Next Article in Journal
Impacts of COVID-19 on Food Choices and Eating Behavior among New Zealand University Students
Previous Article in Journal
Degradation Mechanism of Aflatoxin M1 by Recombinant Catalase from Bacillus pumilusE-1-1-1: Food Applications in Milk and Beer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/foods13060890
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Relationship between Food Healthiness, Trust, and the Intention to Reuse Food Delivery Apps: The Moderating Role of Eco-Friendly Packaging

by
Kyung-A Sun
1 and
Joonho Moon
2,*
1
Department of Tourism Management, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Tourism Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2024, 13(6), 890; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13060890
Submission received: 19 February 2024 / Revised: 10 March 2024 / Accepted: 13 March 2024 / Published: 15 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Food Packaging and Preservation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The goal of this research is to investigate the relationship among food healthiness, trust, and the intention to reuse food delivery apps. Another purpose of this work is to examine the moderating effect of eco-friendly food packaging on the association between food healthiness and trust in food delivery apps. A survey was the main instrument for this work, with Amazon Mechanical Turk being used to collect the relevant data, resulting in a total of 343 observations. PROCESS model 7 was employed to test the research hypotheses. The results reveal that the intention to reuse is positively impacted by trust and food healthiness in food delivery apps. The results also uncover a significant moderating impact of eco-friendly packaging on the relationship between food healthiness and trust. The high food healthiness and high eco-friendly packaging group has the highest level of trust, while the low food healthiness and low eco-friendly packaging group has the lowest. The results of this research are therefore important because they clarify the relationship among these four attributes. Moreover, the results of this study have notable managerial implications.

1. Introduction

There is fierce competition in the market of food delivery application systems. Statista [1] has reported that multiple companies are competing in this market, with Door Dash possessing the largest market share (65 percent), while Uber Eats (23 percent) and Grubhub (9 percent) rank second and third, respectively. In this context, food delivery application service businesses must allot their resources more adequately to survive. The first step in resource allocation could involve understanding market characteristics. Thus, this study explores the characteristics of food delivery application users.
The first part of this work concerns the intention to reuse. The intention to reuse is a popular attribute in research because the repetitive use of certain services or systems results in increased market share. In fact, numerous scholars have examined user characteristics by using the intention to reuse as the dependent variable in the context of online transactions [2,3,4]. Given the popularity of these apps, the authors of this research selected the intention to reuse as the dependent variable in order to understand the characteristics of food delivery application system users. The next focus in this study is food healthiness. Economic development has caused better living conditions; individuals have therefore become more interested in their health conditions [5,6]. To follow this market trend, food sellers offer food that promotes health conditions [7,8]. However, scholars have noted that the weakness of products offered via food delivery application services lies in health-related issues, as deliverable food has constraints in nutrition quality [9,10,11]. Therefore, it is worthwhile to explore the characteristics of food healthiness regarding how users of food delivery application systems perceive that healthiness. Accordingly, this research investigates the role of food healthiness as an independent variable.
The third element in this research is trust, which concerns the credibility of a seller according to the consumer behavior literature [12,13,14]. Many studies have demonstrated the role of trust as a mediator. This suggests that trust could impact the domain of food delivery application services [15,16,17]. Thus, trust is selected as the mediator in this study. The final domain in this work is eco-friendly packaging. Nguyen et al. [18] have argued that the effect of eco-friendly packaging perception is unclear; hence, it is worthwhile to reveal the impact of eco-friendly packaging, from the perspective of consumers, because this is useful in terms of business information. Prior studies have also stated that environmental perception could be a moderating variable for understanding consumer characteristics [19,20]. Hence, because packaging is an essential component of delivery services, understanding consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging is important. However, scholars have rarely explored the characteristics of eco-friendly packaging among food delivery application system users. Thus, this research scrutinizes the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging in the food delivery application system context.
Overall, the purpose of this research is to examine the relationship among food healthiness, eco-friendly packaging, trust, and the intention to reuse. This research thus theoretically contributes to the literature by clarifying the relationship among these four attributes. In order to accomplish the research purpose, this work employed a survey using confirmatory factor analysis and PROCESS macro model 7 to test the validity of mesaurement items and for hypotheses testing, respectively. This work sheds light on the literature by disclosing consumer perceptions to food delivery applications’ services, with a focus on eco-friendly packaging and food healthiness. This is because not only is food healthiness likely to become a weakness of the food delivery application business mode but also because it is unclear whether eco-friendly packaging might build a competitive advantage for a business. Moreover, the results of this work provide insights into the management of food delivery application system services in terms of how to handle food healthiness and eco-friendly packaging in business.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Food Healthiness

