Promoting Plant-Based Sustainable Diet to Support Future Development: Emotional Design Card Development
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainable Diet
2.2. Emotional Design
2.3. Design Cards
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Case Study—Michelin Green Star Restaurants
4.1.1. Results
4.1.2. Discussion
4.2. Experimental Study-Instinctive-, Behavioral-, and Reflective-Level Experimental Analysis
4.2.1. Study 1-1
Process
Results
4.2.2. Study 1-2
Process
Results
4.2.3. Study 1-3
Process
Results
4.2.4. Study 1-4
Process
Results
4.2.5. Study 2-1
Process
Results
4.2.6. Study 2-2
Process
Results
4.2.7. Study 2-3
Process
Results
4.2.8. Study 2-4
Process
Results
4.2.9. Study 3-1
Process
Results
4.2.10. Study 3-2
Process
Results
4.2.11. Study 3-3
Process
Results
4.2.12. Discussion
4.3. Prototype Conception—Emotional Design Card Themes
4.3.1. Results
4.3.2. Discussion
4.4. User Testing—Card Application Testing and Improvement
4.4.1. Results
4.4.2. Discussion
4.5. Card Set—Sustainable Diet 3P Emotional Design Method
5. General Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Gender | Age | Education | Occupational Type | Attention to Sustainable Issues | |
1 | female | 54 | undergraduate | teacher | none |
2 | female | 50 | specialized | chef | none |
3 | female | 28 | master | consulting advisor | none |
4 | female | 35 | master | operation manager | none |
5 | male | 28 | master | engineer | economic sustainability |
6 | male | 38 | PhD | manager | none |
7 | male | 28 | PhD | student | none |
8 | female | 52 | undergraduate | office manager | social and environmental sustainability |
9 | female | 28 | master | finance | social and environmental sustainability |
10 | male | 27 | master | programmer | economic and environmental sustainability |
11 | female | 26 | master | finance | environmental sustainability |
12 | female | 26 | master | student | none |
13 | male | 54 | specialized | manager | economic and social sustainability |
References
- Antonelli, P.; Tannir, A. Broken nature: Design takes on human survival. Rizzoli Electa 2019, 2019, 16–40. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Sustainable diets and biodiversity: Directions and solutions for policy, research and action. In International Scientific Symposium, Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United against Hunger; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Zampollo, F.; Peacock, M. Food design thinking: A branch of design thinking specific to food design. J. Creat. Behav. 2016, 2016, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zampollo, F. Welcome to food design. Int. J. Food Des. 2016, 1, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sijtsema, S.J.; Fogliano, V.; Hageman, M. Tool to support citizen participation and multi-disciplinarity in food innovation: Circular food design. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 582193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, D. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Museles, E. Food Story: Rewrite the Way You Eat, Think, and Live; Sounds True: Louisville, CO, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Festila, A.; Chrysochou, P. Implicit communication of food product healthfulness through package design: A content analysis. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 461–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Breuer, C.V.; Schifferstein, H.N.J. Supporting food design processes: Development of food design cards. Int. J Des. 2020, 14, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
- van den Berg, S.W.; van den Brink, A.C.; Wagemakers, A.; den Broeder, L. Reducing meat consumption: The influence of life course transitions, barriers and enablers, and effective strategies according to young dutch adults. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 100, 104623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzini, E.F.C.; Stolterman, E. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Burlingame, B.; Dernini, S. Sustainable diets: The mediterranean diet as an example. Public Health Nutr. 2011, 14, 2285–2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Loo, E.J.; Hoefkens, C.; Verbeke, W. Healthy, Sustainable and plant-based eating: Perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy. Food Policy 2017, 69, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verain, M.C.; Bartels, J.; Dagevos, H.; Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Antonides, G. Segments of sustainable food consumers: A literature review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donati, M.; Menozzi, D.; Zighetti, C.; Rosi, A.; Zinetti, A.; Scazzina, F. Towards a sustainable diet combining economic, environmental and nutritional objectives. Appetite 2016, 106, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kowalsky, T.O.; de la Osa, R.M.R.; Cerrillo, I. Sustainable diets as tools to harmonize the health of individuals, communities and the planet: A systematic review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Desmet, P.M.A.; Porcelijn, R.; van Dijk, M.B. Emotional design: Application of a research-based design approach. Knowl. Technol. Policy 2007, 20, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagen, L. Pretty Healthy food: How and when aesthetics enhance perceived healthiness. J. Mark. 2017, 85, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youssef, J.; Mora, M.; Maiz, E. Sensory exploration of vegetables combined with a cookery class increases willingness to choose/eat plant-based food and drink. