Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does scientific interest in the nature impacts of food align with consumer information-seeking behavior?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Global food supply has substantial impacts on nature including environmental degradation from chemicals, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss through agricultural land conversion. Over the past decade, public demand for information on sustainable consumption choices has increased. Meanwhile, development and expansion of the life cycle assessment literature has improved scientific evidence on supply chain impacts on the environment. However, data gaps and biases lead to uncertainty and undermine development of effective impact mitigation actions or behavior change policies. This study evaluates whether scientific research into the nature-related impacts of agri-food systems aligns with the needs of the public, as indicated by patterns of information seeking. We compare the relative volume of public Google queries to scientific articles related to agri-food systems and three major impacts: chemical pollution, greenhouse gas emissions or biodiversity loss. We discover that biodiversity is systematically overlooked in scientific studies on agri-food system impacts in favor of research on emissions and to a lesser extent chemical impacts. In contrast, total relative volumes of public queries on agri-food systems and biodiversity equal those for emissions impacts at global and Australian scales. Public interest in biodiversity impacts of agri-food systems increased significantly between 2009 and 2019, despite no significant change in the relative volume of biodiversity-focused scientific articles. Global public attention on chemical impacts declined significantly over this time period, with no significant change in the relative representation of this topic in scientific outputs. We recommend strategic investment into the biodiversity impacts of agri-food systems to build a knowledge base that allows the public to learn about the impacts of their choices and be inspired to change to more sustainable behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews JC, Netemeyer RG, Burton S (2009) The nutrition elite: do only the highest levels of caloric knowledge, obesity knowledge, and motivation matter in processing nutrition ad claims and disclosures? J Public Policy Market 28:41–55

  • Bourne G, Stock A, Steffen W, Stock P, Brailsford L (2018) Working paper: Australia’s rising greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Council of Australia, Sydney

  • Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K (2007) Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 315:381

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carmi N, Arnon S, Orion N (2015) Transforming environmental knowledge into behavior: the mediating role of environmental emotions. J Environ Educ 46:183–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaliere A, De Marchi E, Banterle A (2017) Investigation on the role of consumer health orientation in the use of food labels. Public Health 147:119–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cervellin G, Comelli I, Lippi G (2017) Is Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings. J Epidemiol Global Health 7:185–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi H, Varian H (2012) Predicting the present with Google trends. Econ Rec 88:2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark M, Tilman D (2017) Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett 12:064016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark MA, Springmann M, Hill J, Tilman D (2019) Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116:23357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clucas B, Parker ID, Feldpausch-Parker AM (2018) A systematic review of the relationship between urban agriculture and biodiversity. Urban Ecosyst 21:635–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti G, Sobiesk E (2007) An honest man has nothing to fear: user perceptions on web-based information disclosure. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on usable privacy and security, pp 112–121. Association for Computing Machinery, Pittsburgh

  • Crenna E, Marques A, La Notte A, Sala S (2020) Biodiversity assessment of value chains: state of the art and emerging challenges. Environ Sci Technol 54:9715–9728

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crist E, Mora C, Engelman R (2017) The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection. Science 356:260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, de Baan L, De Schryver AM, van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Koellner T, Sonnemann G, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:70–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, Maia de Souza D, Antón A, Teixeira RFM, Michelsen O, Vidal-Legaz B, Sala S, Milà i Canals L (2016) How well does LCA model land use impacts on biodiversity?—A comparison with approaches from ecology and conservation. Environ Sci Technol 50:2782–2795