Prior studies have defined food healthiness as consumers’ perceptions of whether food in the market promotes health conditions [5,6,21]. The market has become more interested in health conditions because poor health conditions cause enormous costs, including medical costs, and are obstacles to economic and social activity [22,23,24]. Regarding this aspect, the food business has focused more on offering healthy food because consumers are willing to pay for it [5,7,8]. Many scholars have also examined food healthiness in the food market sector. Ali and Ali [7] have studied the characteristics of food healthiness, and Chan and Zhang [6] have examined the link among food healthiness, consumer perception, and consumption. Topolska et al. [8] also contend that food healthiness encourages consumers to make a purchase decision. Tuorila and Hartmann [25] imply that markets value greater food healthiness, an avenue toward business sustainability. Moreover, Samoggia and Riedel [26] state that services providing nutrition values for healthier consumption have gained more popularity in the market. In the literature review of Plasek et al. [27], the authors suggest that consumers are interested in consuming food that promotes their health conditions. Chan and Zhang [6] have also found that food healthiness is an imperative attribute for consumer decision-making. Accordingly, the above review of the literature implies that the market has placed increasing value on food healthiness and that, overall, food healthiness represents a significant trend in the food market.

2.2. Eco-Friendly Packaging

Eco-friendly packaging refers to whether a packaging material is harmful to the environment [28,29,30]. La Torre et al. [31] have stated that whether a packaging material is eco-friendly is related to whether the chemical substance it is made of undermines individual health conditions. Global warming has led consumers to focus more on eco-friendly packaging because their concerns over the environment have been increasing over time [32,33,34]. Moreover, Nguyen et al. [18] claim that consumers have become more interested in eco-friendly packaging because plastic packaging materials contain microplastics and toxic materials that impair individual health conditions. Moustafa et al. [35] and Marrez et al. [36] also note that eco-friendly food packaging provides a perception of safety to consumers in the food business sector. In the context of food delivery app services, Shimul and Cheah [37] argue that pride and guilt are the critical psychological mechanisms for choosing eco-friendly packaging among consumers. Chen and Lee [38] also document the importance of environmental packaging issues. Plasek et al. [27] have shown that food packaging is a critical attribute for consumer decision-making because it is correlated with food quality. Ketelsen et al. [39] have stated that consumers understand that food packaging causes environmental problems but that their actual awareness of food packaging is trivial. Additionally, scholars in the domain of food delivery application services have emphasized the environmental aspect of persuading consumers [38,40,41]. However, few studies have explored the impact of eco-friendly packaging on consumer evaluation.

2.3. Trust

Scholars have stated that trust is a reliable perception of a subject [12,13,14]. Jones et al. [13] have claimed that trust plays a significant role in decision-making in the electronic commerce sector. Moreover, Bianchi and Andrews [42] and Yoon and Occena [43] have investigated the determinants of trust by examining users of electronic commerce. Among previous studies, many works have explored both the antecedents and consequences of trust in the online transaction area. This suggests that the role of trust is as a mediator. In fact, numerous scholars have demonstrated the role of trust as a mediator in the online transaction system domain [15,16,17]. Specifically, Chang and Chen [16] have unveiled the role of trust as a mediator among online store users. Ibrahim et al. [44] have revealed that trust is a mediator between social media marketing and loyalty behavior in the online marketing of café businesses. Nguyen and Pervan [45] have also found that consumer trust is an imperative aspect by which to assess consumer perception of corporate social responsibility. Furthermore, Macready et al. [46] have shown that trust is a crucial attribute for investigating consumer perception in the food value chain.

2.4. Intention to Reuse

The intention to reuse refers to the degree of a user’s desire to adopt a certain technological instrument again [47,48,49]. The intention to reuse is a kind of loyalty behavior because more frequent use of a certain technology brings about more sales [2,50]. Indeed, many studies have explored the determinants of the intention to reuse. Li et al. [48] have examined the attributes that influence the intention to reuse e-learning systems, and Arahita and Hatammimi [2] have documented the determinants of the intention to reuse in the domain of mobile banking services. Moreover, Daassi and Debbabi [50] have researched the characteristics of augmented reality application system users, using the intention to reuse as their dependent variable. Hussein et al. [4] have also studied the antecedents of the intention to reuse Google Classroom, and Mattila et al. [51] have revealed the factors affecting the intention to reuse in the area of mobile car sharing services. Additionally, Lee et al. [52] have examined customers of low-cost carrier businesses, using the intention to reuse as their dependent variable. Concerning food delivery apps, Cho et al. [53], Alalwan [54], and Bao and Zhu [3] have disclosed the determinants of the intention to reuse. According to the above review of the literature, the intention to reuse has therefore been widely explored by numerous scholars.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