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2022, 28, 100515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gauthier, A.; Guertin, C.; Pelletier, L. Motivated to eat green or your greens? Comparing the role of motivation towards the environment and for eating regulation on ecological eating behaviours—a self-determination theory perspective. Food Qual. Pref. 2022, 99, 104570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrar, S.T.; Davis, T.; Papies, E.K. Increasing the appeal of plant-based foods through describing the consumption experience: A data-driven procedure. Food Qual. Pref. 2024, 119, 105212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoey, L.; Khoury, C.; Osiemo, J. Challenges to operationalizing sustainable diets: Perspectives from kenya and vietnam. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 690028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logler, N.; Yoo, D.; Friedman, B. Metaphor Cards. In Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018—DIS’18, Hong Kong, China, 9–13 June 2018; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1373–1386. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, D.; Loke, L.; Ahmadpour, N. Toolkits, cards and games—A review of analogue tools for collaborative ideation. CoDesign 2021, 17, 410–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Jin, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L.; Li, M.; Dong, X. Emotionally sustainable design toolbox: A card-based design tool for designing products with an extended life based on the user’s emotional needs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buur, J.; Soendergaard, A. Video Card Game: An Augmented Environment for User Centred Design Discussions. In Proceedings of the DARE 2000 on Designing Augmented Reality Environments, Elsinore, Denmark, 12–14 April 2000; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Karpik, L. Le Guide rouge Michelin. Sociol. Trav. 2000, 42, 369–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batat, W. Pillars of sustainable food experiences in the luxury gastronomy sector: A qualitative exploration of michelin-starred chefs’ motivations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, O.C. Conducting thematic analysis on brief texts: The structured tabular approach. Qual. Psychol. 2022, 9, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pramudya, R.C.; Seo, H.S. Hand-feel touch cues and their influences on consumer perception and behavior with respect to food products: A review. Foods 2019, 8, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- May, J.; Kavanagh, D.J.; Andrade, J. The elaborated intrusion theory of desire: A 10-year retrospective and implications for addiction treatments. Addic. Behav. 2015, 44, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filimonau, V.; Marija, K. Restaurant menu design and more responsible consumer food choice: An exploratory study of managerial perceptions. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- May, J.; Andrade, J.; Panabokke, N.; Kavanagh, D. Images of desire: Cognitive models of craving. Memory 2004, 12, 447–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Zhao, Z.; Wan, X. Influence of solitary or commensal dining advertisements on consumers’ expectations of and attitudes toward foods and restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 104, 103230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavanagh, D.J.; Andrade, J.; May, J. Imaginary relish and exquisite torture: The elaborated intrusion theory of desire. Psychol. Rev. 2005, 112, 446–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Chen, R. Time metaphor and regulatory focus. Eur. J. Mark. 2020, 54, 1865–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fassio, F. Systemic Food Design.it A website that narrates food supply chains from a systemic perspective. Des. J. 2017, 20, S1355–S1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elder, R.S.; Krishna, A. The ‘visual depiction effect’ in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. J. Consum. Resh. 2012, 38, 988–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, X.; Zhu, J. Research streams and frontier issues of visual perception in the 21st century. Des. J. 2023, 26, 753–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paakki, M.; Aaltojärvi, I.; Sandell, M.; Hopia, A. The importance of the visual aesthetics of colours in food at a workday lunch. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2019, 16, 100131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozup, J.C.; Creyer, E.H.; Burton, S. Making healthful food choices: The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. J. Mark. 2003, 67, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Lei, J. The effect of food toppings on calorie estimation and consumption. J. Consum. Psy. 2014, 24, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Igartua, J.J.; Hayes, A.F. Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Concepts, computations, and some common confusions. Spanish J. Psychol. 2021, 24, e49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Standifer, M.; Baldwin, J.; Davis, J. A transdisciplinary approach to eliminate cancer disparities: An overview of community engagement and outreach efforts in an national institute of health center for excellence. J. Health Dispar. Res. Pract. 2014, 7, 14–34. [Google Scholar]
- Ahn, H.; Yim, M.Y.-C.; Sung, Y. When verbal metaphors become more persuasive: The interplay. between goal orientation of ad claims and metaphor. Int. J. Adv. 2021, 41, 541–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.J.; Hall, C.M.; Kwon, O.; Sohn, K. Space tourism: Value-attitude-behavior theory, artificial intelligence, and sustainability. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 77, 103654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.L.; Liu, S.Q.; Huang, H.; Yu, X. Photo vs. art? The design of consumption guidance in cultural food consumption. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 97, 103008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spence, C.; Motoki, K.; Petit, O. Factors influencing the visual deliciousness/eye-appeal of food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 102, 104672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sensory Simulation | Choice Intention | Perceived Attractiveness | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | t | p | M | SD | t | p | |
Control | 4.29 | 1.49 | - | - | 4.14 | 1.59 | - | - |
Visual | 5.76 | 0.60 | 5.41 | <0.05 | 5.70 | 0.72 | 5.27 | <0.05 |
Auditory | 5.73 | 0.69 | 5.14 | <0.05 | 5.56 | 0.81 | 4.95 | <0.05 |
Olfactory | 5.65 | 0.72 | 6.25 | <0.05 | 5.66 | 0.86 | 5.27 | <0.05 |
Gustatory | 5.96 | 0.68 | 4.76 | <0.05 | 5.97 | 0.71 | 6.45 | <0.05 |
Tactile | 5.60 | 0.89 | 5.60 | <0.05 | 5.60 | 0.85 | 5.11 | <0.05 |
Sensory Simulation | Perceived Attractiveness | F | η2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eating Alone | Eating Together | |||||
M | SD | M | SD | |||
Control | 4.76 | 0.21 | 4.30 | 0.19 | 2.61 | 0.006 |
Visual | 5.04 | 0.18 | 5.46 | 0.18 | 2.87 | 0.007 |
Auditory | 5.71 | 0.17 | 5.51 | 0.17 | 0.69 | 0.002 |
Olfactory | 5.91 | 0.18 | 5.49 | 0.17 | 2.99 | 0.007 |
Gustatory | 5.47 | 0.17 | 5.91 | 0.18 | 3.16 | 0.008 |
Tactile | 5.98 | 0.17 | 5.57 | 0.18 | 2.85 | 0.007 |
Sensory Simulation | Perceived Attractiveness | F | η2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Self-Representation | Other-Representation | |||||
M | SD | M | SD | |||
Control | 4.98 | 0.177 | 4.41 | 0.175 | 5.19 | 0.012 |
Visual | 5.43 | 0.168 | 5.97 | 0.177 | 5.02 | 0.011 |
Auditory | 5.96 | 0.175 | 5.53 | 0.168 | 3.28 | 0.007 |
Olfactory | 5.84 | 0.175 | 5.34 | 0.177 | 3.96 | 0.009 |
Gustatory | 5.44 | 0.177 | 5.92 | 0.185 | 3.57 | 0.008 |
Tactile | 6.03 | 0.168 | 5.44 | 0.168 | 6.20 | 0.014 |
Nutrition | Choice Intention | Health Perception | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | t | p | M | SD | t | p | |
Control | 4.59 | 1.45 | - | - | 4.26 | 1.34 | - | - |
Carbohydrate | 5.73 | 0.85 | 4.05 | <0.05 | 5.96 | 0.71 | 5.96 | <0.05 |
Protein | 5.67 | 0.86 | 3.87 | <0.05 | 5.76 | 0.65 | 5.76 | <0.05 |
Dietary fiber | 5.34 | 0.87 | 2.23 | <0.05 | 5.31 | 0.67 | 3.26 | <0.05 |
Fat | 5.54 | 0.85 | 3.32 | <0.05 | 5.57 | 0.81 | 4.94 | <0.05 |
Nutrition | Health Perception | F | η2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Process | Outcome | |||||
M | SD | M | SD | |||
Control | 4.82 | 1.09 | 4.53 | 0.83 | 2.34 | 0.001 |
Carbohydrate | 5.56 | 0.98 | 5.96 | 0.46 | 4.17 | 0.013 |
Protein | 5.62 | 0.70 | 5.93 | 0.55 | 2.84 | 0.010 |
Dietary fiber | 5.45 | 0.64 | 5.81 | 0.77 | 2.78 | 0.012 |
Fat | 5.58 | 0.78 | 5.94 | 0.51 | 3.76 | 0.011 |
Nutrition | Health Perception | F | η2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefit | Harm | |||||
M | SD | M | SD | |||
Control | 4.68 | 1.03 | 5.03 | 0.94 | 2.48 | 0.001 |
Carbohydrate | 5.89 | 0.61 | 5.41 | 0.85 | 3.58 | 0.010 |
Protein | 6.02 | 0.45 | 5.64 | 1.04 | 3.10 | 0.010 |
Dietary fiber | 5.84 | 0.53 | 5.45 | 0.98 | 6.16 | 0.020 |
Fat | 6.02 | 0.48 | 5.29 | 1.09 | 3.60 | 0.040 |
Context | Choice Intention | Sense of Self-Worth | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | t | p | M | SD | t | p | |
Control | 4.97 | 1.42 | - | - | 4.28 | 1.42 | - | - |
Economic | 5.73 | 0.64 | 2.65 | <0.05 | 5.86 | 0.73 | 5.86 | <0.05 |
Social | 5.63 | 0.90 | 2.35 | <0.05 | 5.73 | 0.95 | 2.35 | <0.05 |
Environment | 5.72 | 0.87 | 2.87 | <0.05 | 4.73 | 0.74 | 4.73 | <0.05 |
Context | Sense of Self-Worth | F | η2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step-by-Step | All-at-Once | |||||
M | SD | M | SD | |||
Control | 4.00 | 1.47 | 4.42 | 1.41 | 2.46 | 0.009 |
Economic | 5.87 | 0.58 | 5.47 | 1.17 | 2.87 | 0.010 |
Social | 5.57 | 0.78 | 5.18 | 1.25 | 2.76 | 0.010 |
Environment | 5.96 | 0.57 | 5.55 | 0.83 | 2.80 | 0.010 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fang, X.; Zhu, J. Promoting Plant-Based Sustainable Diet to Support Future Development: Emotional Design Card Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188233
Fang X, Zhu J. Promoting Plant-Based Sustainable Diet to Support Future Development: Emotional Design Card Development. Sustainability. 2024; 16(18):8233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188233
Chicago/Turabian StyleFang, Xiaochen, and Jinwei Zhu. 2024. "Promoting Plant-Based Sustainable Diet to Support Future Development: Emotional Design Card Development" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 8233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188233