Finding Nori—Understanding Key Factors Driving US Consumers’ Commitment for Sea-Vegetable Products
1
Department of Land Management and Systems, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
2
Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
3
Department of Agribusiness and Markets, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 2107; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052107
Submission received: 9 February 2024
/
Revised: 29 February 2024
/
Accepted: 29 February 2024
/
Published: 3 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Abstract
:The trend toward sustainable and healthy food consumption has stimulated widespread debate. US consumers demand healthy and sustainable food options and are increasingly interested in alternative proteins such as macro-algae, also known as sea-vegetables. The present study is built on the responses of an online survey aiming to explore US consumers’ commitment towards varying sea-vegetable-based products. Affordability, sustainability, taste, environmental friendliness, and health benefits, as well as product novelty and versatility, were the factors under investigation. All factors were found to be equally strong predictors for sea-vegetable product commitment. Best-practice recommendations for US food marketers and agricultural producers are also provided.
1. Introduction
Over the past decade, climate change and world population growth led to a rise in sustainable food choices among consumers in Western countries such as the United States of America (US) [1,2,3]. It is predicted that the world population will reach 9.1 billion people by 2050, and solutions to food security are widely discussed in media and science [4,5,6]. The public debate emphasizes insects and sea-vegetables as suitable protein sources to replace traditional meat [7,8,9]. Sea-vegetables are an umbrella term for macro-algae species such as Chlorophytes, Phaeophytes, and Rhodophytes [10,11,12,13]. They are very versatile in their use [13,14,15]. Sea-vegetables contain fiber, calcium, magnesium, and iodine and are often advertised as health-beneficial products [9,16]. In addition to human consumption, they are part of cosmetic products and animal feed [9]. In the US, there are two main sea-vegetable production areas, namely Maine and Alaska [8]. Sea-vegetable-based food products are stemming or are otherwise imported from Indonesia, China, Korea, and the Philippines [17]. In US consumer markets, sea-vegetables comprise fresh and processed products. Miso soups, sushi rolls, and crackers are widely available and accepted products amongst US consumers [18,19].
The recent body of work in the literature on sea-vegetable consumption and food marketing indicates key factors that determine consumer acceptance, e.g., specific product information, knowledge related to production practices and ecosystems, past buying and consumption experience, attitudes, variety-seeking behavior, health benefits as well as the socio-demographic profiles of consumers [8,9,16,17]. Most studies are dedicated to sea-vegetable consumption in general or to products such as sushi, which are widely accepted by US consumers. However, many sea-vegetable products coming to the market can be described as novelties to US consumers [20,21]. In addition, food choices are often complex and product-specific; hence, the present paper is focused on a variety of sea-vegetable-based products. The present paper aims to explore US consumer commitment to sea-vegetable-based products such as sushi rolls, salads, crackers/cookies, jelly/candy, tea, smoothies/shakes, and nutritional supplements. With this specific focus, the present study extends the existing body of literature [20,21,22,23,24], as commitment is not yet widely explored. Some elements of commitment are considered higher-order consumer behaviors, such as paying a premium price and sharing via word of mouth, and have yet to be more widely explored. Therefore, this study aims to explore and validate the key factors driving commitment to varying sea-vegetable products and unite them in one model.
2. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
Affordability, sustainability, taste, environmental-friendliness, health benefits, product novelty, and versatility were thought to be relevant predictors suitable to understanding the different types of products and consumer commitment. The chosen predictors are presented in the remainder of this section and underpin the proposed conceptual model (see Figure 1).
2.1. Affordability, Sustainability, and Taste
The recent body of work in the literature emphasizes sea-vegetable product attributes such as affordability, sustainability, and taste as essential to product commitment [17,25,26]. In terms of affordability, Young et al. (2022) discussed how product accessibility and an affordable price point are the greatest enablers for sea-vegetable purchase and consumption by Australian consumers [17]. Earlier studies indicated that US consumers rate seaweed lower in taste when compared to traditional seafood [27,28,29]. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the sea-vegetable taste depends on the species used and may even vary with differences in preparation and processing methods [30]. In addition, paying a premium price for sea-vegetables is not appreciated by US consumers [29]. Regarding affordability, an Italian study presented similar findings. Italian consumers were not willing to purchase at a high price point [19]. Sea-vegetables as a food source are viewed as more sustainable compared to animal-based protein sources, as the production and processing of seaweed are not as strongly associated with environmental degradation and negative externalities as agricultural production and animal husbandry [7,27]. In addition, various studies emphasize that, particularly in food processing, e.g., obtaining the functional compounds of seaweed, a shift from conventional towards sustainable seaweed extraction methods has occurred [27]. Smart technologies and eco-friendly solvents, such as ionic liquids or solvents produced from biomass, lead the way to more sustainable extraction processes. In contrast to conventional extraction processes, the sustainable extraction process requires less energy and does not produce large quantities of hazardous chemical waste [27]. Amidst this background, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis (H1a).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies.
Hypothesis (H1b).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy.
Hypothesis (H1c).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based salad.
Hypothesis (H1d).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based smoothies/shakes.