Previous research has argued that selling food that can improve health conditions builds credible perceptions among customers [55,56]. Specifically, Ward et al. [57] have found that healthy and nutritious food is an essential element for the building of consumer trust among south Australian consumers. Macready et al. [46] have researched five European countries, demonstrating that consumer trust is significantly associated with food healthiness. Moreover, Konuk [58] has shown a similarly positive impact of food healthiness on trust. The findings of a literature review by Wu et al. [59] also indicate that the offering of healthier food plays a significant role in building consumer trust. This study thus hypothesizes the following:
Hypothesis 1.
Food healthiness exerts a positive effect on trust among food delivery app users.
The next domain is that of the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging. Previous research has contended that eco-friendly packaging functions as a clue for product appraisal [60,61]. Though it is not sufficient for appraising certain products precisely, packaging enables consumers to estimate their quality [20,61]. Nguyen et al. [18] also argue that eco-friendly packaging leads to more attractive perceptions among consumers. Kim et al. [20] and Ebrahimi et al. [19] have additionally documented the way in which an environmental appeal improves the perception of health-related products; both studies also reveal the moderating effect of environmental aspects in the consumer behavior domain. Additionally, Popovic et al. [62] have carried out a systematic review of the literature and found that packaging and eco-friendliness are more imperative for consumers because food packaging is related to food safety. Nguyen et al. [63] have uncovered how consumer appraisal of food is improved by eco-friendly packaging because environmental packaging demonstrates a perception of improved safety for the food it contains. The above literature review therefore shows that food delivered in eco-friendly packaging enhances customers’ assessments. Eco-friendly packaging is likely to make healthier food seem safer, which leads consumers to trust this food more. Therefore, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
Eco-friendly packaging significantly moderates the association between food healthiness and trust among food delivery app users.
The third area in this work is that of the relationship between healthiness and the intention to reuse. The findings of d’Astous and Labrecque [61] indicate that food healthiness is an imperative element in consumer decision-making. Moreover, Kim et al. [64] have revealed that revisit intentions towards restaurants are positively influenced by food healthiness. Additionally, Ji et al. [65] have found that food healthiness plays a significant role in building the intention to revisit among café customers. Suhartanto et al. [66] have explored the users of food delivery application systems and found that food healthiness exerts a positive impact on loyalty. Francioni et al. [67] have also examined food delivery application users, and their results show a positive and significant effect of food healthiness on reuse intention. Based on the above review of the literature, this study thus proposes the following:
Hypothesis 3.
Food healthiness exerts a positive effect on the intention to reuse among food delivery app users.
Prior studies have shown that trust plays a significant role in building customer loyalty behavior, such as the intention to reuse and repurchase, because vendor credibility is not easy to establish [68,69]. Regarding the outcomes of empirical studies, Prayudi et al. [70] have demonstrated the positive effect of trust on the intention to reuse among mobile banking service users. In addition, Malhotra et al. [71] have disclosed the positive impact of trust on the intention to reuse among online shoppers. Furthermore, scholars have revealed that trust positively affects the loyalty of users in several online service business areas [72,73,74]. Based on the above literature review, this study therefore hypothesizes the following:
Hypothesis 4.
Trust exerts a positive effect on the intention to reuse among food delivery app users.

3. Method

3.1. Research Model and Data Collection

Figure 1 illustrates the research model. Healthiness is the explanatory variable, and trust is the mediator. Healthiness exerts a positive effect on trust. The intention to reuse is the dependent variable in this work. The intention to reuse is positively influenced by both healthiness and trust. Additionally, this research used eco-friendly packaging as the moderating variable in the relationship between healthiness and trust.
Amazon Mechanical Turk was used to collect data for this research. Amazon Mechanical Turk has been widely employed by researchers to collect survey responses. Additionally, Amazon Mechanical Turk has fewer time and geographical constraints when collecting data because it uses an online panel, though it offers less technical proficiency and less sincere responses than a face-to-face survey method might [21,75,76]. Respondents voluntarily participated in the survey by accessing the Amazon Mechanical Turk system as a worker for financial reward. In fact, many studies have documented that the quality of the data from Amazon Mechanical Turk is sound for statistical inference [75,76,77]. Given the credibility, this research selected Amazon Mechanical Turk as an instrument of data collection. Moreover, this research mainly targeted the American food delivery application service market due to its enormous market size [1]. Additionally, because food delivery apps users require minimum skill in order to handle the online system, using Amazon Mechanical Turk is likely to become an appropriate selection. Amazon Mechanical Turk is also an adequate instrument for data collection because its panels mostly include Americans, allowing researchers to focus primarily on American consumers [78]. Data collection for this research was implemented between 1 and 6 August in 2023. There were initially 343 observations for data analysis. By establishing a survey system that uses a required option for survey participants, this study aimed to minimize the problems caused by unanswered questions. Thus, this study used a total of 343 observations for the data analysis.
Table 1 shows the profile of the survey participants. There was a total of 343 observations and 208 and 135 male and female participants, respectively. Table 1 presents their ages. Approximately 60 percent of participants were younger than 40 years old, and most of the participants were employed. Table 1 also illustrates the information on monthly household income and weekly use-frequency of food delivery apps.

3.2. Measurement Items

Table 2 shows the measurement items. There are four constructs: healthiness, eco-friendly packaging, trust, and the intention to reuse. All four constructs are measured by four items. This research used a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree) to measure healthiness, eco-friendly packaging, and the intention to reuse. Additionally, this research used a semantically different 5-point scale (1: untrustworthy, 5: trustworthy) to measure trust. Regarding definition, food healthiness represents the way in which consumers perceive food in order to promote health conditions in the domain of food delivery apps [5,6,7]. Eco-friendly packaging is defined as how consumers assess how packaging of food delivery apps protects the natural environment [28,30,37]. The definition of trust refers to the way in which consumers have credible perceptions of food delivery apps [15,17,44]. Finally, the definition of the intention to reuse is the degree of consumer intention to reuse food delivery apps [3,48,49].

