Switching out meat in favour of plant-based alternatives such as meat substitutes is an important step towards eating more sustainably. Here, the aim was to identify and explore the specific barriers experienced by Swedish consumers when replacing meat with more sustainable alternatives. All meat-eating participants in this study reported some interest in reducing their meat consumption. Aspects of home-use and central-location test methods were combined by using a digital conferencing system to host cooking sessions and focus group discussions online, which was shown to be a viable setup even in this hands-on setting. The discussions targeted participants’ experience preparing meals using meat substitutes as well as their perceived motivators and barriers to reducing meat consumption. Four themes identified through thematic analysis indicated that meat-eating participants, despite their desire or intent to reduce their meat consumption, experienced barriers relating to the following: internal conflict due to holding multiple positive and negative beliefs about meat simultaneously (ambivalence), justification of eating meat (rationalisation), a desire for variety in and control over their food choices (agency), and sensitivity to the views and expectations of other people and the situational context regarding meat (social and structural factors). Possible strategies to support ambivalent individuals in aligning their behaviour with their beliefs instead of vice versa are discussed in the context of the meat paradox. Agency and practical skills, including increasing knowledge in preparing meals with plant-based proteins, likely play a role in bridging this intention–behaviour gap. © 2022 by the authors. 

A key lifestyle change people could make to reduce their environmental impact is to reduce their meat consumption. However, meat is still a staple in many people's diet, and some consumers are reluctant to cut down. Meat substitutes, if accepted as adequate replacements for meat, may offer a suitable alternative without leaving consumers feeling dissatisfied. The aim of the present study was to identify psychological barriers to reducing meat consumption and increasing use of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers. Participants engaged in focus group discussions around purchasing, preparing, and consuming meat and meat substitutes. Four main themes were identified through thematic analysis: uncertainty, scepticism, health, and identity. These are discussed in relation to previous work on the barriers to reducing meat consumption. Strategies to communicate the environmental impact of meat to consumers and effect change through behavioural interventions are considered. © 2021 The Authors

As we cope with our society’s increasingly hectic pace, sales of fast food and "on-the-go" products have dramatically increased. This consumption has led to increasing amounts of waste packaging in the public environment. While littering is a visible problem so is the appropriate provision of waste bins. The vast majority of waste collected from the public environment is not sorted for material recycling. The purpose of the project was to test and evaluate a deposit-return-system on “on-the-go” single use packaging. A three-month test focused on coffee cups. A local marketing communications campaign provided consumers with information on how the packaging was to be recycled. Mini-recycling stations (paper, glass, plastic and ‘other’) were provided within a short walk. The numerous regular ‘unsorted’ waste bins remained in place during the test. When buying a coffee at participating cafes in Örnsköldsvik, between 1 June and 31 August 2021, consumers paid an additional 2 SEK. This deposit was refunded to the consumer when they recycled their coffee cup. This was done using a smartphone ‘app’ at one of the eight mini-recycling stations in the city center. It was also possible to get the refund at the conventional household packaging recycling stations in Örnsköldsvik. The evaluation considered three areas. Firstly, the extent consumers retrieved the deposit. In the test consumers retrieved the deposit about 10% of the time. The majority was refunded and recycled at conventional recycling stations where consumers normally recycle household packaging. Secondly, recycling levels and the purity of collected waste. The test demonstrated increased sorting and improved sorting quality. Of the paper coffee cups left at one of the eight mini-recycling stations, 90% were sorted in the correct fraction. Compared to other beverage paper cups of which 70% were sorted correctly. When considering the unsorted waste from the numerous regular waste bins, an overall recycling level of 56% of refundable coffee cups was achieved. This, together with the low share of coffee cups refunded, indicates that the proximity and convenience of disposal has a higher value than the need to recycle. Thirdly, acceptance among consumers and cafés. A deposit-return-system for on-the-go packaging was not crucial for increasing recycling in public environment. The participating and surveyed consumers were positive towards the project's aim to increase recycling of on-the-go packaging. They did not, however, appreciate the design of the app used in the project. Café owners varied in their perception of the digital deposit system. The main project conclusion is that a deposit-return-system for on-the-go packaging is not crucial for increased source sorting in public environments. This was an ambitious project testing consumer behavioral change. Örnsköldsvik’s city centre went from using bins without the possibility of recycling-to-recycling stations in public environments with the possibility to recycle coffee cups with a refund. While residents and visitors participated, there was limited marketing and only a three-month test period. As a consequence, results must be qualified by the relatively small data sets. That includes physical volumes of cups refunded and recycled, the number of respondents in interviews and surveys. Örnsköldsvik’s city centre has retained recycling stations following the project.

The impact of testing locations, home use test (HUT) and central location test (CLT) on consumer evaluations of food products using rate all that apply (RATA) was investigated. As a case study, eight cold cuts were evaluated: four vegetarian/vegan and four meat-based products. A between-subjects design was used, whereby consumers were randomly allocated to either HUT or CLT test location (58 and 71 consumers, respectively). To retain as much similarity as possible across locations, consumers in both groups received identical bags of products with palate cleansers and instructions. Consumers evaluated the products using a lexicon consisting of 32 sensory attributes based on similar studies and benchtop tasting, using RATA with 7pt scales. A total of 30 and 31 attributes differed significantly (p < 0.05) across the products for HUT and CLT, respectively. Sample discrimination was similar between the two locations. Location significantly (p < 0.05) affected discrimination of 14 attributes, but a particular location having consistently higher attribute means was not observed. Bootstrapping of the attribute means per product showed no significant differences between the two testing locations, and multilevel regression models using Bayesian inference did not reveal marked differences in expected ratings between locations. Further comparisons of sample discrimination patterns through principal component analysis showed that the two locations were very similar, including the overlap of confidence ellipses. The between-subjects design strengthens the results: that comparable sensory profiles were obtained from different consumers in different testing locations supports the notion that RATA data from consumers can be reliably collected for relatively sensorially distinct products with minimal data compromise.