Hypothesis (H1e).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based soup.
Hypothesis (H1f).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based supplements.
Hypothesis (H1g).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sushi rolls.
Hypothesis (H1h).
Affordability, sustainability, and taste positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based tea.
2.2. Environmentally Friendliness and Health Benefits
The extant literature outlines the environmental friendliness and health benefits of a food product as important determinants of the purchase intentions of consumers [31,32,33]. Compared to land-based vegetables and meat-based proteins, sea-vegetables are superior in their-promoting characteristics. This includes fiber, omega-3 fatty acids, amino acids, minerals, and vitamins. In a sea-vegetable context, Goverts (2023) proposes three consumer segments, namely traditional, egoistic, and progressive consumers [34]. These segments are based on consumers’ food values and the concept of self-identity. Findings suggest that altruistic (environmental-based value) and instrumental values (health-based values) that shape the segments allow for differentiation [34]. Progressive consumers are the most interested in health and well-being and place a high value on the environment. Among the three consumer segments, they had the strongest interest in sea-vegetable products and the highest willingness to try them [34]. Also, Wassermann (2023) outlines the association between sea-vegetables and health and characterizes these as environmentally friendly food options [35]. The work shows that in addition to the food item itself, eco–friendly labeling and packaging are of importance to consumers [35]. Grounded in these studies, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis (H2a).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies.
Hypothesis (H2b).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact t US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy.
Hypothesis (H2c).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based salad.
Hypothesis (H2d).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based smoothies/shakes.
Hypothesis (H2e).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based soup.
Hypothesis (H2f).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based supplements.
Hypothesis (H2g).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sushi rolls.
Hypothesis (H2h).
Environmentally friendliness and health benefits positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based tea.
2.3. Product Novelty and Versatility
Various food science and marketing studies praise sea-vegetables for being a low-calorie, novel, and versatile food item [23,36,37,38]. The bioactive molecules of sea-vegetables are generated for products in the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, cosmetics, and food industries [37]. Sea-vegetables are part of food formulations and serve as coloring agents or as ingredients in the development of novel functional foods or alternative proteins [9]. In the latter context, vegan, vegetarian, and consumers aiming to reduce meat consumption appreciate sea-vegetables as a meat replacement [25], which can be used for a variety of dishes, like Tofu [38]. Moreover, the consumer acceptance of sea-vegetables has been steadily increasing over the past decade. This can be attributed to globalization and the availability of products used for Asian cuisine. Western countries are an emerging market for sea-vegetables, with many new products being introduced [38,39] in the form of candies, snacks, and full meals such as soup, noodles, salad, or sushi, as well as in crackers, dairy or bakery products [38]. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis (H3a).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies.
Hypothesis (H3b).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy.
Hypothesis (H3c).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based salad.
Hypothesis (H3d).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based smoothies/shakes.
Hypothesis (H3e).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based soup.
Hypothesis (H3f).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based supplements.
Hypothesis (H3g).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sushi rolls.
Hypothesis (H3h).
Product novelty and versatility positively impact US consumers’ commitment to sea-vegetable-based tea.
3. Material and Methods
3.1. Data Collection and Sampling Approach
The data collection for this study was conducted in August 2023 using an online questionnaire. The survey was conducted using the Qualtrics XM digital platform to investigate consumer attitudes towards sea-vegetables [40]. The topics under investigation encompassed environmental awareness, sustainability, considerations of health and wellbeing, and perspectives on price, product versatility, novelty, and consumer commitment [9,16,17,38,39]. For consumer commitment, a range of behavioral intention items were measured to capture commitment at multiple levels. The levels included lower to moderate levels like willingness to eat or buy and higher levels like willingness to pay a premium price or recommend to others.
To procure a sample that was both pertinent and suitable, specific eligibility criteria were established. The inclusion criteria for participants in this study mandated that they had to be 18 years of age or older, US residents, and assume the responsibility for making household shopping decisions. Familiarity with sea-vegetables or sea-vegetable-based products in the survey was not part of the inclusion criteria.
The participants for this study were selected from Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk), an online platform commonly utilized for opinion research in the social sciences and marketing [40,41]. The survey instrument was subjected to a pilot study involving a sample of 15 participants recruited from Mturk [41,42]. Its purpose was to discover possible improvements to the survey instrument.
After considering the average completion time of 15 min, a total of 17 of the 400 responses were either suspected of haste or were incomplete and deemed ineligible [43]. Hair et al. (2022) proposed the utilization of the ‘10 times rule’ to guide appropriate sample size determination. This rule suggests that the sample size should be no less than ten times the highest number of links, whether they are internal or external, and directed towards any latent variable present in the conceptual model [44]. Applying the rule to this study resulted in a minimum sample size of 40. The analytical sample used in this study comprised 383 consumers from the United States. This sample size was considered sufficient for the employment of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) [44]. PLS-SEM is a particularly appropriate approach for the present investigation as it is a quantitative exploratory study identifying drivers of complex behavioral relationships [44]. In addition, PLS-SEM is suitable for small sample sizes and does not require specific distributional assumptions as is required for logistic regression models [44].