3.3. Data Analysis

In this work, frequency analysis was implemented in order to obtain the information of survey participants. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to ensure convergent validity; the criteria of convergent validity include loading > 0.5, average value extracted (AVE) > 0.5, and construct reliability (CR) > 0.7 because this work adopted multiple items for the measurement of variables in the survey [79,80,81]. The goodness of fit for confirmatory factor analysis was confirmed by the following criteria: root mean square residual (RMR) < 0.05, goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), relative fit index (RFI), incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.8 [79,80,81]. Then, this study calculated mean values and standard deviations for the constructs. The correlation matrix was employed to examine the relationship. This study used the PROCESS macro with statistical packaging in social science (SPSS) 20.0 version. PROCESS model 7 was employed. PROCESS model 7 is based on an ordinary least squares regression for the path analytic model to analyze not only the conditional indirect effects of the mediated moderation model but also the effect of moderating effect based on varied magnitude using moderating variable and its significance and change of R2 [82]. The model produced bias-corrected 95 percent bootstrap confidence intervals for conditional indirect effects based on 5000 bootstrap samples [82]. The interaction variable was computed to examine the moderating effect (healthiness × eco-friendly packaging). Additionally, median split analysis was conducted in this research to examine the moderating effect further by calculating the mean value for the four groups. The median values of both healthiness and eco-friendly packaging are 4. Based on the results of the median split analysis, this research used four groups: (1) high eco-friendly packaging and high food healthiness group, (2) high eco-friendly packaging and low food healthiness group, (3) low eco-friendly packaging and high food healthiness group, and (4) low eco-friendly packaging and low food healthiness group.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Correlation Matrix

Table 3 exhibits the results of the confirmatory factor analysis. All values of factor loading are greater than the cutoff value of 0.5. All CR and AVE values are greater than the threshold CR (0.7) and AVE (0.5). The results indicate that the convergent validity of the measurement items was acceptable. The goodness of fit indices suggest that the results are acceptable (RMR = 0.038, GFI = 0.844, NFI = 0.894, RFI = 0.870, IFI = 0.917, TLI = 0.898, and CFI = 0.916). In addition, Table 3 illustrates the mean and standard deviation of the following variables: food healthiness, eco-friendly packaging, trust, and the intention to reuse.
Table 4 shows the correlation matrix. Healthiness positively correlates with eco-friendly packaging (r = 0.918, p < 0.05), trust (r = 0.662, p < 0.05), and the intention to reuse (r = 0.663, p < 0.05). Eco-friendly packaging also positively correlates with trust (r = 0.678, p < 0.05) and the intention to reuse (r = 0.660, p < 0.05). Moreover, trust positively correlates with intention to reuse (r = 0.772, p < 0.05).

4.2. Results of Hypothesis Testing

Table 5 shows the results of hypothesis testing by Hayes’ PROCESS model 7. Both models are statistically significant given the F values (p < 0.05). The results show that healthiness × eco-friendly packaging exerted a positive impact on trust (β = 0.177, p < 0.05). This indicates the significant moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging on the relationship between healthiness and trust. Moreover, healthiness positively affects the intention to reuse (β = 0.287, p < 0.05), and trust positively impacts the intention to reuse (β = 0.538, p < 0.05). Regarding the index of mediated moderation (index: 0.0956, p < 0.05), the effect appeared to be significant. Regarding the R2, the explanatory attributes accounted for the 43.54 percent of variability for trust. Additionally, R2 in model 2 indicates the 48.57 percent of explanatory power of the explanatory variables for intention to reuse.
Figure 2 shows the results of the median split analysis used to scrutinize the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging on the relationship between healthiness and trust. The high eco-friendly packaging and high healthiness group showed the highest mean value (mean = 4.498), whereas the mean of the low eco-friendly packaging and low healthiness group was the lowest (mean = 3.660).

5. Discussion

This study has explored the relationship among food delivery app food healthiness, eco-friendly packaging, trust, and the intention to revisit. Regarding the mean values, trust presented the highest value (mean = 4.126), while eco-friendly packaging showed the lowest mean value (mean = 3.802). Hence, consumers maintain a reliable perception of the food delivery app service when shopping but remain somewhat skeptical of the environmental aspect of any food delivery app service. According to the results of the hypothesis testing, trust also positively affects the intention to reuse food delivery apps. The results are aligned with the findings of prior studies, i.e., that trust plays a significant role in increasing the sales of businesses [70,73,74]. Moreover, the results have revealed that consumers with positive perceptions of their food’s healthiness are more likely to use food delivery apps again. In a similar vein, Suhartanto et al. [66] have found that food healthiness is a critical attribute for building more consumer loyalty among food delivery apps. Regarding the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging, consumers might value eco-friendlier packaging when consuming healthier food products because micro plastics and the effects of food temperature on plastic are likely to exert negative effects on their health conditions [18,37,83]. The healthy perception of a food might include its packaging because ideas of food conditions related to health might be influenced in this way [18,84]. Therefore, the results of this work indicate that offering food with bioplastic containers might elevate consumer trust in the domain of food delivery apps. However, the association between trust and healthiness appears to be converse to the proposed research hypotheses. This might be explained by an argument in prior studies that suggests that food delivery app products could be deemed the culprits of individuals’ obesity and negative health conditions because most menus in food delivery apps contain high calories, sugar, and fat [9,10,11]. It is implied that most menus in food delivery app services contain fast food that are not guaranteed to be sanitary. Moreover, this research is valuable, in terms of external validity, for healthiness, trust, and the intention to reuse. Specifically, this research affirms the findings in the literature for the effect of trust [68,69] and food healthiness [61,64] on the intention to reuse, which could become the external validity of this work.

