We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study examines public support—and its drivers—for comprehensive policy packages (i.e., bundles of coherent policy measures introduced together) aimed at improving food environments.
Design:
Participants completed an online survey with a choice-based conjoint experiment, where they evaluated pairs of policy packages comprising up to seven distinct food environment measures. After choosing a preferred package or opting for a single policy, participants designed their ideal policy package. Based on their choices, respondents were categorized as resistant, inclined, or supportive towards policy packaging according to their frequency of opting out for single measures and the number of policies they included in their ideal package.
Setting:
The study was conducted in Germany via an online survey.
Participants:
The sample included 1,200 eligible German voters, recruited based on age, gender, and income quotas.
Results:
Based on both opt-out frequency (44.7%) and ideal policy packaging (72.8%) outcomes, most respondents were inclined towards policy packages. The inclusion of fiscal incentives and school-based measures in packages enhanced support, while fiscal disincentives reduced it. Key drivers of support included beliefs about the importance of diet-related issues and the role of government in regulation, while socio-demographic factors, political leaning, and personal experience with diet-related disease had minimal impact.
Conclusions:
The results reveal public appetite for policy packages to address unhealthy food environments, contingent on package design and beliefs about the issue’s severity and legitimacy of intervention. Public health advocates should design and promote policy packages aligned with public preferences, especially given anticipated opposition from commercial interests.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.