3.2. Analytical Framework
The sequential execution of data analysis was carried out using SPSS 28 for descriptive statistics and SmartPLS 4 for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLSSEM). The PLS-SEM analytical procedure comprises two stages. Initially, the reliability and validity of the measurement (outer) model are evaluated, and subsequently, an analysis of the structural (inner) model is conducted [44,45,46]. The criteria for assessing reliability encompass the attainment of scores exceeding 0.6 in both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, as indicated by previous studies [44,45]. Convergent validity is established when the item/scale factor loadings are greater than 0.4 while the average variance-extracted (AVE) values exceed 0.6 [43]. Following Hair et al. (2022), the AVE is described as the extent to which the latent constructs explain the variance of their respective indicators. Discriminant validity is assessed through the utilization of the hetero trait–mono trait ratio (HTMT) and the Fornell–Larcker criteria. While the Fornell–Larcker criterion refers to the square root of each construct’s average variance extracted with the correlations of all other constructs as part of the model, the HTMT is defined as the mean of all correlations of indicators across different measuring constructs relative to the mean average correlations of indicators measuring the same construct [44]. HTMT values should not exceed the maximum threshold value of 0.9 to confirm the presence of discriminant validity [44,47,48]. To prevent the occurrence of multicollinearity issues, it is recommended that the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) scores remain below 5 [44].
The subsequent phase of the analysis involves the utilization of a structural model, which incorporates the application of hypothesis testing through the implementation of bootstrapping with 10,000 iterations. This approach is employed to ascertain the significance of the paths [44,45]. The evaluation of model performance encompasses several key metrics, namely the overall goodness of fit (GoF), the normed fit index (NFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) [44]. For GoF and NFI, larger numbers indicate better model fit, and for SRMR, lower numbers indicate better fit. The recommended thresholds for the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) should be maintained either at or below 0.08, with an upper limit of 0.1 [43]. An adequately fit model reports a high GoF and NFI score [44,46]. Hair et al. (2022) recommend using these fit indices with caution; however. their reporting is common practice and required in PLS-SEM studies [44].
The model’s explanatory power (R2) and predictive relevance (Q2) are evaluated against established benchmarks [44]. R2 values that denote small, moderate, and large effect sizes are set at 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75, respectively. Similarly, Q2 values exceeding 0, 0.25, and 0.5 are considered to report acceptable, moderate, and high levels of predictive relevance [44].
3.3. Descriptive Statistics
As displayed in Table 1, the sample is comprised of 383 participants. A significant proportion of the sample was male (66.6%). Most of the respondents (57.7%) fell in the age range from 35 to 44 years old. The survey respondents were overall well-educated; 75% of the participants had a bachelor’s or a postgraduate degree. Income-wise, the sample can be described as in the middle-income bracket; 37.9% of the participants reported having received an annual income between USD 50,000 to USD 74,999. The sample can be described as well-educated, dominated by middle-aged men in the mid-income bracket.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Measurement Model
Table 2 illustrates that both Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability scores exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.6, aligning with the guidelines set forth by Hair in 2022 [44]. These findings suggest a high level of reliability for the constructs that were investigated. Similarly, it is worth noting that the average variance extracted (AVE) surpassed the threshold of 0.5, and all factor loadings for the items were found to be higher than 0.6 [46]. The metrics presented provide evidence that the latent variables under consideration exhibit both strong internal consistency and meet the criteria for convergent validity [44,45,46].
Table 3 demonstrates that the criteria for discriminant validity were met for all constructs. Firstly, HTMT ratios did not exceed the maximum threshold value of 0.90. Secondly, the Fornell–Larcker criterion was confirmed, as the cross-loadings were lower than the corresponding diagonal values [44,47,48]. The VIF scores ranged from 1.49 to 1.66, with an average VIF score of 1.57, indicating that multicollinearity was not problematic [44].
4.2. Structural Model
The inner model performance indices were calculated and considered acceptable with a GoF of 0.414, NFI of 0.661, and SRMR of 0.072 [44]. Concerning the explanatory power, the model’s constructs revealed a range of effects across the various constructs. The construct of salad demonstrates the highest explanatory power with an R2 value of 0.378, closely followed by soup at 0.367. Sushi rolls also show a significant explanatory power with an R2 of 0.343. On the lower end of the spectrum, jelly/candy has the least explanatory power, with an R2 value of 0.198, indicating a weaker model fit for this particular construct. Constructs like crackers/cookies, smoothies/shakes, supplements, and tea exhibit moderate explanatory power, falling within the R2 range of 0.256 to 0.305. The Stone–Geisser criterion Q2 evaluated predictive relevance, with all the values greater than zero and an average Q2 score of 0.275, suggesting that the model has moderate predictive relevance.
4.3. Results from Hypothesis Testing and Their Discussion
Interestingly, all the p-values across the hypothesized relationships for the constructs of “affordability, sustainability and taste”, “environmental-friendliness and health benefits”, and “product novelty and versatility” are below the standard statistical threshold of 0.05 (Table 4). This underlines the statistical significance of these attributes in affecting consumer choices for a range of fresh and processed food items. The consistently low p-values across all constructs and food categories lend robust support to the associated hypotheses, confirming that these perceived attributes are not only influential but statistically significant drivers of consumer commitment.