6. Conclusions

The results have academic implications. This study extends the literature by demonstrating the moderating impact of environmental packaging on the relationship between food healthiness and trust in food delivery apps. Although packaging is an essential issue in the food delivery app domain, its effect on consumer perception has been insufficiently explored. Aiming to minimize this research gap, this research has posited and demonstrated the moderating effect of food packaging.
This work also has practical implications. First, food delivery app service managers might focus more on elevating consumers’ trust. This could be accomplished by dedicating their resources to the public welfare sector, such as environmental, social and governance (ESG) implementation. However, careless ESG might hinder the effective resource allocation of businesses. Thus, food delivery app business managers might focus more on imperative stakeholders with their business model. Moreover, food delivery app business managers might consider the healthy food sector in their menu composition because such an option might lead consumers to use their food delivery app again. Additionally, the negative effect of healthiness on trust is likely to become an opportunity for food delivery app service providers because the healthy food market is likely to be a potential blue ocean. Additionally, food delivery app business managers might contemplate eco-friendly packaging options because consumers might perceive these as healthier or safer in their food consumption. Offering both healthier and more environmentally friendly options might be part of ESG, which might positively impact consumer trust because it is likely to lead consumers of a food delivery app to gain a higher perception of trust through eco-friendliness and by considering the health conditions of its consumers.
This study has certain limitations. First, the survey participants of this research were limited to the online panel. Because of their familiarity with technology and their general proficiency to control technology the survey participants were relatively young. This might undermine the generalizability of this work. Future research might consider either offline surveys or experimental designs for more vivid outcomes, integrating a wider range of participant ages. Moreover, the moderating variable in this research was only eco-friendly packaging, which might be a limitation. If future studies contemplate various moderating attributes, it might allow them to identify more food delivery app users. This research only concentrated on the environmental aspect of packaging, though packaging has other aspects, such as aesthetics and convenience. Researchers might be able to consider other attributes for packaging and the results might become more significant in understanding the behavior of food delivery app users.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, K.-A.S.; writing—original draft, J.M.; writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