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1216–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Curran M, Rondinini C, Visconti P, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2015) High-resolution assessment of land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment using species habitat suitability models. Environ Sci Technol 49:2237–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean AJ, Fielding KS, Newton FJ (2016a) Community knowledge about water: who has better knowledge and is this associated with water-related behaviors and support for water-related policies? PLoS ONE 11:e0159063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean AJ, Lindsay J, Fielding KS, Smith LDG (2016b) Fostering water sensitive citizenship—community profiles of engagement in water-related issues. Environ Sci Policy 55:238–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean AJ, Church EK, Loder J, Fielding KS, Wilson KA (2018a) How do marine and coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement? J Environ Manag 213:409–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean AJ, Fielding KS, Jamalludin E, Newton FJ, Ross H (2018b) Communicating about sustainable urban water management: community and professional perspectives on water-related terminology. Urban Water J 15:371–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearing JW (2008) Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. J Public Health Manag Pract 14:99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol 4:e277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald PF (2004) Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production systems. Conserv Biol 18:17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N, Alexander S (2017) Agriculture and biodiversity: a review. Biodiversity 18:45–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugas AF, Hsieh Y-H, Levin SR, Pines JM, Mareiniss DP, Mohareb A, Gaydos CA, Perl TM, Rothman RE (2012) Google flu trends: correlation with emergency department influenza rates and crowding metrics. Clin Infect Dis 54:463–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2018) FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  • Feeley KJ, Silman MR (2011) Keep collecting: accurate species distribution modelling requires more collections than previously thought. Divers Distrib 17:1132–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ficetola GF (2013) Is interest toward the environment really declining? The complexity of analysing trends using internet search data. Biodivers Conserv 22:2983–2988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner TA, Benzie M, Börner J, Dawkins E, Fick S, Garrett R, Godar J, Grimard A, Lake S, Larsen RK, Mardas N, McDermott CL, Meyfroidt P, Osbeck M, Persson M, Sembres T, Suavet C, Strassburg B, Trevisan A, West C, Wolvekamp P (2019) Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev 121:163–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner CJ, Struebig MJ, Davies ZG (2020) Conservation must capitalise on climate’s moment. Nat Commun 11:109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garnett T (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36:S23–S32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert KG, Sonntag WI, Glanz-Chanos V, Forum S (2018) Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: Results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Sci 137:123–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie J, Mancino L, Lin C-TJ (2015) Nudging consumers toward better food choices: policy approaches to changing food consumption behaviors. Psychol Market 32:501–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Health Canada (2019) Canada’s dietary guidelines, Ottawa

  • Hill SLL, Harfoot M, Purvis A, Purves DW, Collen B, Newbold T, Burgess ND, Mace GM (2016) Reconciling biodiversity indicators to guide understanding and action. Conserv Lett 9:405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden NM, White EP, Lange MC, Oldfield TL (2018) Review of the sustainability of food systems and transition using the internet of food. npj Sci Food 2:18

  • Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Change 2:732–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser FG, Fuhrer U (2003) Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Appl Psychol 52:598–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang M, Zhong H, He J, Rutherford S, Yang F (2013) Using google trends for influenza surveillance in South China. PloS One 8

  • Kastner T, Rivas MJI, Koch W, Nonhebel S (2012) Global changes in diets and the consequences for land requirements for food. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:6868

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kay GM, Tulloch A, Barton PS, Cunningham SA, Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer- DB (2018) Species co-occurrence networks show reptile community reorganization under agricultural transformation. Ecography 41:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney SG, Carwardine J, Reside AE, Fisher DO, Maron M, Doherty TS, Legge S, Silcock J, Woinarski JCZ, Garnett ST, Wintle BA, Watson JEM (2019) The threats to Australia’s imperilled species and implications for a national conservation response. Pac Conserv Biol 25:231–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khai HV, Yabe M (2015) Consumer preferences for agricultural products considering the value of biodiversity conservation in the Mekong Delta. Vietnam J Nat Conserv 25:62–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd LR, Garrard GE, Bekessy SA, Mills M, Camilleri AR, Fidler F, Fielding KS, Gordon A, Gregg EA, Kusmanoff AM, Louis W, Moon K, Robinson JA, Selinske MJ, Shanahan D, Adams VM (2019) Messaging matters: a systematic review of the conservation messaging literature. Biol Conserv 236:92–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim BF, Santo RE, Scatterday AP, Fry JP, Synk CM, Cebron SR, Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY, de Pee S, Bloem MW, Neff RA, Nachman KE (2019) Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob Environ Change 101926