For the construct “affordability, sustainability and taste”, a robust relationship was observed with salads and crackers/cookies, as indicated by high coefficients and p-values under the threshold of 0.001. This suggests that these particular food items significantly benefit from being perceived as affordable, sustainable, and tasty, thereby affirming the hypotheses associated with these attributes. These findings are well in line with the recent body of work in the literature. Following Birch (2019) and Young (2021), good taste is a pre-requirement for sea-vegetable consumption, whereas a high price point is a major obstacle [16,17]. Given that salad and crackers/cookies are products of the regular food basket in the US [49,50], it is unsurprising that consumers desire affordability when living is affected by a recession [50,51]. In addition, non-hedonistic factors such as sustainability are relevant to product value and long-term consumer commitment towards sea-vegetable products [34,51,52]. Affordability and sustainability are of particular importance to generational cohorts of millennials and GenZ [17] and consumers holding biospheric values [34].
The predictor “environmental-friendliness and health benefits” appeared to be highly significant for the food items of soup and sushi rolls, showing coefficients of 0.325 and 0.391, respectively, with p-values under 0.001. This underscores the growing importance consumers place on the environmental and health impact of their food choices. Sea-vegetable-based products such as miso soup or sushi rolls are already widely accepted and available as products due to their health benefits [16]. The recent body of work in the literature emphasizes healthfulness and environmental consciousness as essential for repeat purchases and product reviews for alternative proteins [53], which present higher forms of consumer commitment.
Similarly, attributes of product novelty and versatility reveal strong ties with supplements and tea, reflected by coefficients above 0.2 and p-values below 0.001. This supports the hypotheses suggesting that novelty, low-calorie options, and versatility are important drivers of consumer choices, especially among those conscious of their dietary intake. Sea-vegetable-based teas and supplements may be rather a novel product to many US consumers. However, these food products are not extremely incongruent with new products when compared with more widely established products [54]. Respectively, consumers can form associations and connections with other sea-vegetable products they are familiar with, allowing them to overcome this issue, which ultimately leads to favorable evaluations and commitment [54].
5. Conclusions
This study explored consumer commitment towards different sea-vegetable products. It not only contributes to the literature on consumer behavior towards alternative foods but also provides useful information for food industry stakeholders. The findings could be important for producers, marketers, and policymakers seeking to align their strategies with evolving consumer preferences for sustainable, healthy, and affordable food options. US food marketers could use these findings to adapt their product strategies. Products that are healthy, affordable, and sustainable may be of particular interest to vegans, vegetarians, and consumers with high food affinity, who could be targeted through lifestyle marketing and online engagement. Consumers are often interested in the effects of their consumption choices on people and the planet. In addition, the product versatility of sea-vegetables may be interesting to these consumers, and they have little reservation towards new products such as supplements or teas, as these consumers have been likely exposed to new products and brands in meat avoidance/reduction endeavors.
The authors acknowledge limitations in this study, particularly regarding the source of the sample and its diversity. The consumer sample, composed primarily of male participants, was drawn from a crowdsourcing platform, which may not fully reflect the general US population. Also, data were not collected on the respondent’s generation group, religious affiliation, or whether they followed lifestyle choices that could impact their food preferences. If one or more of these systematically influential attitudes towards sea-vegetables emerged, it would limit the generalizability of the research. While this study broadly examined some drivers of sea-vegetable product commitment, there are many opportunities to deepen our understanding of the topic. In-depth interviews, the content analysis of media messages, and examining online conversations could be approached qualitatively, and studies exploring the topic across different geographies and among diverse consumer groups could be a path for quantitative studies. Also, it would be beneficial to examine whether consumer commitment is influenced by familiarity with and experience of consuming sea-vegetable products and the influence of marketing messages and wider social trends. Such analyses could help to develop future promotion strategies.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.R. and D.L.D.; methodology, D.L.D.; software, M.R.; validation, M.R. and D.L.D.; formal analysis, M.R.; investigation, M.R. and D.L.D.; resources, M.R., J.B. and D.L.D.; data curation, D.L.D. writing—original draft preparation, M.R. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, M.R., J.B. and D.L.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Human Ethics Committee at Lincoln University, New Zealand, in June 2023 (HEC-2023-24).
Informed Consent Statement
All participants gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in this study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the discussion and support provided by the Lincoln University Centre of Excellence in Transformative Agribusiness.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest in the context of this publication. The funders had no role in the design of this study or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data. They were also not involved in the writing of this manuscript or in the decision to publish the results of this study.