According to the exemption standard of Kangwon National University, ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to this research did not collect any personal information.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Statista. Market Share of Leading Online Meal Delivery Companies in the United States as of February 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235724/market-share-us-food-delivery-companies/ (accessed on 11 November 2023).
  2. Arahita, C.L.; Hatammimi, J. Factors affecting the intention to reuse mobile banking service. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bao, Z.; Zhu, Y. Why customers have the intention to reuse food delivery apps: Evidence from China. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hussein, M.H.; Ow, S.H.; Ibrahim, I.; Mahmoud, M.A. Measuring instructors continued intention to reuse Google Classroom in Iraq: A mixed-method study during COVID-19. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2021, 18, 380–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huang, L.; Lu, J. The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 22, 191–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chan, E.; Zhang, L.S. Is this food healthy? The impact of lay beliefs and contextual cues on food healthiness perception and consumption. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 46, 101348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ali, T.; Ali, J. Factors affecting the consumers’ willingness to pay for health and wellness food products. J. Agric. Food Res. 2020, 2, 100076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Topolska, K.; Florkiewicz, A.; Filipiak-Florkiewicz, A. Functional food—Consumer motivations and expectations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bates, S.; Reeve, B.; Trevena, H. A narrative review of online food delivery in Australia: Challenges and opportunities for public health nutrition policy. Public Health Nutr. 2020, 26, 262–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eu, E.Z.R.; Sameeha, M.J. Consumers’ perceptions of healthy food availability in online food delivery applications (OFD Apps) and its association with food choices among public university students in Malaysia. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 674427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stephens, J.; Miller, H.; Militello, L. Food delivery apps and the negative health impacts for Americans. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Harridge-March, S. Can the building of trust overcome consumer perceived risk online? Mark. Intell. Plan. 2006, 24, 746–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jones, K.; Leonard, L.N. Factors influencing buyer’s trust in consumer-to-consumer e commmerce. J. Compr. Inf. Sys. 2014, 54, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kang, J.; Hustvedt, G. Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role of consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethic 2014, 125, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bodó, B. Mediated trust: A theoretical framework to address the trustworthiness of technological trust mediators. New Media Soc. 2020, 23, 2668–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chang, H.H.; Chen, S.W. The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention: Trust and perceived risk as a mediator. Online Inf. Rev. 2008, 32, 818–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chancey, E.T.; Bliss, J.P.; Proaps, A.B.; Madhavan, P. The role of trust as a mediator between system characteristics and response behaviors. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2015, 57, 947–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nguyen, A.T.; Parker, L.; Brennan, L.; Lockrey, S. A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ebrahimi, P.; Khajeheian, D.; Fekete-Farkas, M. A SEM-NCA approach towards social networks marketing: Evaluating consumers’ sustainable purchase behavior with the moderating role of eco-friendly attitude. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, H.; Lee, E.-J.; Hur, W.-M. The normative social influence on eco-friendly consumer behavior: The moderating effect of environmental marketing claims. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2012, 30, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sun, K.A.; Moon, J. Assessing antecedents of restaurant’s brand trust and brand loyalty, and moderating role of food healthiness. Nutrients 2023, 15, 5057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bhattacharya, J.; Sood, N. Who pays for obesity? J. Econ. Perspect. 2011, 25, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Landovská, P.; Karbanová, M. Social costs of obesity in the Czech Republic. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2022, 24, 1321–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Seidell, J.C. The impact of obesity on health status: Some implications for health care costs. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. J. Int. Assoc. Study Obes. 1995, 19, S13–S16. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tuorila, H.; Hartmann, C. Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 33, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Samoggia, A.; Riedel, B. Assessment of nutrition-focused mobile apps’ influence on consumers’ healthy food behaviour and nutrition knowledge. Food Res. Int. 2019, 128, 108766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Plasek, B.; Lakner, Z.; Temesi, Á. Factors that influence the perceived healthiness of food—Review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Koch, J.; Frommeyer, B.; Schewe, G. Managing the transition to eco-friendly packaging—An investigation of consumers’ motives in online retail. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 351, 131504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Singh, A.; Sharma, P.K.; Malviya, R. Eco friendly pharmaceutical packaging material. World Appl. Sci. J. 2011, 14, 1703–1716. [Google Scholar]
  30. Prakash, G.; Pathak, P. Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. La Torre, G.L.; Vadalà, R.; Cicero, N.; Cascio, G.L.; Cicero, A.; Calabrese, V.; Ferrantelli, V.; Ingallina, C.; Salvo, A. Evaluating the inhibition effect of a novel bio-packaging on histamine content in mackerel (Scomber scombrus): A new strategy with environment respect. Nat. Prod. Res. 2023, 1–6, Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Prakash, G.; Choudhary, S.; Kumar, A.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Khan, S.A.R.; Panda, T.K. Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical investigation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rahman, L.; Goswami, J. Poly(vinyl alcohol) as sustainable and eco-friendly packaging: A review. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2023, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wypij, M.; Trzcińska-Wencel, J.; Golińska, P.; Avila-Quezada, G.D.; Ingle, A.P.; Rai, M. The strategic applications of natural polymer nanocomposites in food packaging and agriculture: Chances, challenges, and consumers’ perception. Front. Chem. 2023, 10, 1106230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moustafa, H.; Youssef, A.M.; Darwish, N.A.; Abou-Kandil, A.I. Eco-friendly polymer composites for green packaging: Future vision and challenges. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 172, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marrez, D.A.; Abdelhamid, A.E.; Darwesh, O.M. Eco-friendly cellulose acetate green synthesized silver nano-composite as antibacterial packaging system for food safety. