IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v177y2024i2d10.1007_s10584-024-03679-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived naturalness predicts public support for sustainable protein technology

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Gonzalez Coffin

    (University of Colorado Boulder)

  • Waverly Eichhorst

    (University of Colorado Boulder)

  • Amanda R. Carrico

    (University of Colorado Boulder)

  • Yoel Inbar

    (University of Toronto)

  • Peter Newton

    (University of Colorado Boulder)

  • Leaf Boven

    (University of Colorado Boulder)

Abstract

The widespread demand for animal-sourced foods poses challenges in addressing climate change due to their significant greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative proteins like cultured meat show promise with lower greenhouse gas emissions, but have faced public resistance, posing substantial barriers to their broad development and adoption. This paper reports a survey that examined the perceived naturalness of protein sources as an important factor that predicts perceived risks, benefits, and support for consumption. A diverse sample from the United States considered six different protein technologies, including three newer alternative proteins such as cultured meat and three more conventional proteins. Newer alternative proteins were perceived as less natural and were less supported than conventional proteins. Additionally, the more participants perceived protein sources as natural, the less risky and more beneficial they perceived them to be, contributing to their support. These results suggest that perceived naturalness, and associated risks and benefits, could be an important factor in shaping public support for or opposition to new proteins. These findings have theoretical and broader implications for the development and adoption of sustainability technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Gonzalez Coffin & Waverly Eichhorst & Amanda R. Carrico & Yoel Inbar & Peter Newton & Leaf Boven, 2024. "Perceived naturalness predicts public support for sustainable protein technology," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 1-20, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:177:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10584-024-03679-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-024-03679-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-024-03679-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-024-03679-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaitlin T. Raimi & Kimberly S. Wolske & P. Sol Hart & Victoria Campbell‐Arvai, 2020. "The Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale: Individual Differences in (Dis)comfort with Altering the Natural World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 638-656, March.
    2. Rudski, Jeffrey M. & Osei, William & Jacobson, Ari R. & Lynch, Carl R., 2011. "Would you rather be injured by lightning or a downed power line? Preference for natural hazards," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 314-322, June.
    3. Robert M. Chiles & Amy J. Fitzgerald, 2018. "Why is meat so important in Western history and culture? A genealogical critique of biophysical and political-economic explanations," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Sydney E. Scott & Paul Rozin, 2020. "Actually, natural is neutral," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 989-990, October.
    5. Kimberly S. Wolske & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & P. Sol Hart, 2019. "Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 345-361, March.
    6. Matthew G. Burgess & Leaf Boven & Gernot Wagner & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi & Kyri Baker & Maxwell Boykoff & Benjamin A. Converse & Lisa Dilling & Jonathan M. Gilligan & Yoel Inbar & Ezra Markowitz & Jona, 2024. "Supply, demand and polarization challenges facing US climate policies," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 14(2), pages 134-142, February.
    7. Catherine Happer & Laura Wellesley, 2019. "Meat consumption, behaviour and the media environment: a focus group analysis across four countries," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(1), pages 123-139, February.
    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. Leaf Van Boven & Matthew G. Burgess, 2024. "Introduction to topical collection: social science and sustainability technology," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(4), pages 1-6, April.

    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. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    2. Sean Low & Livia Fritz & Chad M. Baum & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Shannan K. Sweet & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Johannes Lehmann & Deborah A. Bossio & Dominic Woolf, 2021. "Perceptions of naturalness predict US public support for Soil Carbon Storage as a climate solution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    5. Beckage, Brian & Lacasse, Katherine & Raimi, Kaitlin T. & Visioni, Daniele, 2023. "Integrating Risk Perception with Climate Models to Understand the Potential Deployment of Solar Radiation Modification to Mitigate Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series 23-22, Resources for the Future.
    6. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Rhys Manners, 2020. "Evaluating Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria and SWOT Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-26, October.
    7. Gokul Iyer & Alicia Zhao & Adriana Bryant & John Bistline & Geoffrey Blanford & Ryna Cui & Allen A. Fawcett & Rachel Goldstein & Amanda Levin & Megan Mahajan & Haewon McJeon & Robbie Orvis & Nathan Hu, 2025. "A multi-model study to inform the United States’ 2035 NDC," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Paul Fesenfeld, Lukas & Maier, Maiken & Brazzola, Nicoletta & Stolz, Niklas & Sun, Yixian & Kachi, Aya, 2023. "How information, social norms, and experience with novel meat substitutes can create positive political feedback and demand-side policy change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    9. Paul B. Thompson, 2023. "Richard Haynes and the early years of Agriculture and Human Values," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 45-48, March.
    10. Fernando Mata & Maria Dos-Santos & Jack Cocksedge, 2023. "Attitudinal and Behavioural Differences towards Farm Animal Welfare among Consumers in the BRIC Countries and the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Thijs Bouman & Linda Steg & Tom Dietz, 2024. "The public demands more climate action, not less," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(11), pages 1-8, November.
    12. Leaf Van Boven & Matthew G. Burgess, 2024. "Introduction to topical collection: social science and sustainability technology," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(4), pages 1-6, April.
    13. Nathalie Spielmann & Pierrick Gomez & Elizabeth Minton, 2024. "The Role of the Ugly = Bad Stereotype in the Rejection of Misshapen Produce," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 413-437, March.
    14. Elspeth Spence & Emily Cox & Nick Pidgeon, 2021. "Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Assem Abu Hatab & Maria Eduarda Rigo Cavinato & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2019. "Urbanization, livestock systems and food security in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(2), pages 279-299, April.
    16. Walid Chatti & Muhammad Tariq Majeed, 2024. "Meat production, technological advances, and environmental protection: evidence from a dynamic panel data model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(12), pages 31225-31250, December.
    17. Tomas Linder, 2019. "Making the case for edible microorganisms as an integral part of a more sustainable and resilient food production system," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(2), pages 265-278, April.
    18. Kaitlin T. Raimi & Kimberly S. Wolske & P. Sol Hart & Victoria Campbell‐Arvai, 2020. "The Aversion to Tampering with Nature (ATN) Scale: Individual Differences in (Dis)comfort with Altering the Natural World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 638-656, March.
    19. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    20. Albina Dioba & Valentina Kroker & Siegfried Dewitte & Florian Lange, 2024. "Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior Change: A Review of Qualitative Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-19, October.

    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:spr:climat:v:177:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10584-024-03679-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.