References
- Kumar, P.; Mehta, N.; Abubakar, A.A.; Verma, A.K.; Kaka, U.; Sharma, N.; Sazili, A.Q.; Pateiro, M.; Kumar, M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Potential alternatives of animal proteins for sustainability in the food sector. Food Rev. Int. 2023, 39, 5703–5728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neuhofer, Z.T.; Lusk, J.L.; Villas-Boas, S. Can a sustainability facts label reduce the halo surrounding organic labels? Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2023, 45, 2204–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, H.; Tonsor, G.T.; Lusk, J.L.; Schroeder, T.C. Benchmarking US consumption and perceptions of beef and plant-based proteins. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2023, 45, 22–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snethlage, J.S.; de Koning, S.; Giesbers, E.; Veraart, J.A.; Debrot, A.O.; Harkes, I.; Van den Burg, S.W.K.; Hamon, K.G. Knowledge needs in realising the full potential of seaweed for world food provisioning. Glob. Food Secur. 2023, 37, 100692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spillias, S.; Valin, H.; Batka, M.; Sperling, F.; Havlík, P.; Leclère, D.; Cotrell, R.S.; O’Brien, K.R.; McDonald-Madden, E. Reducing global land-use pressures with seaweed farming. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 380–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Min, S.; Qing, P.; Yang, M. The Impacts of Urbanization and Dietary Knowledge on Seaweed Consumption in China. Foods 2021, 10, 1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anusha Siddiqui, S.; Bahmid, N.A.; Mahmud, C.M.; Boukid, F.; Lamri, M.; Gagaoua, M. Consumer acceptability of plant-, seaweed-, and insect-based foods as alternatives to meat: A critical compilation of a decade of research. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 6630–6651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bolduc, W.; Griffin, R.M.; Byron, C.J. Consumer willingness to pay for farmed seaweed with education on ecosystem services. J. Appl. Phycol. 2023, 35, 911–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmieri, N.; Forleo, M.B. An explorative study of key factors driving Italian consumers’ willingness to eat edible seaweed. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2022, 34, 433–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, V.J.; Chapman, D.J. Sea-vegetables (Algae as Food for Man). In Seaweeds and Their Uses; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1980; pp. 62–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.K.; Li, Y.X. Medicinal benefits of sulfated polysaccharides from sea-vegetables. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2011, 64, 391–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Viaud, V.; Legrand, M.; Squividant, H.; Parnaudeau, V.; André, A.; Bera, R.; Dupe, S.; Pot, M.; Cerf, M.; Revelin, F.; et al. Farming by the sea: A qualitative-quantitative approach to capture the specific traits of coastal farming in Brittany, France. Land Use Policy 2023, 125, 106493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samarathunga, J.; Wijesekara, I.; Jayasinghe, M. Seaweed proteins as a novel protein alternative: Types, extractions, and functional food applications. Food Rev. Int. 2023, 39, 4236–4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blikra, M.J.; Altintzoglou, T.; Løvdal, T.; Rognså, G.; Skipnes, D.; Skåra, T.; Silvertsvik, M.; Fernández, E.N. Seaweed products for the future: Using current tools to develop a sustainable food industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 118, 765–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogel-Castillo, C.; Latorre-Castañeda, M.; Muñoz-Muñoz, C.; Agurto-Muñoz, C. Seaweeds in Food: Current Trends. Plants 2023, 12, 2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Birch, D.; Skallerud, K.; Paul, N. Who eats seaweed? An Australian perspective. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2019, 31, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, M.; Paul, N.; Birch, D.; Swanepoel, L. Factors Influencing the Consumption of Seaweed amongst Young Adults. Foods 2022, 11, 3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kitch, C.J.; Tabb, A.M.; Marquis, G.E.; Hellberg, R.S. Species substitution and mislabeling of ceviche, poke, and sushi dishes sold in Orange County, California. Food Control 2023, 146, 109525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moss, R.; McSweeney, M.B. Do Consumers Want Seaweed in Their Food? A Study Evaluating Emotional Responses to Foods Containing Seaweed. Foods 2021, 10, 2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Q.; Davis, C.V.; Noll, A.L.; Bernier, R.; Labbe, R. US consumer preferences and attitudes toward seaweed and value-added products. Agribusiness 2024, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Ahsanuzzaman; Messer, K.D. Is There a potential US market for seaweed-based products? A framed field experiment on consumer acceptance. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2021, 36, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waliczek, T.M.; Wagner, N.C.; Guney, S. Willingness to pay for a specialty blend compost product developed from brown seaweed harvested from coastal regions in Texas. HortTechnology 2020, 30, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govaerts, F.; Olsen, S.O. Consumers’ values, attitudes and behaviours towards consuming seaweed food products: The effects of perceived naturalness, uniqueness, and behavioural control. Food Res. Int. 2023, 165, 112417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayala, M.; Thomsen, M.; Pizzol, M. Using quantitative storytelling to identify constraints in resource supply: The case of brown seaweed. J. Ind. Ecol. 2023, 27, 1567–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, W.D.; Pinto, F.R.; Barroso, S.; Gil, M.M. Development, Characterisation, and Consumer Acceptance of an Innovative Vegan Burger with Seaweed. Sustainability 2023, 15, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, B.K.; Troy, D.J. Seaweed Sustainability; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Matos, G.S.; Pereira, S.G.; Genisheva, Z.A.; Gomes, A.M.; Teixeira, J.A.; Rocha, C.M.R. Advances in Extraction Methods to Recover Added-Value Compounds from Seaweeds: Sustainability and Functionality. Foods 2021, 10, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brayden, W.C.; Noblet, C.L.; Evans, K.S.; Rickard, L. Consumer preferences for seafood attributes of wild-harvested and farm-raised products. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2018, 22, 362–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labbe, R.; Bernier, R.; Mccray, N.; Bouchard, D.; Camire, M.E.; Davis, C.V.; Shaler, G.; Dumont, R. Consumer Attitudes and Preferences about Farm-Raised Shellfish, Finfish, and Sea-Vegetables in the Atlantic Coast States. Available online: https://www.texasaquaculture.org/PDF/2019PDFDocuments/ConsumerAttitudes-AquacultureProduct.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2023).
- Matos, Â.P.; Novelli, E.; Tribuzi, G. Algae as food and ingredient: From production to consumer acceptance. Front. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 3, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajapakse, N.; Kim, S.K. Nutritional and digestive health benefits of seaweed. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2011, 64, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lozano Muñoz, I.; Díaz, N.F. Minerals in edible seaweed: Health benefits and food safety issues. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 62, 1592–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ilyas, Z.; Ali Redha, A.; Wu, Y.S.; Ozeer, F.Z.; Aluko, R.E. Nutritional and Health Benefits of the Brown Seaweed Himanthalia elongata. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2023, 78, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govaerts, F. Factors Influencing Seaweed Consumption: The Role of Values, Self-Identity, Norms and Attitudes. Ph.D. Thesis, Artic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway, 2023. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10037/29190 (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- Wassmann, B. Environmentally Friendly Food Choices: Factors That Influence Consumers’ Selection of Meals, Eco-Labels, and Alternative Proteins. Ph.D. Dissertation, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayakody, M.M.; Vanniarachchy, M.P.G. Seaweed-derived snack foods: Products and processing. In Applications of Seaweeds in Food and Nutrition; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinesh Kumar, S.; Satish, L.; Dhanya, N.; Malar Vizhi, J.; Nadukkattu Nayagi, N.; Gopala Krishnan, S.; Ganesan, M. Tank cultivation of edible seaweeds: An overview of the Indian perspective for opportunities and challenges. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmieri, N.; Nervo, C.; Torri, L. Consumers’ attitudes towards sustainable alternative protein sources: Comparing seaweed, insects and jellyfish in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 104, 104735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Embling, R.; Neilson, L.; Randall, T.; Mellor, C.; Lee, M.D.; Wilkinson, L.L. ‘Edible seaweeds’ as an alternative to animal-based proteins in the UK: Identifying product beliefs and consumer traits as drivers of consumer acceptability for macroalgae. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 100, 104613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, S. A step-by-step procedure to implement discrete choice experiments in Qualtrics. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2022, 39, 903–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, J.K.; Paolacci, G. Crowdsourcing consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 2017, 44, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litman, L.; Robinson, J. Conducting Online Research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Beyond; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Greszki, R.; Meyer, M.; Schoen, H. Exploring the effects of removing “too fast” responses and respondents from web surveys. Public Opin. Q. 2015, 79, 471–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.E.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Losada-Lopez, C.; Dopico, D.C.; Faina-Medin, J.A. Neophobia and seaweed consumption: Effects on consumer attitude and willingness to consume seaweed. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2021, 24, 100338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. The basket-based choice experiment: A method for food demand policy analysis. Food Policy 2022, 109, 102252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusk, J.L.; McFadden, B.R. Consumer food buying during a recession. Choices 2021, 36, 1–9. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27098605 (accessed on 14 December 2023).
- Rukaiyah, S.T. Effect of Product Quality and Product Value on Customer Loyalty: Empirical Study on Seaweed SME. Point View Res. Manag. 2020, 1, 144–153. Available online: https://journal.accountingpointofview.id/index.php/POVREMA/article/view/102 (accessed on 14 December 2023).
- Neuhofer, Z.T.; Lusk, J.L. Most plant-based meat alternative buyers also buy meat: An analysis of household demographics, habit formation, and buying behavior among meat alternative buyers. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 13062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jhang, J.H.; Grant, S.J.; Campbell, M.C. Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. J. Mark. Res. 2012, 49, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Proposed conceptual model for sea-vegetable product commitment.
Table 1.
Sample description of sea-vegetable consumers participating in the survey.
| Freq | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| 18–24 | 27 | 7 |
| 25–34 | 13 | 3.4 |
| 35–44 | 221 | 57.7 |
| 45–54 | 83 | 21.7 |
| 55–64 | 36 | 9.4 |
| 65+ | 3 | 0.78 |
| Total | 383 | 100 |
| Education | ||
| Did not finish high school | 5 | 1.3 |
| Finished high school | 56 | 14.6 |
| Attended university | 32 | 8.4 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 250 | 65.3 |
| Postgraduate degree | 38 | 9.92 |
| Total | 383 | 100 |
| Household Annual Income | ||
| USD 0 to USD 24,999 | 26 | 6.8 |
| USD 25,000 to USD 49,999 | 90 | 23.5 |
| USD 50,000 to USD 74,999 | 145 | 37.9 |
| USD 75,000 to USD 99.999 | 103 | 26.9 |
| USD 100,000 or higher | 19 | 4.96 |
| Total | 383 | 100 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 255 | 66.6 |
| Female | 127 | 33.2 |
| Prefer not to say | 1 | 0.26 |
| Total | 383 | 100 |
Table 2.
Scale loadings, construct descriptive statistics, reliability, and convergent validity scores.
Table 2.
Scale loadings, construct descriptive statistics, reliability, and convergent validity scores.
| Scales and Items | Factor Loadings | Mean | Standard Deviation | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste | 4.020 | 0.626 | 0.701 | 0.817 | 0.528 | |
| Sea-vegetables are good value for money | 0.689 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are nutritious | 0.676 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are tasty | 0.770 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are sustainable | 0.766 | |||||
| Commitment to sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies | 3.934 | 0.732 | 0.744 | 0.839 | 0.565 | |
| Willing to eat sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies | 0.790 | |||||
| Willing to buy sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies | 0.759 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies | 0.708 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sea-vegetable-based crackers/cookies | 0.748 | |||||
| Environmental friendliness and health benefits | 4.006 | 0.636 | 0.686 | 0.809 | 0.516 | |
| Sea-vegetables are healthy | 0.704 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are a good source of iodine | 0.680 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are a natural source of omega 3 | 0.696 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are environmentally friendly | 0.788 | |||||
| Commitment to sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy | 3.806 | 0.842 | 0.822 | 0.882 | 0.652 | |
| Willing to eat sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy | 0.791 | |||||
| Willing to buy sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy | 0.813 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy | 0.848 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sea-vegetable-based jelly/candy | 0.774 | |||||
| Product novelty and versatility | 3.935 | 0.690 | 0.678 | 0.823 | 0.607 | |
| Sea-vegetables are versatile | 0.765 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are novel food | 0.796 | |||||
| Sea-vegetables are low in calories | 0.776 | |||||
| Commitment to sea-vegetable-based salad | 3.923 | 0.707 | 0.735 | 0.832 | 0.555 | |
| Willing to eat sea-vegetable-based salad | 0.773 | |||||
| Willing to buy sea-vegetable-based salad | 0.779 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sea-vegetable-based salad | 0.661 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sea-vegetable-based salad | 0.761 | |||||
| Commitment to sea-vegetable-based shakes/smoothies | 3.821 | 0.759 | 0.776 | 0.856 | 0.598 | |
| Willing to drink sea-vegetable-based shakes/smoothies | 0.789 | |||||
| Willing to buy sea-vegetable-based shakes/smoothies | 0.791 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sea-vegetable-based shakes/smoothies | 0.771 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sea-vegetable-based shakes/smoothies | 0.741 | |||||
| Commitment to sea-vegetable-based soup | 3.954 | 0.677 | 0.714 | 0.823 | 0.539 | |
| Willing to eat sea-vegetable-based soup | 0.678 | |||||
| Willing to buy sea-vegetable-based soup | 0.796 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sea-vegetable-based soup | 0.706 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sea-vegetable-based soup | 0.751 | |||||
| Commitment to sea-vegetable-based supplements | 3.897 | 0.711 | 0.735 | 0.834 | 0.556 | |
| Willing to eat sea-vegetable-based supplements | 0.751 | |||||
| Willing to buy sea-vegetable-based supplements | 0.77 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sea-vegetable-based supplements | 0.705 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sea-vegetable-based supplements | 0.755 | |||||
| Commitment to Sushi Rolls | 3.958 | 0.662 | 0.724 | 0.829 | 0.548 | |
| Willing to eat sushi rolls | 0.733 | |||||
| Willing to buy sushi rolls | 0.767 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sushi rolls | 0.724 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sushi rolls to others | 0.735 | |||||
| Commitment to sea-vegetable-based tea | 3.788 | 0.786 | 0.776 | 0.856 | 0.598 | |
| Willing to drink sea-vegetable-based tea | 0.775 | |||||
| Willing to buy sea-vegetable-based tea | 0.800 | |||||
| Willing to pay a premium price for sea-vegetable-based tea | 0.782 | |||||
| Willing to recommend sea-vegetable-based tea | 0.734 |
Table 3.
Fornell–Larcker criterion and hetero trait–mono trait ratio.