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2019, 20, 100302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shimul, A.S.; Cheah, I. Consumers’ preference for eco-friendly packaged products: Pride vs. guilt appeal. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2023, 41, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, X.; Lee, T.J. Potential effects of green brand legitimacy and the biospheric value of eco-friendly behavior on online food delivery: A mediation approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 4080–4102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ketelsen, M.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging—A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hwang, J.; Lee, J.-S.; Kim, J.J.; Sial, M.S. Application of internal environmental locus of control to the context of eco-friendly drone food delivery services. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1098–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shankar, A.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Islam, N.; Sharma, P. Balancing food waste and sustainability goals in online food delivery: Towards a comprehensive conceptual framework. Technovation 2022, 117, 102606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bianchi, C.; Andrews, L. Risk, trust, and consumer online purchasing behaviour: A Chilean perspective. Int. Mark. Rev. 2012, 29, 253–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yoon, H.S.; Occeña, L.G. Influencing factors of trust in consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce with gender and age. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 352–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ibrahim, B.; Aljarah, A.; Sawaftah, D. Linking social media marketing activities to revisit intention through brand trust and brand loyalty on the coffee shop Facebook pages: Exploring sequential mediation mechanism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dang, V.T.; Nguyen, N.; Pervan, S. Retailer corporate social responsibility and consumer citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of perceived consumer effectiveness and consumer trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Macready, A.L.; Hieke, S.; Klimczuk-Kochańska, M.; Szumiał, S.; Vranken, L.; Grunert, K.G. Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe. Food Policy 2020, 92, 101880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Choi, J.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, Y.C. The influence of social presence on customer intention to reuse online recommender systems: The roles of personalization and product type. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2011, 16, 129–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, Y.; Duan, Y.; Fu, Z.; Alford, P. An empirical study on behavioural intention to reuse e-learning systems in rural China. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 43, 933–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Prodanova, J.; Ciunova-Shuleska, A.; Palamidovska-Sterjadovska, N. Enriching m-banking perceived value to achieve reuse intention. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2019, 37, 617–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Daassi, M.; Debbabi, S. Intention to reuse AR-based apps: The combined role of the sense of immersion, product presence and perceived realism. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mattia, G.; Mugion, R.G.; Principato, L. Shared mobility as a driver for sustainable consumptions: The intention to re-use free-floating car sharing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, W.S.; Tang, R.; Moon, J.; Song, M. The structural relationship between a low-cost carrier’s service experience, corporate social responsibility, brand love, and reuse intention: The case of Southwest Airlines. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2022, 102, 102216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cho, M.; Bonn, M.A.; Li, J.J. Differences in perceptions about food delivery apps between single-person and multi-person households. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alalwan, A.A. Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors affecting customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kim, M.J.; Lee, C.K.; Kim, W.G.; Kim, J.M. Relationships between lifestyle of health and sustainability and healthy food choices for seniors. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 25, 558–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lazaroiu, G.; Andronie, M.; Uţă, C.; Hurloiu, I. Trust management in organic agriculture: Sustainable consumption behavior, environmentally conscious purchase intention, and healthy food choices. Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ward, P.R.; Henderson, J.; Coveney, J.; Meyer, S. How do South Australian consumers negotiate and respond to information in the media about food and nutrition? The importance of risk, trust and uncertainty. J. Sociol. 2012, 48, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Konuk, F.A. The impact of retailer innovativeness and food healthiness on store prestige, store trust and store loyalty. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wu, W.; Zhang, A.; van Klinken, R.D.; Schrobback, P.; Muller, J.M. Consumer trust in food and the food system: A critical review. Foods 2021, 10, 2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Carrillo, E.; Varela, P.; Fiszman, S. Effects of food package information and sensory characteristics on the perception of healthiness and the acceptability of enriched biscuits. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. D’astous, A.; Labrecque, J. The impact of responsible food packaging perceptions on naturalness and healthiness inferences, and consumer buying intentions. Foods 2021, 10, 2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Popovic, I.; Bossink, B.A.G.; Van Der Sijde, P.C. Factors influencing consumers’ decision to purchase food in environmentally friendly packaging: What do we know and where do we go from here? Sustainability 2019, 11, 7197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nguyen, A.T.; Yến-Khanh, N.; Thuan, N.H. Consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for eco-friendly packaging in Vietnam. In Sustainable Packaging; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 289–323. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kim, H.J.; Park, J.; Kim, M.-J.; Ryu, K. Does perceived restaurant food healthiness matter? Its influence on value, satisfaction and revisit intentions in restaurant operations in South Korea. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 33, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ji, Y.; Lee, W.S.; Moon, J. Café food safety and its impacts on intention to reuse and switch cafés during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Starbucks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Suhartanto, D.; Ali, M.H.; Tan, K.H.; Sjahroeddin, F.; Kusdibyo, L. Loyalty toward online food delivery service: The role of e-service quality and food quality. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2018, 22, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Francioni, B.; Curina, I.; Hegner, S.M.; Cioppi, M. Predictors of continuance intention of online food delivery services: Gender as moderator. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2022, 50, 1437–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Asti, W.P.; Handayani, P.W.; Azzahro, F. Influence of trust, perceived value, and attitude on customers’ repurchase intention for e-grocery. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2021, 27, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yeo, S.F.; Tan, C.L.; Teo, S.L.; Tan, K.H. The role of food apps servitization on repurchase intention: A study of FoodPanda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 234, 108063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Prayudi, I.G.; Sukaatmadja, I.P.G.; Yasa, N.N.K.; Giantari, I.G.A.K. The role of trust in mediation the effect of perception of ease of use and perception of usefulness on intention to re-using the mobile banking service. Int. Res. J. Manag. IT Soc. Sci. 2022, 9, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Malhotra, N.; Sahadev, S.; Purani, K. Psychological contract violation and customer intention to reuse online retailers: Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 75, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ribbink, D.; van Riel, A.C.; Liljander, V.; Streukens, S. Comfort your online customer: Quality, trust and loyalty on the internet. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2004, 14, 446–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kassim, N.; Abdullah, N.A. The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings: A cross cultural analysis. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2010, 22, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Eid, M.I. Determinants of e-commerce customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in Saudi Arabia. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2011, 12, 78. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sthapit, E.; Björk, P.; Coudounaris, D.N. Memorable nature-based tourism experience, place attachment and tourists’ environmentally responsible behaviour. J. Ecotourism 2022, 22, 542–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wan, Z.; Huang, S.; Choi, H.C. Modification and validation of the travel safety attitude scale (TSAS) in international tourism: A reflective-formative approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2021, 5, 1002–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Japutra, A.; Molinillo, S.; Bilro, R.G. Stand by me: Analyzing the tourist–intelligent voice assistant relationship quality. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 3840–3859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shaw, A.; Hargittai, E. Do the online activities of Amazon mechanical Turk workers mirror those of the general population? A comparison of two survey samples. Int. J. Commun. 2021, 15, 16. [Google Scholar]
  79. 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]
  80. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hoyle, R. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. 2012. Available online: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2023).
  83. Zheng, B.J. Green packaging materials and modern packaging design. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 271–272, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gupta, G.K.; Shukla, P. Lignocellulosic biomass for the synthesis of nanocellulose and its eco-friendly advanced applications. Front. Chem. 2020, 8, 601256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 13 00890 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Foods 13 00890 g001
Foods 13 00890 g002
Figure 2. Results of the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging.
Figure 2. Results of the moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging.
Foods 13 00890 g002
Table 1. Profiles of survey participants (N = 343).
Table 1. Profiles of survey participants (N = 343).
ItemFrequencyPercentage
Male20860.6
Female13539.4
20 s10229.7
30 s13739.9
40 s7221.0
50 s154.4
Older than 60175.0
Unemployed72.0
Employed33698.0
Monthly household income
Less than $2000349.9
$2000~$39995215.2
$4000~$59999327.1
$6000~$79996418.7
$8000~$99994713.7
More than $10,0005315.5
Weekly application using frequency
Less than 1 time4613.4
1~2 times14843.1
3~5 times12536.4
More than 5 times247.0
Table 2. Measurement items.
Table 2. Measurement items.
ConstructCodeItem
Food healthinessHL1Foods in food delivery app are healthy.
HL2Foods in food delivery app promote my health condition.
HL3Foods in food delivery app are nutritional.
HL4Foods in food delivery app are good for health.
Eco-friendly packagingEP1The packaging in food delivery app is eco-friendly.
EP2The packaging in food delivery app is environmental.
EP3The packaging in food delivery app is good to protect the environment.
EP4The packaging in food delivery app minimizes garbage.
TrustTR1Food delivery app is (untrustworthy-trustworthy)
TR2Food delivery app is (not credible-credible)
TR3Food delivery app is (unreasonable-reasonable)
TR4Food delivery app is (dishonest-honest)
Intention to reuseIR1I am going to use food delivery app again.
IR2I will use food delivery app again.
IR3I will select food delivery app service for next shopping.
IR4I intend to use food delivery app one more time.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Construct
(AVE)		CodeMeanSDLoadingCR
Food healthiness
(0.669)		HL13.8260.8170.8250.890
HL20.836
HL30.773
HL40.835
Eco-friendly packaging
(0.713)		EP13.8020.9340.8530.908
EP20.848
EP30.876
EP40.799
Trust
(0.555)		TR14.1260.6490.7800.833
TR20.682
TR30.786
TR40.728
Intention to reuse
(0.606)		IR14.0150.7510.7920.860
IR20.819
IR30.733
IR40.768
Note: AVE denotes average value extracted, CR stands for construct reliability, SD denotes standard deviation. χ2 = 420.552, df = 98, RMR = 0.038, GFI = 0.844, NFI = 0.894, RFI = 0.870, IFI = 0.917, TLI = 0.898, and CFI = 0.916.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
1234
1. Food healthiness0.817
2. Eco-friendly packaging0.918 *0.844
3. Trust0.662 *0.678 *0.744 *
4. The intention to reuse0.663 *0.660 *0.772 *0.778
Note: Diagonal is the square root of AVE, * p < 0.05.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
Model 1
Trust		Model 2
Intention to Reuse
βt Valueβt Value
Constant4.27413.15 *0.690 *3.61
Food healthiness−0.366−3.16 *0.287 *6.53 *
Eco-friendly packaging−0.378−3.77 *
Interaction0.1776.54 *
Trust 0.538 *9.70 *
F value87.13 * 160.51 *
R20.4354 0.4857
Index of mediated moderationIndexLLCIULCI
0.0956 *0.04560.1703
Note: * p < 0.05, interaction: healthiness × eco-friendly packaging, conditional effect of the focal predictor at values of the moderator: eco-friendly packaging (3.00): β = 0.165 *, eco-friendly packaging (4.00): β = 0.343 *, and eco-friendly packaging (4.50): β = 0.432 * (test of highest order unconditional interaction: R2 = 0.0713, F = 42.78 *.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, K.-A.; Moon, J. The Relationship between Food Healthiness, Trust, and the Intention to Reuse Food Delivery Apps: The Moderating Role of Eco-Friendly Packaging. Foods 2024, 13, 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13060890

AMA Style

Sun K-A, Moon J. The Relationship between Food Healthiness, Trust, and the Intention to Reuse Food Delivery Apps: The Moderating Role of Eco-Friendly Packaging. Foods. 2024; 13(6):890. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13060890

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Kyung-A, and Joonho Moon. 2024. "The Relationship between Food Healthiness, Trust, and the Intention to Reuse Food Delivery Apps: The Moderating Role of Eco-Friendly Packaging" Foods 13, no. 6: 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13060890

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop