003-2121-7535$$aMacht, Janine$$b0$$eCorresponding author
001007626 245__ $$aEco-friendly alternatives to food packed in plastics: German consumers’ purchase intentions for different bio-based packaging strategies
001007626 260__ $$aAmsterdam$$bElsevier$$c2023
001007626 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
001007626 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
001007626 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1684910682_12536
001007626 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
001007626 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
001007626 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
001007626 520__ $$aGrowing concern about the environmental consequences of plastic packaging has led to the development of strategies that discourage single-use fossil-based plastic packaging and promote sustainable bio-based alternatives. Nevertheless, it is unclear how different bio-based packaging strategies are perceived by consumers. Research suggests an ambivalent relationship regarding bioplastics and a positive perception of paper. In this study, we investigated how consumers’ purchase intentions differ for two bio-based packaging alternatives—bioplastic and paper—in comparison to recyclable fossil-based plastic packaging for three products: fresh soft fruits, margarine/butter, and vegetable oil. Moreover, we explored the mediating roles of perceived eco-friendliness and perceived convenience and tested the moderation effect of green consumption values. In total, 2755 German consumers completed an online survey with a 3x3 between-subjects design in January 2022. The findings show that consumers’ purchase intentions differed between different packaging types and products. The higher consumers perceived the eco-friendliness of the packaging, the higher their purchase intention. This effect was stronger for people with higher green consumption values. While paper-based food packaging was perceived as most eco-friendly, it was not always perceived as convenient, and may therefore lead to rejection. For fresh soft fruits, paper-based packaging appears to be the best solution for consumers. For vegetable oil, the bioplastic option received the highest purchase intention. Nevertheless, there are product categories—such as margarine/butter—where the benefits of bio-based packaging are not obvious to consumers and should therefore be communicated clearly.
001007626 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112$$a1112 - Societally Feasible Transformation Pathways (POF4-111)$$cPOF4-111$$fPOF IV$$x0
001007626 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
001007626 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aKlink-Lehmann, Jeanette$$b1
001007626 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)164476$$aVenghaus, Sandra$$b2
001007626 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2013024-7$$a10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104884$$gVol. 109, p. 104884 -$$p104884 -$$tFood quality and preference$$v109$$x0950-3293$$y2023
001007626 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1007626/files/Macht%20et%20al.%202023_FQP_accepted.pdf$$yPublished on 2023-05-13. Available in OpenAccess from 2024-05-13.
001007626 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:1007626$$pdnbdelivery$$pdriver$$pVDB$$popen_access$$popenaire
001007626 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)164476$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b2$$kFZJ
001007626 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-111$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-110$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-100$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$9G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112$$aDE-HGF$$bForschungsbereich Energie$$lEnergiesystemdesign (ESD)$$vEnergiesystemtransformation$$x0
001007626 9141_ $$y2023
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2022-11-23
001007626 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNCND4$$2HGFVOC$$aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0530$$2StatID$$aEmbargoed OpenAccess
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2022-11-23
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz$$d2023-08-22$$wger
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bFOOD QUAL PREFER : 2022$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1060$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences$$d2023-08-22
001007626 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bFOOD QUAL PREFER : 2022$$d2023-08-22
001007626 920__ $$lyes
001007626 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013$$kIEK-STE$$lSystemforschung und Technologische Entwicklung$$x0
001007626 980__ $$ajournal
001007626 980__ $$aVDB
001007626 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
001007626 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013
001007626 9801_ $$aFullTexts