  • Kitzes J, Berlow E, Conlisk E, Erb K, Iha K, Martinez N, Newman EA, Plutzar C, Smith AB, Harte J (2017) Consumption-based conservation targeting: linking biodiversity loss to upstream demand through a global wildlife footprint. Conserv Lett 10:531–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok A, de Olde EM, de Boer IJM, Ripoll-Bosch R (2020) European biodiversity assessments in livestock science: a review of research characteristics and indicators. Ecol Ind 112:105902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter F, Presser S, Tourangeau R (2009) Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opin Q 72:847–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai L, Huang X, Yang H, Chuai X, Zhang M, Zhong T, Chen Z, Chen Y, Wang X, Thompson JR (2016) Carbon emissions from land-use change and management in China between 1990 and 2010. Sci Adv 2:e1601063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legagneux P, Casajus N, Cazelles K, Chevallier C, Chevrinais M, Guéry L, Jacquet C, Jaffré M, Naud M-J, Noisette F, Ropars P, Vissault S, Archambault P, Bêty J, Berteaux D, Gravel D (2018) Our house is burning: discrepancy in climate change vs. biodiversity coverage in the media as compared to scientific literature. Front Ecol Evolut 5:175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin BB, Philpott SM, Jha S (2015) The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem services: challenges and next steps. Basic Appl Ecol 16:189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques A, Verones F, Kok MTJ, Huijbregts MAJ, Pereira HM (2017) How to quantify biodiversity footprints of consumption? A review of multi-regional input–output analysis and life cycle assessment. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 29:75–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsa K, Mitchell A, Stocking G (2017) Searching for news: the Flint water crisis. Pew Research Center

  • Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JE (2016) Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nat News 536:143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren SJ (2010) 3—Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of food production and processing: an introduction: In: Sonesson U, Berlin J, Ziegler F (eds) Environmental assessment and management in the food industry, pp 37–58. Woodhead Publishing

  • Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R (2011) The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 6:42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA (11 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15

  • Mills J, Ingram J, Dibari C, Merante P, Karaczun Z, Molnar A, Sánchez B, Iglesias A, Ghaley BB (2019) Barriers to and opportunities for the uptake of soil carbon management practices in European sustainable agricultural production. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 1–27

  • Ministry of Health of Brazil (2014) Dietary guidelines for the Brazilian Population, 2nd edn

  • Mogensen L, Hermansen JE, Halberg N, Dalgaard R, Vis J, Smith BG (2009) Life cycle assessment across the food supply chain. Sustain Food Ind 115–144

  • Negra C, Remans R, Attwood S, Jones S, Werneck F, Smith A (2020) Sustainable agri-food investments require multi-sector co-development of decision tools. Ecol Ind 110:105851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Jungbluth N, i Canals LM, Schenck R (2016) Environmental impacts of food consumption and nutrition: where are we and what is next? Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:607–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss R (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity—a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notarnicola B, Sala S, Anton A, McLaren SJ, Saouter E, Sonesson U (2017) The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J Clean Product 140:399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuti SV, Wayda B, Ranasinghe I, Wang S, Dreyer RP, Chen SI, Murugiah K (2014) The use of google trends in health care research: a systematic review. PloS One 9

  • Orsini F, Kahane R, Nono-Womdim R, Gianquinto G (2013) Urban agriculture in the developing world: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:695–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osbaldiston R, Schott JP (2011) Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ Behav 44:257–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS (2007) The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav 31:S19–S26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson E, Tindle H, Ferguson M, Ryan J, Litchfield C (2016) Can we tweet, post, and share our way to a more sustainable society? A review of the current contributions and future potential of #Socialmediaforsustainability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:363–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360:987

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Bodirsky B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ Change-Human Policy Dimens 20:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto-Castillo L, Royo-Bordonada MA, Moya-Geromini A (2015) Information search behaviour, understanding and use of nutrition labeling by residents of Madrid, Spain. Public Health 129:226–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Proulx R, Massicotte P, Pépino M (2014) Googling trends in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 28:44–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 20:1647–1656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice RE (2006) Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Informatics 75:8–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovations, 1st edn. The Free Press, New York

  • Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman L, Kanuk L (2014) Consumer behavior, global edition. Pearson Higher Ed.

  • Selfa T, Jussaume RA, Winter M (2008) Envisioning agricultural sustainability from field to plate: comparing producer and consumer attitudes and practices toward ‘environmentally friendly’ food and farming in Washington State, USA. J Rural Stud 24:262–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selinske MJ, Fidler F, Gordon A, Garrard GE, Kusmanoff AM, Bekessy SA (2020) We have a steak in it: eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity. Conserv Lett e12721

  • Simionescu M, Streimikiene D, Strielkowski W (2020) What does Google trends tell us about the impact of Brexit on the unemployment rate in the UK? Sustainability 12:1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souza DM, Teixeira RFM, Ostermann OP (2015) Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with life cycle assessment: are we there yet? Glob Change Biol 21:32–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens-Davidowitz S (2014) The cost of racial animus on a black candidate: evidence using Google search data. J Public Econ 118:26–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1999) Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:5995