| Fornell-Larcker Criterion | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Affordability, sustainability, and taste | 0.727 | ||||||||||
| (B) Crackers/cookies | 0.494 | 0.752 | |||||||||
| (C) Environmental friendliness and health benefits | 0.547 | 0.434 | 0.718 | ||||||||
| (D) Jelly/candy | 0.395 | 0.664 | 0.349 | 0.807 | |||||||
| (E) Product novelty and versatility | 0.47 | 0.421 | 0.533 | 0.343 | 0.779 | ||||||
| (F) Salad | 0.547 | 0.62 | 0.478 | 0.588 | 0.476 | 0.745 | |||||
| (G) Smoothies/shakes | 0.41 | 0.622 | 0.418 | 0.652 | 0.42 | 0.593 | 0.773 | ||||
| (H) Soup | 0.472 | 0.523 | 0.543 | 0.506 | 0.472 | 0.607 | 0.576 | 0.734 | |||
| (I) Supplements | 0.426 | 0.586 | 0.406 | 0.566 | 0.444 | 0.635 | 0.611 | 0.516 | 0.746 | ||
| (J) Sushi rolls | 0.446 | 0.461 | 0.551 | 0.432 | 0.409 | 0.548 | 0.558 | 0.630 | 0.512 | 0.740 | |
| (K) Tea | 0.414 | 0.57 | 0.424 | 0.657 | 0.428 | 0.582 | 0.689 | 0.638 | 0.586 | 0.538 | 0.773 |
| HTMT | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K |
| (B) Crackers/cookies | 0.684 | ||||||||||
| (C) Environmentally friendliness and health benefits | 0.787 | 0.596 | |||||||||
| (D) Jelly/candy | 0.514 | 0.858 | 0.455 | ||||||||
| (E) Product novelty and versatility | 0.685 | 0.577 | 0.781 | 0.456 | |||||||
| (F) Salad | 0.745 | 0.849 | 0.656 | 0.779 | 0.654 | ||||||
| (G) Smoothies/shakes | 0.548 | 0.829 | 0.558 | 0.819 | 0.575 | 0.807 | |||||
| (H) Soup | 0.665 | 0.727 | 0.767 | 0.670 | 0.675 | 0.843 | 0.777 | ||||
| (I) Supplements | 0.589 | 0.808 | 0.559 | 0.737 | 0.619 | 0.876 | 0.817 | 0.719 | |||
| (J) Sushi rolls | 0.623 | 0.628 | 0.774 | 0.556 | 0.582 | 0.752 | 0.735 | 0.878 | 0.698 | ||
| (K) Tea | 0.555 | 0.765 | 0.576 | 0.826 | 0.585 | 0.790 | 0.892 | 0.866 | 0.788 | 0.714 |
Table 4.
Coefficients for hypothesized paths.
| Hypothesised Relationship | Coefficient | T Stat | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → crackers/cookies | 0.319 | 5.123 | 0.000 |
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → jelly/candy | 0.251 | 4.346 | 0.000 |
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → salad | 0.352 | 6.268 | 0.000 |
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → smoothies/shakes | 0.202 | 3.287 | 0.001 |
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → soup | 0.197 | 3.584 | 0.000 |
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → supplements | 0.224 | 3.721 | 0.000 |
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → sushi rolls | 0.177 | 2.85 | 0.004 |
| Affordability, sustainability, and taste → tea | 0.201 | 3.613 | 0.000 |
| Environmentally friendliness and health benefits → crackers/cookies | 0.161 | 2.763 | 0.006 |
| Environmental-friendliness and health benefits → jelly/candy | 0.129 | 2.081 | 0.037 |
| Environmental-friendliness and health benefits → salad | 0.167 | 2.609 | 0.009 |
| Environmental-friendliness and health benefits → smoothies/shakes | 0.188 | 3.074 | 0.002 |
| Environmental-friendliness and health benefits-> soup | 0.325 | 5.888 | 0.000 |
| Environmental-friendliness and health benefits → supplements | 0.144 | 2.303 | 0.021 |
| Environmental-friendliness and health benefits → sushi Rolls | 0.391 | 5.793 | 0.000 |
| Environmental-friendliness and health benefits → tea | 0.191 | 3.045 | 0.002 |
| Product novelty and versatility → crackers/cookies | 0.185 | 3.518 | 0.000 |
| Product novelty and versatility → jelly/candy | 0.157 | 3.29 | 0.001 |
| Product novelty and versatility → salad | 0.222 | 4.554 | 0.000 |
| Product novelty and versatility → smoothies/Shakes | 0.225 | 4.394 | 0.000 |
| Product novelty and versatility → soup | 0.207 | 3.956 | 0.000 |
| Product novelty and versatility → supplements | 0.262 | 5.034 | 0.000 |
| Product novelty and versatility → sushi rolls | 0.118 | 2.298 | 0.022 |
| Product novelty and versatility → tea | 0.233 | 4.581 | 0.000 |
Bold = p < 0.05.
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
MDPI and ACS Style
Rombach, M.; Botero, J.; Dean, D.L. Finding Nori—Understanding Key Factors Driving US Consumers’ Commitment for Sea-Vegetable Products. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052107
AMA Style
Rombach M, Botero J, Dean DL. Finding Nori—Understanding Key Factors Driving US Consumers’ Commitment for Sea-Vegetable Products. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):2107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052107
Chicago/Turabian StyleRombach, Meike, Julio Botero, and David L. Dean. 2024. "Finding Nori—Understanding Key Factors Driving US Consumers’ Commitment for Sea-Vegetable Products" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 2107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052107
APA StyleRombach, M., Botero, J., & Dean, D. L. (2024). Finding Nori—Understanding Key Factors Driving US Consumers’ Commitment for Sea-Vegetable Products. Sustainability, 16(5), 2107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052107
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
