IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13422-d694688.html

Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Lan Nguyen

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Hans De Steur

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium)

Abstract

This study aims to assess the public acceptability of interventions to reduce sugary drinks in Vietnam, identify the key determinants, and develop a classification of consumers. A cross-sectional survey with 263 urban consumers evaluated perceptions of four potential interventions: restricting choice, taxation, nudging, and labeling. Thereby, specific attention was devoted to perceived intrusiveness and (personal and societal) effectiveness, as well personal characteristics, including Confucius values. Results showed that “hard” interventions like taxation are less acceptable to consumers than “soft” measures such as labeling. Acceptability is generally affected by perceived intrusiveness and effectiveness (especially on other people in the society), while other factors (sugary drink behavior, trust in government’s competence, personal values, age, education) only matter for some of the interventions. Cluster analysis revealed three consumer segments, depicted as anti-taxation (28%), pro-intervention (20%) and pro-labeling (52%), which further underpins the heterogeneity of intervention acceptability.

Suggested Citation

  • Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13422-:d:694688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13422/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13422/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luis A Sandoval & Carlos E Carpio & Marcos Sanchez-Plata, 2019. "The effect of ‘Traffic-Light’ nutritional labelling in carbonated soft drink purchases in Ecuador," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Manh Tung Ho & Viet-Phuong La & Van Nhue Dam & Bui Quang Khiem & Nghiem Phu Kien Cuong & Thu-Trang Vuong & Hong Kong Nguyen & Ha Viet Nguyen & Hiep-Hung Pham & Nancy K. Napier, 2018. ""Cultural additivity" and how the values and norms of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism co-exist, interact, and influence Vietnamese society: A Bayesian analysis of long-standing folktales, using R and Stan," Working Papers CEB 18-015, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Pechey, Rachel & Burge, Peter & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Suhrcke, Marc & Marteau, Theresa M., 2014. "Public acceptability of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol consumption: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 104-109.
    4. Reisch, Lucia A. & Sunstein, Cass R. & Gwozdz, Wencke, 2017. "Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, William George, 2018. "Types of front of pack food labels: Do obese consumers care? Evidence from Northern Ireland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 84-102.
    6. Gidon Felsen & Noah Castelo & Peter B. Reiner, 2013. "Decisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 202-213, May.
    7. Burke, Mary A. & Carman, Katherine G., 2017. "You can be too thin (but not too tall): Social desirability bias in self-reports of weight and height," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 198-222.
    8. Sophie Hieke & Charles R. Taylor, 2012. "A Critical Review of the Literature on Nutritional Labeling," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 120-156, March.
    9. Jody Harris & Phuong Hong Nguyen & Lan Mai Tran & Phuong Nam Huynh, 2020. "Nutrition transition in Vietnam: changing food supply, food prices, household expenditure, diet and nutrition outcomes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1141-1155, October.
    10. Ayala Arad & Ariel Rubinstein, 2018. "The People's Perspective on Libertarian-Paternalistic Policies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(2), pages 311-333.
    11. Linh Luong & Linh Hoang Vu, 2020. "Impacts of Excise Taxation on Non-Alcoholic Beverage Consumption in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Dragos C Petrescu & Gareth J Hollands & Dominique-Laurent Couturier & Yin-Lam Ng & Theresa M Marteau, 2016. "Public Acceptability in the UK and USA of Nudging to Reduce Obesity: The Example of Reducing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    13. World Bank, 2020. "Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages," World Bank Publications - Reports 33969, The World Bank Group.
    14. Molly Thomas-Meyer & Oliver Mytton & Jean Adams, 2017. "Public responses to proposals for a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: A thematic analysis of online reader comments posted on major UK news websites," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Lien Le Monkhouse & Bradley R. Barnes & Thi Song Hanh Pham, 2013. "Measuring Confucian values among East Asian consumers: a four country study," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 320-336, July.
    16. Mazzocchi, Mario & Cagnone, Silvia & Bech-Larsen, Tino & Niedźwiedzka, Barbara & Saba, Anna & Shankar, Bhavani & Verbeke, Wim & Traill, W Bruce, 2015. "What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 267-292, July.
    17. Hagmann, Désirée & Siegrist, Michael & Hartmann, Christina, 2018. "Taxes, labels, or nudges? Public acceptance of various interventions designed to reduce sugar intake," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 156-165.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caso, Gerarda & Sapio, Silvia & Vecchio, Riccardo, 2025. "Low-income citizens’ evaluation of policy interventions to promote healthy food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Caso, Gerarda & Sapio, Silvia & Vecchio, Riccardo, 2025. "Low-income citizens’ evaluation of policy interventions to promote healthy food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. Cadario, Romain & Chandon, Pierre, 2019. "Viewpoint: Effectiveness or consumer acceptance? Tradeoffs in selecting healthy eating nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-6.
    4. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2019. "Viewpoint: Effectiveness or consumer acceptance? Tradeoffs in selecting healthy eating nudges," Post-Print hal-02508983, HAL.
    5. Rafaï, Ismaël & Ribaillier, Arthur & Jullien, Dorian, 2025. "The impact on nudge acceptability judgements of framing and consultation of the targeted population," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 176-191, January.
    6. Arthur Ribaillier & Ismaël Rafaï & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The Impact on Acceptability Judgments about Nudges of Framing and Consultation with the Targeted Population," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-12, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    7. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Dragos C Petrescu & Gareth J Hollands & Dominique-Laurent Couturier & Yin-Lam Ng & Theresa M Marteau, 2016. "Public Acceptability in the UK and USA of Nudging to Reduce Obesity: The Example of Reducing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Reisch, Lucia A. & Sunstein, Cass R. & Gwozdz, Wencke, 2017. "Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Ammann, Jeanine & Arbenz, Andreia & Mack, Gabriele & Siegrist, Michael, 2025. "Consumer support of policy measures to increase sustainability in food consumption," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    11. Andrea Marchini & Chiara Riganelli & Francesco Diotallevi & Bianca Polenzani, 2021. "Label information and consumer behaviour: evidence on drinking milk sector," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    13. Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury, 2022. "The ethics of nudging: Using moral foundations theory to understand consumers' approval of nudges," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 703-742, June.
    14. Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    15. Lemken, Dominic & Simonetti, Aline & Heinke, Gloria & Estevez, Ana, 2024. "Evidence on the effectiveness-acceptance trade-off between forced active choice and default nudging - A field study to reduce meat consumption in cafeterias," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Agnieszka Piekara, 2022. "Sugar Tax or What? The Perspective and Preferences of Consumers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, October.
    17. Saulais, Laure & Massey, Camille & Perez-Cueto, Federico J.A. & Appleton, Katherine M. & Dinnella, Caterina & Monteleone, Erminio & Depezay, Laurence & Hartwell, Heather & Giboreau, Agnès, 2019. "When are “Dish of the Day” nudges most effective to increase vegetable selection?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 15-27.
    18. Vivica Kraak & Tessa Englund & Sarah Misyak & Elena Serrano, 2017. "Progress Evaluation for the Restaurant Industry Assessed by a Voluntary Marketing-Mix and Choice-Architecture Framework That Offers Strategies to Nudge American Customers toward Healthy Food Environments, 2006–2017," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, July.
    19. Romain Espinosa & Anis Nassar, 2021. "The Acceptability of Food Policies," Post-Print halshs-03210654, HAL.
    20. Sandro Casal & Francesco Guala & Luigi Mittone, 2025. "On the transparency of nudges: an experiment," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 24(2), pages 871-894, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13422-:d:694688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.