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A, Goldbohm RA, de Koning A, Verheijden M, Kleijn R, Wolf O, Pérez-Domínguez I, Rueda-Cantuche JM (2011) Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe. Ecol Econ 70:1776–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch AIT, Mortelliti A, Kay GM, Florance D, Lindenmayer D (2016) Using empirical models of species colonization under multiple threatening processes to identify complementary threat-mitigation strategies. Conserv Biol 30:867–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch AIT, Auerbach N, Avery-Gomm S, Bayraktarov E, Butt N, Dickman CR, Ehmke G, Fisher DO, Grantham H, Holden MH, Lavery TH, Leseberg NP, Nicholls M, O’Connor J, Roberson L, Smyth AK, Stone Z, Tulloch V, Turak E, Wardle GM, Watson JEM (2018) A decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data. Nat Ecol Evolut 2:1209–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ujiie K (2014) Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for eco-labeled rice: a choice experiment approach to evaluation of toki-friendly rice consumption. In: Usio N, Miyashita T (eds) Social-ecological restoration in paddy-dominated landscapes. Tokyo, Springer, pp 263–279

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vačkář D, ten Brink B, Loh J, Baillie JEM, Reyers B (2012) Review of multispecies indices for monitoring human impacts on biodiversity. Ecol Ind 17:58–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velten S, Leventon J, Jager N, Newig J (2015) What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability 7:7833–7865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ, Crees J, Davies ZG (2014) Has climate change taken prominence over biodiversity conservation? Bioscience 64:625–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:169–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente-Molina MA, Fernández-Sáinz A, Izagirre-Olaizola J (2013) Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J Clean Product 61:130–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlaeminck P, Jiang T, Vranken L (2014) Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket. Ecol Econ 108:180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosen S, Schmidt T (2011) Forecasting private consumption: survey-based indicators vs. Google trends. J Forecast 30:565–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JC, Dicks LV, Sutherland WJ (2015) The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions. Conserv Biol 29:88–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink B (2015) Change their choice! Changing behavior using the CAN approach and activism research. Psychol Market 32:486–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RJ, Araújo MB, Jepson P, Ladle RJ, Watson JEM, Willis KJ (2005) Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers Distrib 11:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilde GR, Pope KL (2013) Worldwide trends in fishing interest indicated by internet search volume. Fish Manag Ecol 20

  • Willard SD, Nguyen MM (2013) Internet search trends analysis tools can provide real-time data on kidney stone disease in the United States. Urology 81:37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter M, Fiedler W, Hochachka WM, Koehncke A, Meiri S, De la Riva I (2016) Patterns and biases in climate change research on amphibians and reptiles: a systematic review. R Soc Open Sci 3

  • Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA, Harrison PL (2015) Ongoing unraveling of a continental fauna: decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:4531

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • World Resources Institute (2015) CAIT climate data explorer. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang AC, Huang NE, Peng C-K, Tsai S-J (2010) Do Seasons have an influence on the incidence of depression? The use of an internet search engine query data as a proxy of human affect. PLoS ONE 5:e13728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearley S (2001) Mapping and interpreting societal responses to genetically modified crops and food. Soc Stud Sci 31:151–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young SD, Torrone EA, Urata J, Aral SO (2018) Using search engine data as a tool to predict syphilis. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 29: 574

  • Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York

Download references

Acknowledgements

AITT was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award. Datasets created and used to perform analyses in this research are deposited in the Figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12616799, and are freely available for reuse according to FAIR data principles. Due to their sensitive nature, raw Twitter data are not publicly available but can be accessed under application from the QUT Digital Observatory (digitalobservatory@qut.edu.au).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia

    Ayesha I. T. Tulloch

  2. Digital Observatory, Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Alice Miller

  3. Centre for the Environment, Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Angela J. Dean

  4. School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Angela J. Dean

Authors
  1. Ayesha I. T. Tulloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alice Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela J. Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayesha I. T. Tulloch.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by Hayley Clements, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 646 KB)

Supplementary file2 (XLSX 120 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tulloch, A.I.T., Miller, A. & Dean, A.J. Does scientific interest in the nature impacts of food align with consumer information-seeking behavior?. Sustain Sci 16, 1029–1043 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00920-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00920-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation