Understanding and tackling meat reduction in different cultural contexts: a segmentation study of Swiss and Vietnamese consumers.

Mathilde Delley, Thanh Mai Ha, Franziska Götze, Evelyn Markoni, Minh Hai Ngo, Anh Duc Nguyen, Thi Lam Bui, Nhu Thinh Le, Bao Duong Pham, Thomas A Brunner
Author Information
  1. Mathilde Delley: Food Science & Management, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (BFH-HAFL), Bern University of Applied Sciences, Zollikofen, Switzerland.
  2. Thanh Mai Ha: Faculty of Economics and Rural Development, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam.
  3. Franziska Götze: Food Science & Management, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (BFH-HAFL), Bern University of Applied Sciences, Zollikofen, Switzerland.
  4. Evelyn Markoni: Food Science & Management, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (BFH-HAFL), Bern University of Applied Sciences, Zollikofen, Switzerland.
  5. Minh Hai Ngo: Faculty of Economics and Rural Development, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam.
  6. Anh Duc Nguyen: Faculty of Economics and Rural Development, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam.
  7. Thi Lam Bui: Faculty of Accounting and Business Management, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam.
  8. Nhu Thinh Le: Department of Economics and Marketing, Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam.
  9. Bao Duong Pham: Bac Giang Agriculture and Forestry University, Bac Giang, Vietnam.
  10. Thomas A Brunner: Food Science & Management, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (BFH-HAFL), Bern University of Applied Sciences, Zollikofen, Switzerland.

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to disclose and compare meat consumer segments in Switzerland and Vietnam, which differ in terms of their socioeconomic and cultural settings (the former is a developed country, and the latter is an emerging one) to develop a set of segment-specific recommendations that might be applied to consumption in comparable contexts, that is, in other developed countries and other emerging economies.
Methods: Data were collected through two online surveys: one for Swiss residents from randomly selected households and one for Vietnamese urban residents recruited via snowball sampling. The final sample size was  = 643 for Switzerland and  = 616 for Vietnam. Hierarchical cluster analyses followed by K-means cluster analyses revealed five distinct clusters in both countries.
Results: Three clusters were common to both countries: meat lovers (21% in Switzerland and 19% in Vietnam), proactive consumers (22% in Switzerland and 14% in Vietnam) and suggestible consumers (19% in Switzerland and 25% in Vietnam). Two were specific to each country, namely traditional (19%) and basic (21%) consumers in Switzerland and confident (16%) and anxious (26%) consumers in Vietnam.
Conclusion: Relying on voluntary actions, nudging techniques, private initiatives and consumers' sense of responsibility will certainly be useful but will nevertheless be insufficient to achieve a planetary health diet within the given timeframe (the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). Governments will have no choice but to activate all levers within their sphere of influence - including regulatory measures - and oblige private sector actors to commit to the measures imposed on them. A binding international agenda with common objectives and measures is a judicious approach. Unlike most previous studies, which focused on meat consumption intensity and frequency or diet type to segment consumers, our approach, based on psychographic profiles, allows the identification of segments that share common drivers and barriers and thus the development of better-targeted measures to reduce meat consumption.

Keywords

References

  1. Meat Sci. 2018 Oct;144:169-179 [PMID: 29945745]
  2. Br J Nutr. 2014 Sep 14;112(5):762-75 [PMID: 24932617]
  3. Nutrients. 2019 Feb 28;11(3): [PMID: 30823494]
  4. Appetite. 2021 Nov 1;166:105475 [PMID: 34166748]
  5. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;94(4):1088-96 [PMID: 21831992]
  6. Appetite. 2000 Feb;34(1):55-9 [PMID: 10744892]
  7. Appetite. 2003 Jun;40(3):235-44 [PMID: 12798781]
  8. Nat Commun. 2020 Apr 29;11(1):2096 [PMID: 32350258]
  9. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):555-63 [PMID: 22412075]
  10. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 May;45(5 Suppl):1060-72 [PMID: 3554965]
  11. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018 Oct 19;15(1):102 [PMID: 30340498]
  12. Appetite. 2019 Jul 1;138:233-241 [PMID: 30965045]
  13. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 23;169(6):562-71 [PMID: 19307518]
  14. Curr Diab Rep. 2013 Apr;13(2):298-306 [PMID: 23354681]
  15. Proc Nutr Soc. 2013 Feb;72(1):29-39 [PMID: 23336559]
  16. Appetite. 2019 Nov 1;142:104345 [PMID: 31276709]
  17. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Oct;98(4):1032-41 [PMID: 23902788]
  18. Ann Behav Med. 2011 Oct;42(2):174-87 [PMID: 21626256]
  19. Appetite. 2015 Dec;95:113-25 [PMID: 26148456]
  20. Appetite. 2020 Jul 1;150:104644 [PMID: 32109523]
  21. Appetite. 2023 Jul 1;186:106537 [PMID: 36933833]
  22. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1991 Nov 29;334(1270):271-8; discussion 278-9 [PMID: 1685585]
  23. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2020 Oct;1478(1):3-17 [PMID: 32713024]
  24. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017 Feb;76(1):34-41 [PMID: 27502053]
  25. J Nutr. 2007 Apr;137(4):1119-23 [PMID: 17374691]
  26. Appetite. 2019 Jul 1;138:115-126 [PMID: 30917940]
  27. Meat Sci. 2022 Feb;184:108695 [PMID: 34695682]
  28. Front Nutr. 2022 Nov 10;9:1016858 [PMID: 36438730]
  29. Appetite. 2021 May 1;160:105073 [PMID: 33359236]
  30. Foods. 2022 Apr 19;11(9): [PMID: 35563904]
  31. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Oct 01;176(10):1453-1463 [PMID: 27479196]
  32. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012 Jul;26 Suppl 1:205-22 [PMID: 22742612]
  33. Meat Sci. 2012 Sep;92(1):71-7 [PMID: 22560481]
  34. Appetite. 2022 Apr 1;171:105933 [PMID: 35041873]
  35. Appetite. 1995 Dec;25(3):267-84 [PMID: 8746966]
  36. Animals (Basel). 2021 Dec 06;11(12): [PMID: 34944243]
  37. Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 21;7(1):6105 [PMID: 28733610]
  38. iScience. 2023 Feb 03;26(3):106129 [PMID: 36876130]
  39. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 24;20(1): [PMID: 36612609]
  40. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013 Jan;67(1):91-5 [PMID: 23169473]
  41. Appetite. 2021 Dec 1;167:105643 [PMID: 34389377]
  42. Appetite. 2017 Jul 1;114:299-305 [PMID: 28392424]
  43. Appetite. 2017 Jun 1;113:387-397 [PMID: 28300608]
  44. Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447-492 [PMID: 30660336]
  45. BMJ. 2017 May 9;357:j1957 [PMID: 28487287]
  46. Annu Rev Nutr. 2021 Oct 11;41:529-550 [PMID: 34339293]
  47. Eur J Dev Res. 2022;34(6):2923-2947 [PMID: 35013652]
  48. Appetite. 2018 Apr 1;123:280-288 [PMID: 29307499]
  49. Meat Sci. 2014 Nov;98(3):361-71 [PMID: 25017317]
  50. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1599-600 [PMID: 26514947]
  51. Appetite. 2023 Apr 1;183:106487 [PMID: 36746276]
  52. Foods. 2021 Jun 03;10(6): [PMID: 34204963]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SwitzerlandVietnammeatconsumersconsumptionmeasuresemergingonecommon19%willstudyconsumersegmentsculturaldevelopedcountrycountrieseconomiesSwissresidentsVietnameseclusteranalysesclusters21%privatedietwithin-approachreductionsegmentationObjective:aimsdisclosecomparediffertermssocioeconomicsettingsformerlatterdevelopsetsegment-specificrecommendationsmightappliedcomparablecontextsMethods:Datacollectedtwoonlinesurveys:randomlyselectedhouseholdsurbanrecruitedviasnowballsamplingfinalsamplesize = 643 = 616HierarchicalfollowedK-meansrevealedfivedistinctResults:Threecountries:loversproactive22%14%suggestible25%Twospecificnamelytraditionalbasicconfident16%anxious26%Conclusion:Relyingvoluntaryactionsnudgingtechniquesinitiativesconsumers'senseresponsibilitycertainlyusefulneverthelessinsufficientachieveplanetaryhealthgiventimeframe2030AgendaSustainableDevelopmentGovernmentschoiceactivateleverssphereinfluenceincludingregulatoryobligesectoractorscommitimposedbindinginternationalagendaobjectivesjudiciousUnlikepreviousstudiesfocusedintensityfrequencytypesegmentbasedpsychographicprofilesallowsidentificationsharedriversbarriersthusdevelopmentbetter-targetedreduceUnderstandingtacklingdifferentcontexts:behaviour

Similar Articles

Cited By